Author Topic: FAA Streamlined Launch and Reentry Licensing Requirements  (Read 20097 times)

Offline Robotbeat

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 39271
  • Minnesota
  • Liked: 25240
  • Likes Given: 12115
Re: FAA Streamlined Launch and Reentry Licensing Requirements
« Reply #40 on: 03/23/2021 03:30 pm »
Can someone summarize the changes in that?
Change summary attached.
Unhelpful. That “summary” is 175 pages long. The summary summary is also too vague to be terribly useful. How does this meaningfully change launch and entry requirements? Can someone who has to deal with this stuff shed some light? A short example of how this makes things better?

This is the vague “summary summary”:

“ SUMMARY: This rule streamlines and increases flexibility in the FAA’s commercial space launch and reentry regulations, and removes obsolete requirements. It consolidates and revises multiple regulatory parts and applies a single set of licensing and safety regulations across several types of operations and vehicles. The rule describes the requirements to obtain a vehicle operator license, the safety requirements, and the terms and conditions of a vehicle operator license.”
The summary is long because the changes are enormous. The entire spaceflight licensing system has been replaced. Any summary is going to be a pile of minutiae, because the actual changes are all a whole lot of minutiae. Any purported 'high levels' summaries like "FTS is now optional" gloss over or omit so much that they are basically worthless.
It sure as hell isn’t worthless to me, trying to understand WTF the significance of these rule changes are.

If you are unable or just don’t want to provide a summary that gives concrete examples, then just ignore my request instead of trying to argue it’s a dumb thing to ask. 175 pages of impenetrable red tape is not superior for someone just trying to understand this in context. “FTS is now potentially optional” is far better.
« Last Edit: 03/23/2021 03:34 pm by Robotbeat »
Chris  Whoever loves correction loves knowledge, but he who hates reproof is stupid.

To the maximum extent practicable, the Federal Government shall plan missions to accommodate the space transportation services capabilities of United States commercial providers. US law http://goo.gl/YZYNt0

Offline DigitalMan

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1679
  • Liked: 1178
  • Likes Given: 76
Re: FAA Streamlined Launch and Reentry Licensing Requirements
« Reply #41 on: 03/23/2021 03:39 pm »
That last tweet is misleading. Here’s a good response why:

https://twitter.com/DutchSatellites/status/1181984099436826624?s=20

This reminds me of a benny hill skit where he says the odds of a bomb being on an airplane compared to the odds of there being two bombs, and so to reduce the odds, always bring your own bomb.

I hope reliability and countermeasures at some point will be reliable enough that explosive FTS will be considered off-limits for human flights.
« Last Edit: 03/23/2021 03:40 pm by DigitalMan »

Offline abaddon

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3051
  • Liked: 3900
  • Likes Given: 5274
Re: FAA Streamlined Launch and Reentry Licensing Requirements
« Reply #42 on: 03/23/2021 06:34 pm »
LOL, let's compare the statistical probability of a rocket launch failing versus an airliner failing.  Airplanes don't carry their own oxidizer and the amount of fuel involved makes rockets more dangerous.  Airplanes don't use solid rocket motors that are a massive hazard if left uncontrolled and intact.  Etc etc etc.  Rockets need flight termination systems.

SpaceX has had AFTS for years now, and ULA will debut theirs with Vulcan.  Other providers who want to try and waive that requirement can STFU.
So whether FTS is required or not ought to be contingent on proven reliability, not purely on vehicle type. If SpaceX or whoever can demonstrate reliability as good as general aviation with probability-adjusted risk to the general public on the same level as private jets or cargo planes or whatever, they shouldn’t have to carry explosives to destroy the vehicle any more than a cargo plane ought to.

I don’t see what the problem is with making it contingent on proven risk versus a blanket “no.” If you don’t think rockets will ever prove that reliable, then what difference does it make to you? You should be just fine with a contingent definition.
I think there are bigger fish to fry than legislating distinctions that are likely to be meaningless for a decade, and likely much longer?
Quote
If SpaceX or whoever can demonstrate reliability as good as general aviation with probability-adjusted risk to the general public on the same level as private jets or cargo planes or whatever,
How many daily flights of a given vehicle, and for how long, is it going to take to get that?  Open question.

Online edzieba

  • Virtual Realist
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 6104
  • United Kingdom
  • Liked: 9330
  • Likes Given: 39
Re: FAA Streamlined Launch and Reentry Licensing Requirements
« Reply #43 on: 03/24/2021 08:37 am »
LOL, let's compare the statistical probability of a rocket launch failing versus an airliner failing.  Airplanes don't carry their own oxidizer and the amount of fuel involved makes rockets more dangerous.  Airplanes don't use solid rocket motors that are a massive hazard if left uncontrolled and intact.  Etc etc etc.  Rockets need flight termination systems.

SpaceX has had AFTS for years now, and ULA will debut theirs with Vulcan.  Other providers who want to try and waive that requirement can STFU.
So whether FTS is required or not ought to be contingent on proven reliability, not purely on vehicle type. If SpaceX or whoever can demonstrate reliability as good as general aviation with probability-adjusted risk to the general public on the same level as private jets or cargo planes or whatever, they shouldn’t have to carry explosives to destroy the vehicle any more than a cargo plane ought to.
If you CTRL+F in the previously linked summary for "demonstrated reliability" you will find discussion on this exact point and the reasoning behind the implemented rule.

Offline mlindner

  • Software Engineer
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2908
  • Space Capitalist
  • Silicon Valley, CA
  • Liked: 2204
  • Likes Given: 818
Re: FAA Streamlined Launch and Reentry Licensing Requirements
« Reply #44 on: 03/31/2021 12:26 pm »
Still nothing on having looked at even the "summary summary" to see what's in it? I don't want to spend an week on it. Any updates/twitter summaries?
LEO is the ocean, not an island (let alone a continent). We create cruise liners to ride the oceans, not artificial islands in the middle of them. We need a physical place, which has physical resources, to make our future out there.

Offline mlindner

  • Software Engineer
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2908
  • Space Capitalist
  • Silicon Valley, CA
  • Liked: 2204
  • Likes Given: 818
Re: FAA Streamlined Launch and Reentry Licensing Requirements
« Reply #45 on: 03/31/2021 12:34 pm »
The main thing I want to know is if SpaceX will be forced to put explosives on the side of a crew compartment filled with 100+ passengers in the case it goes off course in any way. There's been accidental triggering of FTS systems in the past in unmanned launches. I don't want to see it happen causing the deaths of hundreds.
« Last Edit: 03/31/2021 12:35 pm by mlindner »
LEO is the ocean, not an island (let alone a continent). We create cruise liners to ride the oceans, not artificial islands in the middle of them. We need a physical place, which has physical resources, to make our future out there.

Offline Jim

  • Night Gator
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 37441
  • Cape Canaveral Spaceport
  • Liked: 21451
  • Likes Given: 428
Re: FAA Streamlined Launch and Reentry Licensing Requirements
« Reply #46 on: 03/31/2021 12:48 pm »
There's been accidental triggering of FTS systems in the past in unmanned launches.

Not in a half century

Online edzieba

  • Virtual Realist
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 6104
  • United Kingdom
  • Liked: 9330
  • Likes Given: 39
Re: FAA Streamlined Launch and Reentry Licensing Requirements
« Reply #47 on: 03/31/2021 01:27 pm »
There's been accidental triggering of FTS systems in the past in unmanned launches.

Not in a half century
There has been one recent incident: Rocketlab Flight 1. That was down to the RSO being given false information about the trajectory by a faulty telemetry processor. Would not have been an issue if AFTS used, or if contractor did not screw up the downlink.

Offline woods170

  • IRAS fan
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 12096
  • IRAS fan
  • The Netherlands
  • Liked: 18202
  • Likes Given: 12162
Re: FAA Streamlined Launch and Reentry Licensing Requirements
« Reply #48 on: 03/31/2021 06:34 pm »
There's been accidental triggering of FTS systems in the past in unmanned launches.

Not in a half century
There has been one recent incident: Rocketlab Flight 1. That was down to the RSO being given false information about the trajectory by a faulty telemetry processor. Would not have been an issue if AFTS used, or if contractor did not screw up the downlink.

That was not an accidental triggering of FTS. It was a deliberate triggering of the FTS because the information provided to the RSO indicated the vehicle was straying off course.

What was accidental was that the information being fed to the RSO was incorrect.

Jim is right: accidental triggerings of FTS haven't occurred in at least 50 years. Accidental as in: accidentally triggering the FTS while not intending to trigger the FTS.

Online edzieba

  • Virtual Realist
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 6104
  • United Kingdom
  • Liked: 9330
  • Likes Given: 39
Re: FAA Streamlined Launch and Reentry Licensing Requirements
« Reply #49 on: 04/01/2021 08:19 am »
That was not an accidental triggering of FTS. It was a deliberate triggering of the FTS because the information provided to the RSO indicated the vehicle was straying off course.

What was accidental was that the information being fed to the RSO was incorrect.
FTS is a whole-loop system, every part needs to work for the system to work. If there is an RSO with a finger on the button, the RSO is part of the FTS. If there is a display the RSO is watching, that display is part of the FTS. This is why AFTS was so desirable for reducing total system complexity and cost.

Offline FutureSpaceTourist

  • Global Moderator
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 48178
  • UK
    • Plan 28
  • Liked: 81685
  • Likes Given: 36941
Re: FAA Streamlined Launch and Reentry Licensing Requirements
« Reply #50 on: 06/21/2021 05:44 pm »
twitter.com/nasaspaceflight/status/1407026645735817226

Quote
FAA, Department of the Air Force Sign Commercial Space Agreement:

"...an agreement aimed at eliminating red tape while protecting public safety during commercial space activities at ranges operated by the U.S. Space Force."

https://twitter.com/nasaspaceflight/status/1407026882680401922

Quote
"The agreement recognizes common safety standards for FAA-licensed launch and reentry activities that occur on, originate from, or return to Cape Canaveral and Vandenberg. It also removes duplicative processes and approvals for the U.S. commercial space sector."

https://www.faa.gov/news/updates/?newsId=97726

Online edzieba

  • Virtual Realist
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 6104
  • United Kingdom
  • Liked: 9330
  • Likes Given: 39

Tags:
 

Advertisement NovaTech
Advertisement Northrop Grumman
Advertisement
Advertisement Margaritaville Beach Resort South Padre Island
Advertisement Brady Kenniston
Advertisement NextSpaceflight
Advertisement Nathan Barker Photography
1