Rocoon Project - Put a Rocket in Space

amateur rocketry ? I don't think the NAR/TRA has any jurisdiction or interest in jurisdiction over amateur rocketry activities...

shockie B)

They removed three members for engaging in them in non-NAR time and despite the in-place manufacturer exemption and the safety code provision for R&D allowance.

Whether or not they still do that is not relevent to what you just said. NAR absolutely claims jurisdiction.

Jerry

I've seen or heard of several attempts at launching rockets from balloons. Often the rocket must pass through the balloon, and ends up going off at an angle as a result.

I seem to recall reading that someone was going to try this as a CATS Prize entry, but I don't think they ever got that far with it.

The JC Aerospace group has been having a bit of a go at this... the main conclusion to be drawn from their work so far, as far as I can tell, is this: compared to rockets, the balloons are a real PITA.

-dave w

Hank Asciutto flew a balloon launched 2 stage 38mm I440 to I69 (USR circa 1988) and it worked well. He had a platform with an offset weight so the rocket on the other side was to the side of the balloon and the rocket was aimed a very small angle away from the balloon.

Modern implementations could have altimiter activation with sunseeker aiming to give the final go-ahead based on launch DIRECTION.

Just Tech Jerry

History matters.

This was all offered to JC and declined BTW. I would have flown one at a TRA Black Rock launch just to fly the highest rocket with the lowest budget, but of course such rocket greatness is BANNED.

Jerry

RD>I've seen or heard of several attempts at launching rockets from balloons. RD>Often the rocket must pass through the balloon, and ends up going off at an RD>angle as a result.

The TRA has a blanket exemption from the 15 seconds of burn time limitation from OST. The NAR does not have this, AFIK.

I did not know OST is branch of the FAA.

I'm not sure about that, but OST has limits with regard to mass, density/balistic coef, etc. I suspect one could still get an FAA waiver for a sport rocket flight above 25K, if you ever had the need and facilities.

I am aware of no such NAR lack of "say" or "control" of sport rockets above 25k feet. Of course, the NAR does not "control" ameture rocketry.

When they received it they did not "recertify" the motors from AT and USR they decertified because they were over 15 seconds burning time.

At one site we have blanket 50k and windows to 100k.

There is no "say-so" by anyone other than FAA itself. Anyone can get a

Jerry

from

- The Office of the Associate Administrator for Commercial Space Transportation (AST) is the only space-related line of business within the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA). Established in 1984 as the Office of Commercial Space Transportation (OCST) in the Department of Transportation (DOT), AST was transferred to the FAA in November 1995.

Under Title 49, U.S. Code, Subtitle IX, Sections 70101-70119 (formerly the Commercial Space Launch Act), AST is given the responsibility to:

• regulate the commercial space transportation industry, only to the extent necessary, to ensure compliance with international obligations of the United States and to protect the public health and safety, safety of property, and national security and foreign policy interest of the United States; * encourage, facilitate, and promote commercial space launches and re-entries by the private sector; * recommend appropriate changes in Federal statutes, treaties, regulations, policies, plans, and procedures; and * facilitate the strengthening and expansion of the United States space transportation infrastructure.

In fulfilling its responsibilities under Title 49, AST issues launch licenses for commercial launches of orbital rockets and suborbital sounding rockets. The first U.S. licensed launch was a suborbital launch of a Starfire vehicle on March 29, 1989. Since then, AST (including its predecessor, OCST) has licensed more than 100 launches.

AST also licenses the operations of non-federal launch sites, or "spaceports." Since 1996, AST has issued site operator licenses to four such spaceports: California Spaceport at Vandenberg Air Force Base, Spaceport Florida at Cape Canaveral Air Force Station, the Virginia Space Flight Center at Wallops Island, and Kodiak Launch Complex on Kodiak Island, Alaska. The first launch from a licensed, non-federal facility was that of NASA's Lunar Prospector aboard a Lockheed Martin Athena 2 on January 6, 1998, from Spaceport Florida.

- iz

to ensure compliance with international obligations of the United States to protect the public health and safety, safety of property, and national security and foreign policy interest of the United States

"only" ? what couldn't be construed to be covered by the above?

- iz

Ismaeel Abdur-Rasheed quoted:

I hope they take the second part of that phrase to heart, but I'm not holding my breath. Look at how ATF ignores the similar phrase in the law giving them authority over explosives.

This puzzles me. Why does a "spaceport" need to be licensed? Especially in the case of vehicles such as Rutan's Spaceship One, which takes off from an ordinary airport. Seems like this is just a money-extorting scheme, or a convenient barrier to competitive, entreprenurial space ventures. Or both.

Sub-orbital non-sounding rockets are not in the perview of the act according to the preamble.

Jerry

Vehicles that travel into international space are under liability guidelines set by UN. Apparantly ships at sea are not as fully regulated.

Ship accidents do FAR more damage and are more likely to have an accident causing damage in the first place.

Spaceship one is atmospheric despite its very brief and transient flight into the lowest levels of arbitrarily defined altitudes called space. One wonders who calls it that?

Our rockets, even our highest rockets have not traveled to "space" per se (55-62 miles depending on who you talk to. So they are NOT spacecraft, they are NOT travelers into international "space" and they are not rationally subject to such regulation. Yet a threshold using an arbitrary ballistic coefficient, not anything approaching even the wacky triggers in the law itself.

Does ANYTHING the government does make ANY sense?

Jerry

"Sufficiently advanced incompetence is indistinguishable from malice."

- Vernon Schryver

Actually, they're looking like they may be inclined to be surprisingly reasonable... they know they won't have a job if there isn't an industry to regulate.

-dave w

I remember reading somewhere that "spacecraft" operate under completely different international rules than any other vehicles.

If an airplane crashes anywhere in the world, the company operating it is liable. If a spacecraft crashes, the country where it originates (or some such) is liable.

You therefore get the makings of over restrictive regulation by governments.

Lets see if I can Google something up on the good ol' internet.....

"... the Liabiity Convention provides that a launching State shall be absolutely liable to pay compensation for damage caused by its space objects on the surface of the Earth or to aircraft, and liable for damage due to its faults in space."

The included definition of "space object" clears up nothing:

"(d) The term "space object" includes component parts of a space object as well as its launch vehicle and parts thereof."

I just love circular definitions!

This and other fun stuff found at:

RayDunak> Commercial Space Launch Act), AST is given the responsibility to:

Snip nothing.

"unhelpful" governments :)

Ah. Probably a holdover from the days when only governments launched anything into space.