This is a compilation of discussions on the arocket listserv and other sources about the development of FAA AST requiring experimental permits for tethered flight testing of rocket vehicles.
8/04/2008 12:43:00 PM
For entrepreneurial companies looking to develop Vertical Take-off, Vertical Landing (VTVL) rockets, tethered testing can be a very important portion of the development and testing process. While certain test data is best collected or only available by actually putting a vehicle through the paces of a flight, rather than simply relying on simulations, flight testing expose the vehicles, its crew, and the general public to a much larger level of risk than a less complex test. Tethered testing offers a happy middle ground by allowing the vehicle to lift itself off the ground under its own power while still physically restraining it from moving too far or building up too much speed. Because of this, tethered tests have been incredibly important for teams competing for the Northrop Grumman Lunar Lander Challenge and their ilk throughout industry, with teams like Armadillo, Masten, and SpeedUp having already conducted many such tests.
For regulators, tethered flights have existed in sort of a nebulous gray area, somewhere in between ground-based engine firings and free-flying tests. The confusion largely stems from a clause in the relevant statute (49 U.S.C. § 70102) that defines the suborbital rockets that require licenses or permits as "vehicle[s], rocket-propelled in whole or in part, intended for flight on a suborbital trajectory, and the thrust of which is greater than its lift for the majority of the rocket-powered portion of its ascent." The definition of "launch" from the same section uses similar terminology, including the use of the word "intended." There has been an issue of confusion over what happens when a vehicle is being designed for eventual suborbital flight but is currently operating on a flight clearly not intended reach a suborbital trajectory. Given this confusion, tethered flights have gone relatively un-regulated.
As of this morning, that will change. Teams applying for or holding Experimental Permits from the FAA's Office of Commercial Space Transportation (FAA/AST) that would cover VTVL rockets or other rockets that might conduct tethered flights received a letter this morning from FAA-AST chief George Nield. The letter reads in part:
As a matter of law, the launch of a launch vehicle requires an FAA license or permit, or a waiver from the requirement for a license. 49 U.S.C. § 70104. The governing statute does not carve out any exceptions for a launch vehicle attached to a tether. Accordingly, unless a particular activity would not otherwise require authorization ... a tethered launch is still a launch requiring FAA authorization.
We are willing to entertain requests for waivers from the requirement that a launch operator obtain a license or permit, consistent with public health and safety. [Emphasis mine]...
Because there has been understandable confusion surrounding this issue, the FAA will not pursue enforcement actions for past unauthorized tethered operations. We will also strive to respond promptly to waiver applications.
In many ways, this was the response that many NewSpace advocates have feared. However, after a close read, and after discussion with representatives from FAA/AST, the situation is not as dire as it might seem.
First of all, note the sentence I bolded in that block quote. As Dr. Nield indicates, FAA/AST is not going to require an experimental permit or launch licence for each tethered flight. Instead, teams may seek waivers governing their tethered tests. Additionally, FAA/AST has anticipated that this decision will cause some discontent among many entrepreneurial companies, and have positioned themselves to respond to the waiver requests mentioned in their letter with unprecedented rapidity. Lastly, I'm told by staff representatives that the FAA/AST staff are open to pursuing reasonable ways where waivers can be given for broad categories of tethered flights, rather than for an individual flight. With this combination of efforts from FAA/AST, the staff thinks that it can enforce these restrictions, which they feel are mandated by law, in a minimally invasive way.
After conversations with FAA/AST staff, I would say that this ruling is not based on any concerns with the methods used or the reasons given by teams for conducting tethered tests. Instead, this decision was made based on recommendations from the Office of the General Counsel for the FAA, which feels that the statutes as currently written do indeed call for this activity to be regulated. In the absence of an exemption written into the law, such as exists for amateur rocketry, or a regulatory rulemaking, FAA/AST has no choice other than to enforce the law as written by the Legislative branch.
Paul Breed Paul at Rasdoc.com
Mon Aug 4 08:05:58 PDT 2008
I just received a Letter that in part says:
As a matter of law the launch of a launch vehicle requires an FAA license or permit, or waiver from the requirement for a license 49 USC 70104. The governing statute does not carve out any exceptions for a lunch vehicle attached to a tether. Accordingly unless a particular activity would not otherwise require authorization because, for example, it qualifies as an amateur rocket activity a tethered launch is still a launch requiring FAA authorization."
Bluntly that sucks.
Paul
John Carmack johnc at idsoftware.com
Mon Aug 4 08:25:24 PDT 2008
I was just about to forward our letter to aRocket. The PSF is investigating the situation, and I expect we are going to raise a big stink. They have no business being involved in this.
John Carmack
milburnmnk milburnmnk at yahoo.com
Mon Aug 4 08:30:25 PDT 2008
Standby. We are working the issue. AA was the test case for tethered tests a few years back.
Neil- Armadillo Aerospace
David Masten dmasten at masten-space.com
Mon Aug 4 08:33:58 PDT 2008
I believe we'll have to start testing our rocket powered robotic arm, with its extended, flexible joint.
I'm not sure how much I'm joking here...
Dave
--
David Masten PO Box N
CEO Mojave, CA 93502
Masten Space Systems, Inc. 415-244-9171
Jake Anderson jake at vapourforge.com
Mon Aug 4 08:59:00 PDT 2008
How do you have a tethered launch? Last I checked buckytubes were a ways off production. What is the difference between a "tethered launch" and a static test other than the length of the tie downs?
Michael miketwo at gmail.com
"What is the difference between a "tethered launch" and a static test other than the length of the tie downs?"
That was my argument as well, when I worked there and this ridiculous idea was being floated around. The "counter-argument" was some speculation about having a umpteen-mile long *string* tied to a rocket, thereby calling it "tethered" and not having to get a license. So this was seen as closing the loophole that doesn't exist yet.
Firstly, no one is ever going to come to the FAA with a rocket on a string and try to claim that they're tethered. But even if they did, a 15-mile string is NOT a tether. The word "tether" specifically implies that that which is being tethered is going to be held at bay should something go wrong (in the same way a "static" test implies that, lo and behold, the vehicle will remain "static" throughout the test!).
I offered a compromise to management: Let people conduct "tethered launches" w/o FAA oversight, in the same way you can conduct static tests w/o FAA oversight, on one condition -- that they show a small amount of paperwork proving the tether is in fact a tether, and not a string. That is to say that you show that a runaway vehicle would not snap the tether, or that it would destroy itself in the process. (I should note that even this compromise is overstepping their authority. In the same way you don't have to prove you're an amateur rocket [because it's a *definition*], you shouldn't have to prove your tether will hold. If it does snap, then what you just did was launch without a license, and should be subject to fines and whatnot for doing that. That's the easy solution.)
That's where it left off... but they weren't keen on that idea either. They want to call it a launch, and then address the tethered part in the hazard analysis section. This is as silly as calling a static test a launch, and addressing the tie-downs in the hazard analysis.
I would suggest you guys do everything possible to make sure they don't stretch their authority (illegally) onto this turf. They have a hard time letting go of bad regs, and an easy time making new ones in areas that they don't have Congressional authority for... *(hello Amateur Rocketry regs that don't address liquid rockets? hello regulation creep in which the "hardware check" of the experimental permit is now some kind of full-up nspection?).
And I thought it was frustrating when I was on the inside...
~Michael Aherne
Ian Kluft ikluft at thunder.sbay.org
Mon Aug 4 10:43:00 PDT 2008
On Mon, Aug 04, 2008 at 10:09:25AM -0700, Michael wrote:
I would suggest you guys do everything possible to make sure they don't > stretch their authority (illegally) onto this turf.
Let's more than suggest that. This re-interpretation so serious that it spells the imminent end of the the Lunar Lander Challenge if it isn't reversed promptly. Game over.
There have been cycles in the FAA's history where they have realized that they are capable of over-regulating and killing off their constituent industries, only to wind up with no jobs themselves either. It's that last part that has convinced them to back off before. AST needs to take a page from its parent organization's book of lessons learned the hard way.
Michael miketwo at gmail.com
Mon Aug 4 14:16:56 PDT 2008
"There have been cycles in the FAA's history where they have realized that they are capable of over-regulating and killing off their constituent industries, only to wind up with no jobs themselves either. It's that last part that has convinced them to back off before. AST needs to take a page from its parent organization's book of lessons learned the hard way."
On a larger note, the government is not a separate entity from the people. It exists solely to enforce the people's will. In this instance, the will of every engineer working with rockets is that they should not be subject to the 2-3 year licensing process (nor even the 6-12 month waiver process) for what is the equivalent of a static test. The will of every Joe Public is that he should be safe from rockets flying overhead, which means you shouldn't have rulings that *discourage* tether use, because tethers are safer than free flight. (What is the regulatory incentive to use a tether now?) The will of every Jane Investor is that there should be a growing rocket industry, creating jobs and technology for America, for her to invest in. That doesn't happen if *testing your rocket* shares the same regulatory burden as *operating your rocket business. *This ruling runs counter to every opinion of every person it affects. Is that what the government is for?
No. What we have here is a bunch of lawyers in a stuffy room in DC deciding that, from a legal standpoint, the current Gray Area™ needs to have a More Precise Definition™. This all happens irrespective to necessity or practicality. Then they grin from ear to ear, pretending that the pointless fiasco they've unleashed justifies both their law degrees and obscene salaries. It does neither.
The argument that "The governing statute does not carve out any exceptions for a launch vehicle attached to a tether" assumes of course that you have a "launch vehicle" to begin with. Which is to say it assumes you are trying to place a vehicle in a suborbital or orbital trajectory. It takes an enormous lack of common sense to consider a vehicle *chained to the Earth*as "intended to be on a suborbital trajectory." If that's the case, you might as well consider this <http://www.robbinssports.com/sporting-goods-store/images/hip-hop-mat-hopscotch-colored-nylon-carpet.jpg> a launch site. (In other news, "jumprope" has been renamed to "the leg-assisted suborbital trajectory game".)
This is the classic case of a bored government office overstepping its bounds to fix what is not broken, couched in Letter-Of-The-Law™ legalise that neither advances the industry, encourages safe practices, nor addresses a current problem. It will end up being a waste of time for everyone involved, including AST staff who will probably have to write launch "waivers" for all tether testing, for every vehicle in every company, from here on out...
That's a brilliant use of resources -- much better than fixing the 15-s burn time problem. [/sarcasm]
~Michael
Bob Steinke rsteinke at bresnan.net
Mon Aug 4 12:08:08 PDT 2008
Would it be a good strategy for us to try to get an official definition of tethered test in the regs along with a ruling that FAA does not have authority to regulate tethered tests? Would trying to do this have it's own pitfalls?
Henry Spencer henry at zoo.utoronto.ca
Mon Aug 4 13:51:42 PDT 2008
On Mon, 4 Aug 2008, Bob Steinke wrote:
Would it be a good strategy for us to try to get an official definition of tethered test in the regs along with a ruling that FAA does not have authority to regulate tethered tests?
Any decision that they don't have the authority is likely to come with some kind of definition, to clarify where the boundary lies.
Suggesting specific wording to them is probably a good idea. They may not get it right by themselves, and getting them to reconsider a definition that they've already settled on will be harder.
I suspect that getting it into the formal regulations is best attempted after a less-formal definition has been in use for a while and has proven satisfactory. As witness the infamous 15-second burn limit for amateur rocketry, fixing a mistake in the formal regs can take a long time, even when most everyone agrees that it needs fixing. (And this cuts both ways: AST knows that too, so if they're trying to write a formal reg that isn't based on successful experience, risk aversion will encourage them to be very conservative, on the theory that they can always write waivers for an overly-strict rule but can't quickly fix an overly-loose one.)
Henry Spencer
henry at zoo.utoronto.ca
(henry at spsystems.net)
Matthew Ross mcr at fountainheadent.com
Mon Aug 4 10:39:27 PDT 2008
Next up, seats on the Yo-Yo ride are going to need aircraft certification?
http://farm3.static.flickr.com/2024/1563481835_2e3980b4b1.jpg?v=0
rocket at watzlavick.com rocket at watzlavick.com
Mon Aug 4 14:10:00 PDT 2008
Just to play devil's advocate for a second, what if the rocket exhaust burns through the tether and then the vehicle takes off? Sure, the test stand could let loose too but that seems less likely.
-Bob
Ian Kluft ikluft at thunder.sbay.org
Mon Aug 4 14:44:38 PDT 2008
On Mon, Aug 04, 2008 at 04:10:00PM -0500, rocket at watzlavick.com wrote:
Just to play devil's advocate for a second, what if the rocket exhaust burns through the tether and then the vehicle takes off? Sure, the test stand could let loose too but that seems less likely.
Chances are if it's "lucky" enough to burn through a tether which was supposed to be placed with great care well out of the way of the rocket exhaust, it won't also be lucky enough to fly in a straight line in any direction. It won't get far, especially not far up. A tether is certainly a worthwhile and effctive safety device.
We have to sort out reasonable vs unreasonable imagined scenarios.
Ian Woollard ian.woollard at gmail.com
Mon Aug 4 14:48:35 PDT 2008
2008/8/4 <rocket at watzlavick.com>:
Just to play devil's advocate for a second, what if the rocket exhaust burns through the tether and then the vehicle takes off?
Usually there's multiple tethers, and you would have to burn through them all, and then, additionally the vehicle would have to leave the test site in a controlled way.
It's completely unrealistic, unless the tether design is completely terrible. Arguably that would come under OSHA as well or instead of the FAA anyway.
Sure, the test stand could let loose too but that seems less likely.
Tell that to Rutan :-(
-Ian Woollard
Pat Hoar pathoar at hotmail.com
Mon Aug 4 19:24:17 PDT 2008
I know nothing about the letter and my initial reaction is to cringe (like Mike, I am ormer FAA/AST'er)...but I did want to put out one piece of historical data:
- I do believe the 45th Range Safety required Delta IV to activate their FTS system when they performed the restrained (with a 4:1 safety factor, no less) on-pad 5 second-duration booster hot fire: http://www.space.com/missionlaunches/fl_delta4_021015.html
Range practices are surely not what we want the FAA codifying (although they already did it for ELVs) but you have to remember that many of the FAA aerospace engineers "matriculated" at the Range safety organizations.
Pat
milburnmnk milburnmnk at yahoo.com
Mon Aug 4 20:31:46 PDT 2008
Having your FTS ... or in our case TTS (Thrust Termination System) ... when conducting a tethered test makes sense and is in fact our standard practice. All the standard safety interlocks, soft and hard aborts are all operational during a tethered test and we have both the launch control officer who can initiate an abort and one of the skyscreens with a remote TTT (transmitter) box ... big red button ... who can also initiate an abort via the totally independent TTS.
If you are applying for a permit / license, you had better have an FTS or TTS as backup to your automated systems.
Neil - Armadillo Aerospace
Alexander R. Bruccoleri 07 Alexander.R.Bruccoleri.07 at Alum.Dartmouth.ORG
Mon Aug 4 16:00:03 PDT 2008
If I remember right Armadillo managed to brake tethers on several instances with their vehicles. I should point out that one way to prevent an accident would be to require one of the fuels to be fed in externally. Obviously this could lead to a fuel leak and fire if the vehicle broke free, but at least the vehicle would be shut down.
These regs are silly though, and hopefully you guys can find a clever way out of this.
Alex
Norman Yarvin yarvin at yarchive.net
Tue Aug 5 07:58:08 PDT 2008
On Mon, Aug 04, 2008 at 07:00:03PM -0400, Alexander R. Bruccoleri 07 wrote:
>If I remember right Armadillo managed to brake tethers on several >instances with their vehicles.
My recollection is that it was one instance, and that the Armadillo team realized right away that what they needed was not simply a tether that could stand force, but one that would absorb energy -- after which there were no more breakages.
That is a good rule for tethered experiments: the tether used has to be stretchy enough that it can absorb any amount of kinetic energy that the rocket could pick up while operating in the confined space that the tether creates.
Norman Yarvin http://yarchive.net
Kevin Sagis ksagis at paragonspace.com
Mon Aug 4 17:35:16 PDT 2008
What do others think about getting on a call to talk about the situation and have a common position?
William Pomerantz will at xprize.org
Mon Aug 4 20:33:46 PDT 2008
Hi all,
Some links of interest:
Context behind the FAA/AST letter about tethers: http://thelaunchpad.xprize.org/2008/08/tethered-tests-and-regulation.html
Best,
Will
William Pomerantz, Director
X PRIZE Foundation | Space Projects
Phil Eaton peaton at hotmail.com
Mon Aug 4 21:43:59 PDT 2008
Thanks Will for your notes and references.
After a brief discussion with the Armadillo Team and reading through the posts, it appears at first to be a very benign request by AST, and in fact they come across as if they are doing us a favor by expediting a "waiver" to continue to operate in the way we have up to this point. They don't want to slow us down at all.
True, if we take this at face value, it affects Armadillo very little. Anyone know why? It is because we have done this type of testing a bunch in the past, and we have already filed paperwork for permits on all of the basic flight configurations we have flown to this point. In short, they are already familiar with our vehicle, our past engines and the performance they apply to the vehicles, and we have a relationship with them that has been open and generally extremely good.
If you dig a bit deeper, you also see that we already meet the financial responsibility portion of the requirements for permitted flights. This is the scary part for all of the rest of you out there! If AST is going to exercise a definition that puts a tethered test in the same category as a permitted test, by the definition in our insurance policy, it automatically upgrades the coverage to cover that test. Knowing this at the next go round for a renewal on our policy means that the insurance company may be unwilling to underwrite the same testing for the same cost... and for those of you that do not have a policy in place because it was not a permitted or "Waivered" test before, may now be REQUIRED to carry insurance as directed by AST. For those of you that have quoted it, it is not by any means inexpensive for a single event, let alone an entire year.
If this rule were in full force 4 years ago, I wonder if there would even have been a Lunar Lander Challenge? It would require such a significant investment up front just in insurance or documentation that it may not have even been possible to conduct preliminary testing for something like the LLC.
This reminds me somewhat of the battle ongoing between the Rocket Hobby and ATF definitions of AP Propellants. It all seems to fall into a category of "Intended Use." The reasons things get clamped down a bit are perhaps because people are trying to find loopholes that meet the letter of the law but for the most part completely circumvent the true meaning of the rules. For instance, if one had a 100 mile spool of dental floss, and attempted to do a suborbital space flight with the dental floss acting as the tether therefore side stepping the permit/license rules, that would technically not be a violation to the "interpretation" that had been passed down, but certainly leaves the AST department frustrated that some teams, groups, or individuals are looking at them as adversarial rule enforcers while in truth they are following a mandate both to protect the public and 3rd parties, as well as promote the budding New Space industry.
I believe the new definition is a bad one, and it is contrary to the mandate of developing New Space business. I say that because I know how much testing it takes to finally get something up in the air as it was intended! If Tethered testing cannot be conducted in a free and responsible manner, I would understand the push for the definition change, but has anyone pushed the rule to mean something outside of the intent for allowing tethered tests as exempt activities relating to a launch? So far, every group I know of that needs to test on tethers, has done so safely and with precautions in place that showed that all we did was sufficient. Teams need rapid prototype capability in order to discover what works in all aspects of their intended regime without flying the eventual intended flight pattern.
I believe We are taking a sane approach to the problem, but we will not get far until we know exactly why this mandate was suddenly forced upon us. If the ruling was made purely by a legislative group that was interpreted such by attorneys. Heaven forbid that we must drag this issue into a court to attempt to define everything we do by "Potential Performance" rather than by "intent".
For now, we will keep our heads, and ask the right questions. Perhaps we will discover that all of the scenarios we have concocted about the evil nature of this change was not at all intended to be such a burden. And perhaps they just needed our input from the beginning and just never asked, or perhaps the change was imposed on them by a higher authority, which sounds to me to be the case.
Think, write, share, then get together with one solid voice. This has already been echoed, and will no doubt do the most good.
Phil Eaton
Armadillo Aerospace
david.c.gregory at gmail.com david.c.gregory at gmail.com
Tue Aug 5 12:46:04 PDT 2008
I for one, agree with Michael's assessment of this rule - I am appalled.
The relevant bit to the discussion is the law and the phrase "intended to be placed on a sub-orbital or orbital trajectory"
If a tethered, hovering rocket meets that definition, then I must logically conclude that a rocket powered car would also be regulated by the FAA?
This seems to me to be a power play towards "If it has a rocket on it, we can regulate it".
It would also seem to set a dangerous precedent - and precedent is one of the most powerful forces in matters of law. One of the ATF's central arguments in the lawsuit with NAR is "APCP has been on the explosives list since the 70's and no one has said anything before now". The courts have found that to be compelling.
In short, I do not support regulation that is reasonable and accommodating but illegal. I would hope that Armadillo, as one of the leaders in VTVL development, would speak up against this rule. I would be very disappointed were Armadillo to take the approach that "well, it doesn't affect us, so we won't oppose it"
-David
Masten Space Systems Blog Entry - 27 Aug 2008
New Moored Testing Hurdles
If you closely follow the New Space industry, you may have read that the FAA Office of Commercial Space Transportation sent out a letter claiming that a moored vehicle test is considered a launch by the FAA, and as such a waiver, license, or permit from the FAA is required to do such tests. The letter is not available on the FAA’s website, as far as I can tell. We do not believe that a moored test is a suborbital launch, but we do not have the time or resources to argue it in court.
Because we were planning to have XA-0.1B in tether testing a short time later, we began the process of getting a waiver. Dave, Jon, and I put significant time into the paperwork and analyses that were required, and our testing schedule has been pushed later because we weren’t able to concentrate on the real work needed to get to testing. They said in the letter that they would “strive to respond promptly to waiver applications”, but you might imagine that the definition of prompt varies somewhat between a New Space company and a federal organization.
We did satisfy their new requirements, and did finally get our waiver—one of them. Because they consider moored testing to be a launch, we are also required to have a waiver for “launching” within 5 miles of an airport. Our test site is on an airport.
Moored testing is good for all parties involved. It is safer for the uninvolved public when a test vehicle can not travel beyond the length of its tether. It is easier for the local and federal government to not have to spend man-hours on paperwork. And when it required less paperwork and red tape to do a moored test than a free flight, it encouraged organizations to test as much as possible while firmly attached to the ground.
We are not the only people in the industry affected by this new requirement, and we’re working with other groups in hopes of getting it retracted or reformed. The AST has been quite reasonable in most other areas, and we hope that this is not the first step in making rocket vehicle testing more expensive or impossible.
Update on 3 Oct 2008
Date: Fri, 03 Oct 2008 12:27:58 -0500
From: John Carmack <johnc@idsoftware.com>
Subject: Re: [AR] Unreasonable peroxide spray, AA status
To: arocket <arocket@exrocketry.net>
Message-ID: <48E6561E.5030109@idsoftware.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed
[... stuff deleted ...]
This is probably as good a time to mention it as any, but we have not yet been allowed to make a single tethered flight of our vehicles. Not at our home base, not at Hensley Field, not at Greyson County airport, and not at the Oklahoma Spaceport. We have had our AST waiver for a while now, but an unintended consequences of AST reclassifying our testing as "launches" has caused FAA to throw us under the bus, and we are still waiting for an "obstruction evaluation" to have permission to operate our crane truck on an airport for the purposes of the launch license waiver. It is difficult to discuss the situation without using obscenities.
We have done several hold-down tests, but no liftoffs:
http://media.armadilloaerospace.com/2008_10_03/pixelHoldDown.jpg
http://media.armadilloaerospace.com/2008_10_03/moduleHoldDown.jpg
John Carmack
On Mon Oct 13 17:32:08 PDT 2008 Troy Prideaux rocket_troy at bigpond.com wrote:
Terry,
Both what you and Michael stated does make lots of sense and kinda reaffirms my vague understanding of how such a regulatory dept would function. Yes, it is very difficult for professionals to make decisions with little data or parameters to analyse or complete modeling to draw from. Many professionals whom are used to the luxury of having a complete set of data to draw from simply can't handle situations where they're forced into making decisions when the data is incomplete requiring their intuition to fill in the gaps. The stress associated with such decisions is obviously multiplied by the associated stakes and consequences.
As an outsider, this doesn't, however, explain the recent implementation of the tethered test = launch policy/regulations, which from the accounts raised on this forum (be they not 100% independently objective) appear somewhat ridiculous.
Maybe you can provide us with some of the reasoning behind that regulation? Obviously, in a generic sense, there are potential loopholes for uncontrolled/unregulated tethered testing to be misused as a means to attain unregulated launch activities that can far exceed the area confines of the origin, but surely there are far less blunt instruments available to regulate that from being a lawful activity or maybe they were already in place under the "suborbital launch" definitions?
Maybe I've misinterpreted this situation?
Troy.
Terry H. terryhardy at earthlink.net
Tue Oct 14 08:47:09 PDT 2008
Troy,
I left FAA in January 2007, so I have no special knowledge of what led to the
change in policy on tethered flights or the rationale behind it. Therefore,
I would only be speculating on those decisions. I was there for the original
decision to declare that a tethered flight is not a launch. I don’t want to fuel
any more discussions on the topic, but I will say that there was not 100% agreement
on which way to go on this originally, and I doubt that there was
full agreement this time on the change. I have seen the (understandable)
frustration voiced on this site, and some good points have been raised by this
group. However, I do not believe that this change was the result of the FAA
lawyers or managers sitting around and dreaming up ways to increase their authority
or protect their jobs, as some may have implied in this discussion. This change
in policy appeared to be based on legal grounds as determined by the FAA legal
counsel. I myself had many discussions with the FAA lawyers in my time there,
especially in the development of regulations and guidance materials. I disagreed
many times with their positions. But my discussions with legal counsel always
resulted in better products, and our disagreements were always over how best
to protect the public within the regulatory authority given to FAA. We
fundamentally did not disagree with our mission, but rather with the approach
to fulfilling it. Therefore, I have only the highest respect for that legal
counsel, even if I may disagree with their positions. I would highly encourage
individuals here to make their voices known, because FAA does listen and wants
that input to improve its regulations and how it regulates.
Terry Hardy
Special Aerospace Services
Boulder, CO
Randall Clague
rclague at xcor.com
Tue Oct 14 17:35:31 PDT 2008
At 08:47 AM 10/14/2008, Terry H. wrote:
Hey all,
Since Terry didn't introduce himself, allow me the pleasure. Terry and I worked together on the AIAA RLV Safety Critical Systems Working Group a couple years ago, and that was one difficult project. Everybody had different ideas on what the goal was, and how to proceed toward it, and where FAA authority began, where it ended, and on and on.
Fairly typical for a Working Group in the early days of an industry, but it stalled the guideline development effort pretty hard. Terry came in to get it moving again, and I have rarely met a better manager/coordinator/expediter. Terry got us all talking again. He is *really good* at process, and at all the issues surrounding very different people trying to work together. *And* he has the technical background to talk turkey with the engineers. In one meeting, he actually caught me in a mistake, and called me on it a teasing way. I don't remember exactly how we resolved that issue, but I remember I gained a lot of respect for the difficulty of the problem we were facing, and for Terry, who was superbly managing the project for AST.
So, Terry, welcome to ARocket. I look forward to working with you again. >
This change in policy appeared to be based on legal grounds as determined by the FAA legal counsel.
It's based on statute. The legal counsel takes the position that if the launch vehicle leaves the ground under rocket power, that's a launch. The presence or absence of tethers is, in counsel's opinion, irrelevant. That's a very sensible and defensible position from a legal perspective; the problem is, it's wrong. In the real world, it is easy to tell a launch from a non-launch, and tether tests are non-launches. The vehicle is constrained, and cannot go anywhere in any meaningful sense of the word. It is constrained *by physics*, in this case the physics of the tether arrangement. The laws of man are subordinate to the laws of nature. It cannot but be so - what are you going to do, write God a citation? Whenever statute law and administrative law come into conflict with physical law, they lose. If someone tries to violate a law of physics, even to comply with a government statute or regulation, their gadget fails. (If they're unlucky, it fails dangerously.) And that's what has happened here. The legal counsel has taken no notice of physical law or common sense, and has applied a strict interpretation of statute. That put AST at risk of administrative or legal action against them, based on that interpretation, if counsel wanted to get nasty. They didn't want to take that risk. What needs to happen here is that common sense and physical law need to be applied in preference to a narrow interpretation of statute. If the launch vehicle leaves the ground under rocket power, but the launch vehicle *system* - to which the launch vehicle is securely attached - remains on the ground, that is not a launch. That might require an Act of Congress, to change the statute and make the legal counsel happy, but Acts of Congress are heavy artillery with dozens of different forward observers: the Act you get may be nothing like the Act you called for. Acts of Congress are generally to be avoided if possible. Alternatively, AST could force the issue and vigorously defend their ability to apply sound engineering judgement and base their decisions of real world facts. Since recognition of real world facts is the only really effective way to assure public safety, this approach has much to recommend it.
-R
Randall Clague
Government Liaison XCOR Aerospace
rclague at xcor.com
661-824-4714
Troy Prideaux rocket_troy at bigpond.com
Tue Oct 14 19:46:09 PDT 2008
> What needs to happen here is that common sense and physical law need
> to be applied in preference to a narrow interpretation of
> statute. If the launch vehicle leaves the ground under rocket power,
> but the launch vehicle *system* - to which the launch vehicle is
> securely attached - remains on the ground, that is not a
> launch. That might require an Act of Congress, to change the statute
That will likely be too broad and possibly leaves some potential
loopholes that have been previously mentioned here. IMHO there needs to
be some kind of stipulated proportional requirements of the tether
system 1st. If your tether system complies with stipulated guidelines or
*reasonable* requirements, then you shouldn't need to apply for any
launch permit. For example: an unlimited tether length not only has the
potential to be exploited; it's actually likely to be exploited by
somebody in a generic sense.
Tro
Randall Clague
rclague at xcor.com
Tue Oct 14 20:41:07 PDT 2008
At 07:46 PM 10/14/2008, Troy Prideaux wrote: >
>That will likely be too broad and possibly leaves some potential
>loopholes that have been previously mentioned here. IMHO there needs to
>be some kind of stipulated proportional requirements of the tether
>system 1st. If your tether system complies with stipulated guidelines or
>*reasonable* requirements, then you shouldn't need to apply for any
>launch permit. For example: an unlimited tether length not only has the
>potential to be exploited; it's actually likely to be exploited by
>somebody in a generic sense.
AST would want to see that the tether is sufficient to the task - that it will in fact physically constrain the vehicle - so that they could make a determination that the contemplated tethered activities are not launches and are therefore not subject to AST regulations. That part's legitimate. If the properties of the tether determine jurisdiction, the people with potential jurisdiction will be properly interested in the properties of the tether. In a rational world, could they *compel* a VTVL operator to divulge his tether design? I doubt it. They don't really have any formal mechanism for not taking for your word for it short of calling you a liar and imposing sanctions. They couldn't compel us to divulge the exact characteristics of the X-Racer so they could determine for themselves that its thrust is not greater than its lift for the majority of the rocket powered portion of its ascent. They asked for such an assurance along with general performance data many many moons ago, informally, and we provided it, informally, and that's how communications for those things ought to work. Disclaimer: we do not live in a rational world. -R Randall Clague Government Liaison XCOR Aerospace
rclague at xcor.com
661-824-4714
Troy Prideaux rocket_troy at bigpond.com
Tue Oct 14 21:54:03 PDT 2008
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Randall Clague [mailto:rclague at xcor.com]
> Sent: Wednesday, 15 October 2008 2:41 PM
> To: Troy Prideaux
> Cc: arocket at exrocketry.net
> Subject: Re: [AR] I know who your friends are...
>
>
> At 07:46 PM 10/14/2008, Troy Prideaux wrote:
>
> >That will likely be too broad and possibly leaves some potential
> >loopholes that have been previously mentioned here. IMHO
> there needs to
> >be some kind of stipulated proportional requirements of the tether
> >system 1st. If your tether system complies with stipulated
> guidelines
> >or
> >*reasonable* requirements, then you shouldn't need to apply for any
> >launch permit. For example: an unlimited tether length not
> only has the
> >potential to be exploited; it's actually likely to be exploited by
> >somebody in a generic sense.
>
> AST would want to see that the tether is sufficient to the task -
> that it will in fact physically constrain the vehicle - so that they
> could make a determination that the contemplated tethered activities
> are not launches and are therefore not subject to AST
> regulations. That part's legitimate.
Well, there's really no reason why the AST should require evidence of
anything prior to a tethered test on account of systemic policies or
procedures; otherwise a likely consequence would be a permit
requirement. Spot audits or onsite inspections - sure.
It should be up the to party conducting the test or their safety
officer to self regulate and determine compliance to appropriate codes
or guidelines. Commonsense would suggest the AST should only be
concerned for the tether length as this should determine whether the
event can be reasonably defined as a launch.
Troy.
David Gregory
david.c.gregory at gmail.com
Wed Oct 15 02:08:25 PDT 2008
Does the AST require "assurances" prior to a hold down test? My position, and the apparent consensus of the list, is that their is no difference between a hold down test and a tether test. I think that Troy is exactly right: Requiring any sort of "permission" from the AST prior to a tethered test is tantamount to obtaining a permit or a waiver and is therefore unacceptable. I think a good compromise might be something similar to the HPR requirements under 15,000 (or however many) feet -- i.e. you're required to notify the local tower before hand. The key thing is that it would be a "heads up" and not a "mother may I?".
Randall Clague rclague at xcor.com
Wed Oct 15 18:18:08 PDT 2008
At 02:08 AM 10/15/2008, David Gregory wrote:
>Does the AST require "assurances" prior to a hold down test? My
>position, and the apparent consensus of the list, is that their is no
>difference between a hold down test and a tether test.
>
>I think that Troy is exactly right: Requiring any sort of
>"permission" from the AST prior to a tethered test is tantamount to
>obtaining a permit or a waiver and is therefore unacceptable.
The key point is whether, for tether tests, AST should be able to
*require* anything at all. Common sense says they shouldn't, because
ground tests are not regulated activities, and tether tests are just
ground tests on a leash.
HOWEVER, AST does have a public safety mission, and they are
considered the duty experts in this commercial rocket stuff by the
rest of the Federal government, and they need *something* to hang
their hat on, in case a tether test goes wrong and hurts
someone. You gosh darn betcha they would be asked, by several people
with "The Honorable" in front of their names, why they didn't prevent
the accident. They need to have an answer ready. In this case, the
answer is, "It's not a regulated activity. They don't need anyone's
permission to do that."
>I think a good compromise might be something similar to the HPR
>requirements under 15,000 (or however many) feet -- i.e. you're
>required to notify the local tower before hand. The key thing is that
>it would be a "heads up" and not a "mother may I?".
The rationale for that is that the HPR is entering controlled
airspace, and you have to notify the airspace manager. With VTVLs,
there's no one to notify. You don't even have to notify the Fire
Marshal if you're on your own land and complying with the relevant
fire and life safety regulations.
I'm allergic to FAA *requiring* *anything* for tether tests. They're
not launches, so they're not a regulated activity. Any finding to
the contrary sets a precedent that ground tests are flights, and so
only pilots can do ground tests, and the vehicle has to be registered
first, and you have to hold an airworthiness certificate for it, etc.
-R
Randall Clague
Government Liaison
XCOR Aerospace
rclague at xcor.com
661-824-4714
David Weinshenker daze39 at earthlink.net
Wed Oct 15 18:35:18 PDT 2008
Randall Clague wrote:
> HOWEVER, AST does have a public safety mission, and they are
> considered the duty experts in this commercial rocket stuff by the
> rest of the Federal government, and they need *something* to hang
> their hat on, in case a tether test goes wrong and hurts
> someone. You gosh darn betcha they would be asked, by several people
> with "The Honorable" in front of their names, why they didn't prevent
> the accident. They need to have an answer ready. In this case, the
> answer is, "It's not a regulated activity. They don't need anyone's
> permission to do that."
Of course (in the mental simulation processes which government
personnel seem to keep running in their heads), that would imply
the following further question:
"So why isn't it regulated"?
To which you gosh darn betcha they would truly -hate- having to answer:
"Because we decided that it shouldn't be. Tough schnoogies."
I suspect that the applicable personnel may feel a strong urge
to avoid being put in the situation where such a question could
even be asked: that could only seem like a "no-win" situation,
compared to which a bit of unnecessarily-broad regulation might
seem by far to be the lesser of evils.
-dave w
Randall Clague rclague at xcor.com
Wed Oct 15 20:02:03 PDT 2008
At 06:35 PM 10/15/2008, David Weinshenker wrote:
>"So why isn't it regulated"?
"Because it isn't a launch or a reentry, and those are the only
things Congress lets us regulate."
Then, if someone still felt tether testing needed to be regulated, as
by an Act of Congress, they would have to explain to very busy
Congressional staffers what bona fide public good would come of such
an Act. Since it's essentially a negative argument - it does not
create good, rather it prevents harm - the staffers would ask to see
evidence of such harm.
There is no such evidence. "Thank you for playing 'Lobbying for
Luddites,' come back and play again soon!"
>I suspect that the applicable personnel may feel a strong urge
>to avoid being put in the situation where such a question could
>even be asked: that could only seem like a "no-win" situation,
>compared to which a bit of unnecessarily-broad regulation might
>seem by far to be the lesser of evils.
Well, public service is not for the faint of heart. There are lots
of pitfalls. A public servant who doesn't want to face cutting edge
decisions shouldn't regulate a cutting edge industry. It takes
courage and passion to do good work at AST. Fortunately, most of the
people working at AST are courageous and passionate.
-R
Randall Clague
Government Liaison
XCOR Aerospace
rclague at xcor.com
661-824-4714
Ian Woollard ian.woollard at gmail.com
Wed Oct 15 18:35:40 PDT 2008
On 16/10/2008, Randall Clague <rclague at xcor.com> wrote:
> I'm allergic to FAA *requiring* *anything* for tether tests. They're
> not launches, so they're not a regulated activity. Any finding to
> the contrary sets a precedent that ground tests are flights, and so
> only pilots can do ground tests, and the vehicle has to be registered
> first, and you have to hold an airworthiness certificate for it, etc.
Well, they need to define what flight is in this context.
Does a kite fly?
Randall Clague rclague at xcor.com
Wed Oct 15 20:11:08 PDT 2008
At 06:35 PM 10/15/2008, Ian Woollard wrote:
>Does a kite fly?
Nope. It's moored. Kites and moored balloons have their own section
in FAR 101, Subpart B. Subpart D covers unmanned free
balloons. (Subpart C is unmanned rockets.) That's what's so
frustrating. There is already precedent is FAA regulations for
treating moored and free flying objects very differently, and it's
being ignored. There's even an altitude limit. It's 150 feet. And
it's being ignored.
-R
David Weinshenker daze39 at earthlink.net
Wed Oct 15 20:47:25 PDT 2008
Randall Clague wrote:
> At 06:35 PM 10/15/2008, Ian Woollard wrote:
>
>> Does a kite fly?
>
> Nope. It's moored. Kites and moored balloons have their own section
> in FAR 101, Subpart B. Subpart D covers unmanned free
> balloons. (Subpart C is unmanned rockets.) That's what's so
> frustrating. There is already precedent is FAA regulations for
> treating moored and free flying objects very differently, and it's
> being ignored. There's even an altitude limit. It's 150 feet. And
> it's being ignored.
So, for intended operations below 150 feet, kite and tethered-balloon
flights are considered, literally, to be "beneath regulatory concern"?
Hmmm... might this not be excellent grounds (both practical and procedural)
for simply granting a waiver to tethered-rocket operations at similarly
low altitudes? It could be justified on similar grounds: that that is
a usable working threshold for altitudes above which the operation is
considered "aeronautically significant".
-dave w
Randall Clague rclague at xcor.com
Wed Oct 15 21:17:15 PDT 2008
At 08:47 PM 10/15/2008, David Weinshenker wrote:
>So, for intended operations below 150 feet, kite and tethered-balloon
>flights are considered, literally, to be "beneath regulatory concern"?
No, that parameter is more than 6 feet in diameter or more than 115
cubic feet in gas capacity for moored balloons, and more than 5
pounds for kites.
150 feet is the altitude at which the ATC notification requirement
kicks in. Also the colored streamer every 50 feet requirement.
There are a number of other requirements, all of which make sense,
all of which could be adapted to operation of a moored unmanned
rocket. For example, moored balloons must have "a device that will
automatically and rapidly deflates the balloon if it escapes from its
moorings." Apply that to a rocket, and it sounds exactly like a
thrust termination system, which all permitted VTVLs have to have anyway.
-R
Troy Prideaux rocket_troy at bigpond.com
Wed Oct 15 20:51:28 PDT 2008
Well,
I'm blaming it all on Paul Breed - infecting VTVL development with all
this gawddarn unreasonableness;)
TP.
Troy Prideaux rocket_troy at bigpond.com
Wed Oct 15 20:51:28 PDT 2008
Well,
I'm blaming it all on Paul Breed - infecting VTVL development with all
this gawddarn unreasonableness;)
TP.
For entrepreneurial companies looking to develop Vertical Take-off, Vertical Landing (VTVL) rockets, tethered testing can be a very important portion of the development and testing process. While certain test data is best collected or only available by actually putting a vehicle through the paces of a flight, rather than simply relying on simulations, flight testing expose the vehicles, its crew, and the general public to a much larger level of risk than a less complex test. Tethered testing offers a happy middle ground by allowing the vehicle to lift itself off the ground under its own power while still physically restraining it from moving too far or building up too much speed. Because of this, tethered tests have been incredibly important for teams competing for the Northrop Grumman Lunar Lander Challenge and their ilk throughout industry, with teams like Armadillo, Masten, and SpeedUp having already conducted many such tests.
Comments (0)
You don't have permission to comment on this page.