Comments on: Rocket piloting: as exciting as operating elevators?

By: Personal Spaceflight » Followup on the excitement of rocket piloting

Personal Spaceflight » Followup on the excitement of rocket piloting — Mon, 07 Apr 2008 18:14:17 +0000

[...] follow up on a posting from during the Space Access ’08 conference, I have an article in this week’s issue of The Space Review examining what it will take to [...]

By: Rand Simberg

Rand Simberg — Thu, 03 Apr 2008 12:36:53 +0000

FAA will need to certify it or people will die.

Again, the FAA is not responsible for the safety of passengers in space vehicles. There is no procedure in place or regulatory authority for the FAA to “certify” Armadillo’s avionics.

By: Brock

Brock — Tue, 01 Apr 2008 23:06:49 +0000

“the FAA will need to certify it or people will die.”

Pardon? Does FAA certification somehow make avionics safer? Since you’re fan of Burt Rutan, you’d probably be interested in knowing that it’s his opinion that FAA certification makes passengers LESS safe, since their methods discourage safety-improving innovation.

By: » Rocket piloting: as exciting as operating elevators?

» Rocket piloting: as exciting as operating elevators? — Tue, 01 Apr 2008 22:18:35 +0000

[...] http://www.personalspaceflight.info/2008/03/28/rocket-piloting-as-exciting-as-operating-elevators/ [...]

By: Space Access 2008 - Out of the Cradle

Space Access 2008 - Out of the Cradle — Tue, 01 Apr 2008 03:00:51 +0000

[...] Rocket Pilot Session [...]

By: Peter

Peter — Mon, 31 Mar 2008 21:45:11 +0000

I’m very well aware that FAA and/or AST is not certifying the VEHICLES. I said AVIONICS. If it leaves the ground and is fly-by-wire (like Armadillo’s) or the vehicles operators depend on the avionics for safe flight the FAA will need to certify it or people will die.

You cannot operate a commercial airborne vehicle of any kind without certified avionics. This is why Burt Rutan kept SS1 a mechanically control vehicle with backup “old school” instruments.

Besides, I wouldn’t want to fly in a fly-by-wire vehicle with as many software glitches as Microsoft Windows…

By: Rand Simberg

Rand Simberg — Mon, 31 Mar 2008 16:49:48 +0000

…certifying that software as avionics in a man-rated aerospace vehicle with the FAA would be enormously expensive. It could cost as much as the vehicle itself.

a) FAA-AST does not certify space vehicles.
b) “Man rating” is meaningless in this context.
c) FAA-AST is not responsible for passenger safety, only that of uninvolved third parties.

By: Peter Shearer

Peter Shearer — Sun, 30 Mar 2008 10:55:14 +0000

I’m forced to disagree with Carmack. Burt Rutan has said many times that if space tourism is ever going to be cheap enough, safe enough and reliable enough it’s going to need to be stick and rudder. Armadillo has come up with some really good software to run their flight laws but certifying that software as avionics in a man-rated aerospace vehicle with the FAA would be enormously expensive. It could cost as much as the vehicle itself.

Besides, even if it was just a big green button that says “GO” and the pilot/operator just has to press it, and even if this operator does four flights a day, five days a week I think it’s still one hell of a job! As a pilot myself I’d still love to be the one to hit that button.

By: Andy Motherway

Andy Motherway — Sat, 29 Mar 2008 19:25:13 +0000

Gee, I’m inspired. . .