Quote from: Robotbeat on 03/23/2021 12:27 pmQuote from: edzieba on 03/23/2021 08:28 amQuote from: Robotbeat on 03/22/2021 08:00 pmCan 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.
Quote from: edzieba on 03/23/2021 08:28 amQuote from: Robotbeat on 03/22/2021 08:00 pmCan 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.”
Quote from: Robotbeat on 03/22/2021 08:00 pmCan someone summarize the changes in that?Change summary attached.
Can someone summarize the changes in that?
That last tweet is misleading. Here’s a good response why:https://twitter.com/DutchSatellites/status/1181984099436826624?s=20
Quote from: abaddon on 03/23/2021 02:14 pmLOL, 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.
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.
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,
Quote from: abaddon on 03/23/2021 02:14 pmLOL, 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.
There's been accidental triggering of FTS systems in the past in unmanned launches.
Quote from: mlindner on 03/31/2021 12:34 pmThere's been accidental triggering of FTS systems in the past in unmanned launches. Not in a half century
Quote from: Jim on 03/31/2021 12:48 pmQuote from: mlindner on 03/31/2021 12:34 pmThere's been accidental triggering of FTS systems in the past in unmanned launches. Not in a half centuryThere 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.
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."
"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."