steve@umigw.MIAMI.EDU (steve emmerson) (04/14/89)
Mr. Spencer's arguments on the advantages of private space programs has given me to pose the following question: if the shuttle program was privately funded, would it be licenced to fly? The national government requires most transportation systems to meet certain safety standards before they are granted a licence. I believe (though I could be mistaken) that even experimental aircraft must meet certain standards and that there's some limitations on the number or type of passengers. So, given the shuttle's safety record and estimated risk, would it be licenced? Please don't read into this any more than simple curiosity. -- Steve Emmerson Inet: steve@umigw.miami.edu [128.116.10.1] SPAN: miami::emmerson (host 3074::) emmerson%miami.span@star.stanford.edu UUCP: ...!ncar!umigw!steve emmerson%miami.span@vlsi.jpl.nasa.gov "Computers are like God in the Old Testament: lots of rules and no mercy"
henry@utzoo.uucp (Henry Spencer) (04/15/89)
In article <229@umigw.MIAMI.EDU> steve@umigw.miami.edu (steve emmerson) writes: >.... if the shuttle program was privately funded, would it be licenced to fly? >The national government requires most transportation systems to meet >certain safety standards before they are granted a licence... The space shuttle was, in fact, specifically exempted from this in early development. The issue was raised, the FAA said "we haven't the foggiest idea what certification criteria to apply to a spaceplane", and by common consent the matter was dropped. >So, given the shuttle's safety record and estimated risk, would it be >licenced? The real problem with this is that the shuttle's record simply is not long enough. Normal aircraft fly hundreds of times before certification is seriously considered. I'd guess that certification as an experimental vehicle should not be a problem. Approval for paying passengers might be more problematic. -- Welcome to Mars! Your | Henry Spencer at U of Toronto Zoology passport and visa, comrade? | uunet!attcan!utzoo!henry henry@zoo.toronto.edu
steve@umigw.MIAMI.EDU (steve emmerson) (04/16/89)
Thank you for responding. In article <1989Apr14.212447.4524@utzoo.uucp> (Henry Spencer) writes: >I'd guess that certification as an experimental vehicle should not be >a problem. Hmmm. How confident are you in your guess. I suspect that a private enterprise shuttle would not be licenced because the common consent necessary to by-pass licencensing would only be engendered for a federal project. Assuming it wouldn't be licensed, I wonder what a private, manned program would look like. Indeed, I wonder if one would even exist (but I digress, please excuse me). -- Steve Emmerson Inet: steve@umigw.miami.edu [128.116.10.1] SPAN: miami::emmerson (host 3074::) emmerson%miami.span@star.stanford.edu UUCP: ...!ncar!umigw!steve emmerson%miami.span@vlsi.jpl.nasa.gov "Computers are like God in the Old Testament: lots of rules and no mercy"
dep@ius3.ius.cs.cmu.edu (David Pugh) (04/16/89)
In article <1989Apr14.212447.4524@utzoo.uucp> (Henry Spencer) writes: >I'd guess that certification as an experimental vehicle should not be >a problem. One problem with experimental planes: for the first N hours (N == 10 with an approveded powerplant, N == 40 without), you can't fly over "congested" areas (i.e. cities). That could make for an interesting orbital track for the first flight.... :-) Don't forget that, with experimentals, you can't take passengers for profit either. Does that restriction apply to cargo as well? -- Never be angry when a fool acts like a David Pugh fool. It's better when fools identify ....!seismo!cmucspt!cat!dep themselves...it removes so much uncertainty. --Lord Peace --
henry@utzoo.uucp (Henry Spencer) (04/17/89)
In article <231@umigw.MIAMI.EDU> steve@umigw.miami.edu (steve emmerson) writes: >>I'd guess that certification as an experimental vehicle should not be >>a problem. > >Hmmm. How confident are you in your guess. >I suspect that a private enterprise shuttle would not be licenced >because the common consent necessary to by-pass licencensing would >only be engendered for a federal project. I never said it could bypass the licensing. The shuttle got away with that mostly because it was clearly a government project; if it had been private, several agencies would have been vying for the right to regulate and license it. I don't know who would have won, but I would guess the FAA. In which case, no problem: getting an experimental aircraft okayed is not a big deal. (Nowadays, it would be not the FAA but the Office of Commercial Space Transportation in the Commerce Dept. They're said to be okay.) >Assuming it wouldn't be licensed, I wonder what a private, manned >program would look like. Indeed, I wonder if one would even exist ... Much would depend on who was building it. If it was a standard US aerospace company, government approval would be a practical necessity: those people depend too much on the government to risk offending it. If the company came out of left field, on the other hand, the private shuttle might simply have a Panamanian flag on it instead of a US one. -- Welcome to Mars! Your | Henry Spencer at U of Toronto Zoology passport and visa, comrade? | uunet!attcan!utzoo!henry henry@zoo.toronto.edu