4 ms·

So You Want to Launch a Rocket? The FAA is Here for You (2017)

52 points by dublin 8y ago

cstross 8y ago
OP is a useful overview of the relevant regulations. And in case anyone disputes the need for regulations, it's worth remembering that any rocket that can put a payload into orbit — any size of payload — is de facto an ICBM: not a very good ICBM by modern military standards, but an adequate one. Expecting your government to pay no attention to your microsat launcher is like expecting them to ignore the unlicensed tank factory in their back yard.
- justtopost 8y ago
  I would wager you coulld weaponize a micro/cubesat enough to cause much more than icbm levels of chaos by attacking other sats (GPS, Spy, Comms, etc.) Thinking in terms of 1940's missles is a bit outdated.
  - Piskvorrr 8y ago
    Miss-iles, that's a very appropriate typo. "But I'm not planning to do any damage intentionally, and I'm expecting nothing to go wrong!" Well - the best-laid plans of mice and men often go awry, and things going wrong at orbital velocities tend to have unintended...impacts, if you will.
  - abenedic 8y ago
    A person who thinks in such terms must inherently be an artifact of the past. How else could one imagine the future properly? Attacking satellites of any type, is an inherent dismissal of the idea that there could be a peaceful purpose of such a device. It is better if going forward we get a type of basis for understanding the threat models that the actions we perform necessitate. A common vocabulary is the basis of trust.
- vvanders 8y ago
  Regardless of the whole ICBM issue even the suborbital stuff needs a 'license' too. When we went out to the desert to launcher the "bigger" stuff(class H to O) we had a waiver with the FFA each time with a launch ceiling of around ~10k AGL or so.
m1el 8y ago
What happens if I go to Russians?
- vkou 8y ago
  Then the Red Airforce will ask a lot of questions about what you're doing. The last thing they want is the US confusing your rocket launch with a preemptive nuclear strike. Then, the rest of the government will have their pick at you. By international law, each country is responsible for anything that gets launched into orbit by their citizens/companies/from their territory.
  - craftyguy 8y ago
    It may be 'international law', but I'm pretty sure it has never been enforced, and probably never will be unless there's an intentional aggressive action against some other country outside a time of war.
    - vkou 8y ago
      It's the kind of international law that results in lawsuits, which nation states don't always ignore.
      - craftyguy 8y ago
        But they generally do, since they are not enforceable... Worst case, you get some sanction/parting shot. That said, I would love some examples of a country being convicted of violating international law (or losing a lawsuit in an 'international court'), and having to pay for it. The only ones I can think of are WTO trade disputes, but recent (~2 months?) history shows that this body is now incapable.
        adventured 8y ago
        Oil companies have won international law cases against Venezuela as one normal example. You have to be able to enforce that through seizing assets though (if necessary), backed by force. That's true in any such court case, whether we're talking domestic or international. Conoco won a judgment against Venezuela before the International Chamber of Commerce and they have an open case before the World Bank's International Center for Settlement of Investment Disputes. They can then plausibly leverage the US Government as the means to seize assets of Venezuela in the US (Citgo being an example). https://www.nytimes.com/2018/04/25/business/energy-environment/conocophillips-venezuela-ruling.html https://www.nytimes.com/2018/04/25/business/energy-environme... An unorthodox example: Iraq's invasion of Kuwait was basically universally found to violate international law. The UN authorized coalition of 30 nations made them pay for it (crushed their military and economy). You have to have a really big stick to back-stop anything like 'international law.' The UN and most agencies don't have that kind of power unto themselves, only nations do, because in most cases it ultimately comes down to military enforcement (for the exact same reason taxation enforcement ultimately is supported by a gun). The sole major exception to that, is the US using the USD global reserve currency as a platform for sanctions (through various levers), and or working with the EU and other large economies to sanction in concert (Iran, North Korea, et al.). The US is one of the few entities capable of unilaterally dictating international law, because of its numerous large sticks. It occasionally suffers the non-surprising blowback from doing so (as with the recent withdrawal from the Iran deal).
GW150914 8y ago
Highly editorialized title. The original (sane) title is So You Want to Launch a Rocket? The FAA is Here for You. This is especially eggregious given the overall positive tone of the post, see: The point is, you do need federal permission to launch a rocket from the United States. And, if you are a U.S. citizen or other entity you need FAA approval to launch anywhere in the world. The Commercial Space Launch Act says so. You also need permission to reenter a reentry vehicle or operate a spaceport. The one thing my protégé had wrong, however, is that you don’t need a license—or even an experimental permit—to launch a toy rocket or even a somewhat large amateur rocket.
394549 8y ago
The site's title for the post is "So You Want to Launch a Rocket? The FAA is Here for You." HN title has been editorialized to "Launching a rocket? The US Govt will have its hooks into you."
- sctb 8y ago
  Thanks, we've reverted it to the original.
bogus_323423 8y ago
There are always ways around the law for those creative enough. All it takes is one unregulated launch to put up a 'cold' ICBM in orbit, which would be effective insurance against any and all regulatory action. It's a vicious sort of realpolitik, but it would likely work. Just wait until someone surreptitiously puts up a whole network of sleeper nukes into orbit. One weird trick to become world emperor, eh? A good sci-fi plot, since it's likely do-able by private firms in the near to medium term. That said there are more mundane ways to escape. However those come with their own risks (ask Gerald Bull how his attempt turned out).
- TeMPOraL 8y ago
  > All it takes is one unregulated launch to put up a 'cold' ICBM in orbit, which would be effective insurance against any and all regulatory action. It's a vicious sort of realpolitik, but it would likely work. An ICBM with what payload exactly? With a nuke? Getting your hands on a nuke is hard. But, if by some miracle, you managed to launch one into space, then no later than you'd start threatening regulators with it, your nuke would eat a satellite interceptor. > Just wait until someone surreptitiously puts up a whole network of sleeper nukes into orbit. One weird trick to become world emperor, eh? Near-impossible to pull off at this point, as it would require absurd world-wide levels of incompetency in tracking nuclear material and space launches. That, or new technology for doing damage (this was a side plot in an excellent hard sci-fi book, A Sword Into Darkness, where a fictional propulsion system created by a private company could also work as a sort-of fusion bomb, without radioactive material).
  - kchoudhu 8y ago
    You don't need nukes for space weapons, kinetic bombardment will do just fine.
    - TeMPOraL 8y ago
      Still, there's no stealth in space, and neither the US nor Russia nor China will let you just assemble a kinetic bombardment vehicle in orbit. Things might get easier if humanity expands meaningfully beyond GEO.
Animats 8y ago
The expensive problem is having enough liability insurance for the worst case. Space-X originally launched from a Pacific island until they had their rocket working reasonably well. Hobbyist rockets have a mass limit and a thrust limit.[1] Low-powered rockets, below those limits, have few regulations. As mass and thrust increase, the restrictions increase. Above 1 lb, you're an airspace user and have to talk to the FAA. Not much of a problem in rural areas far from an airport. Heavily restricted in controlled airspace. Reasonable enough. Remember, if it can't reach escape velocity, it's going to come down somewhere. At high velocity. Mojave Air and Space Port is supportive of people testing strange air vehicles. [2] Virgin Galactic, Scaled Composites, and the National Test Pilot School are all out there. [1] https://www.nar.org/find-a-local-club/section-guidebook/laws-regulations/ https://www.nar.org/find-a-local-club/section-guidebook/laws... [2] https://www.mojaveairport.com/ https://www.mojaveairport.com/
slededit 8y ago
The note at the end is somewhat important. If you are deciding where to incorporate your startup and you are not a US citizen, ITAR is a good reason to avoid the USA. YC generally suggests US incorporation but it has real downsides, and exporting of technology is restricted.

52 points by dublin 8y ago

OP is a useful overview of the relevant regulations. And in case anyone disputes the need for regulations, it's worth remembering that any rocket that can put a payload into orbit — any size of payload — is de facto an ICBM: not a very good ICBM by modern military standards, but an adequate one. Expecting your government to pay no attention to your microsat launcher is like expecting them to ignore the unlicensed tank factory in their back yard.

justtopost 8y ago
I would wager you coulld weaponize a micro/cubesat enough to cause much more than icbm levels of chaos by attacking other sats (GPS, Spy, Comms, etc.) Thinking in terms of 1940's missles is a bit outdated.
- Piskvorrr 8y ago
  Miss-iles, that's a very appropriate typo. "But I'm not planning to do any damage intentionally, and I'm expecting nothing to go wrong!" Well - the best-laid plans of mice and men often go awry, and things going wrong at orbital velocities tend to have unintended...impacts, if you will.
- abenedic 8y ago
  A person who thinks in such terms must inherently be an artifact of the past. How else could one imagine the future properly? Attacking satellites of any type, is an inherent dismissal of the idea that there could be a peaceful purpose of such a device. It is better if going forward we get a type of basis for understanding the threat models that the actions we perform necessitate. A common vocabulary is the basis of trust.
vvanders 8y ago
Regardless of the whole ICBM issue even the suborbital stuff needs a 'license' too. When we went out to the desert to launcher the "bigger" stuff(class H to O) we had a waiver with the FFA each time with a launch ceiling of around ~10k AGL or so.

m1el 8y ago

What happens if I go to Russians?

vkou 8y ago
Then the Red Airforce will ask a lot of questions about what you're doing. The last thing they want is the US confusing your rocket launch with a preemptive nuclear strike. Then, the rest of the government will have their pick at you. By international law, each country is responsible for anything that gets launched into orbit by their citizens/companies/from their territory.
- craftyguy 8y ago
  It may be 'international law', but I'm pretty sure it has never been enforced, and probably never will be unless there's an intentional aggressive action against some other country outside a time of war.
  - vkou 8y ago
    It's the kind of international law that results in lawsuits, which nation states don't always ignore.
    - craftyguy 8y ago
      But they generally do, since they are not enforceable... Worst case, you get some sanction/parting shot. That said, I would love some examples of a country being convicted of violating international law (or losing a lawsuit in an 'international court'), and having to pay for it. The only ones I can think of are WTO trade disputes, but recent (~2 months?) history shows that this body is now incapable.
      - adventured 8y ago
        Oil companies have won international law cases against Venezuela as one normal example. You have to be able to enforce that through seizing assets though (if necessary), backed by force. That's true in any such court case, whether we're talking domestic or international. Conoco won a judgment against Venezuela before the International Chamber of Commerce and they have an open case before the World Bank's International Center for Settlement of Investment Disputes. They can then plausibly leverage the US Government as the means to seize assets of Venezuela in the US (Citgo being an example). https://www.nytimes.com/2018/04/25/business/energy-environment/conocophillips-venezuela-ruling.html https://www.nytimes.com/2018/04/25/business/energy-environme... An unorthodox example: Iraq's invasion of Kuwait was basically universally found to violate international law. The UN authorized coalition of 30 nations made them pay for it (crushed their military and economy). You have to have a really big stick to back-stop anything like 'international law.' The UN and most agencies don't have that kind of power unto themselves, only nations do, because in most cases it ultimately comes down to military enforcement (for the exact same reason taxation enforcement ultimately is supported by a gun). The sole major exception to that, is the US using the USD global reserve currency as a platform for sanctions (through various levers), and or working with the EU and other large economies to sanction in concert (Iran, North Korea, et al.). The US is one of the few entities capable of unilaterally dictating international law, because of its numerous large sticks. It occasionally suffers the non-surprising blowback from doing so (as with the recent withdrawal from the Iran deal).

GW150914 8y ago

Highly editorialized title. The original (sane) title is So You Want to Launch a Rocket? The FAA is Here for You. This is especially eggregious given the overall positive tone of the post, see: The point is, you do need federal permission to launch a rocket from the United States. And, if you are a U.S. citizen or other entity you need FAA approval to launch anywhere in the world. The Commercial Space Launch Act says so. You also need permission to reenter a reentry vehicle or operate a spaceport. The one thing my protégé had wrong, however, is that you don’t need a license—or even an experimental permit—to launch a toy rocket or even a somewhat large amateur rocket.

394549 8y ago

The site's title for the post is "So You Want to Launch a Rocket? The FAA is Here for You." HN title has been editorialized to "Launching a rocket? The US Govt will have its hooks into you."

sctb 8y ago
Thanks, we've reverted it to the original.

bogus_323423 8y ago

There are always ways around the law for those creative enough. All it takes is one unregulated launch to put up a 'cold' ICBM in orbit, which would be effective insurance against any and all regulatory action. It's a vicious sort of realpolitik, but it would likely work. Just wait until someone surreptitiously puts up a whole network of sleeper nukes into orbit. One weird trick to become world emperor, eh? A good sci-fi plot, since it's likely do-able by private firms in the near to medium term. That said there are more mundane ways to escape. However those come with their own risks (ask Gerald Bull how his attempt turned out).

TeMPOraL 8y ago
> All it takes is one unregulated launch to put up a 'cold' ICBM in orbit, which would be effective insurance against any and all regulatory action. It's a vicious sort of realpolitik, but it would likely work. An ICBM with what payload exactly? With a nuke? Getting your hands on a nuke is hard. But, if by some miracle, you managed to launch one into space, then no later than you'd start threatening regulators with it, your nuke would eat a satellite interceptor. > Just wait until someone surreptitiously puts up a whole network of sleeper nukes into orbit. One weird trick to become world emperor, eh? Near-impossible to pull off at this point, as it would require absurd world-wide levels of incompetency in tracking nuclear material and space launches. That, or new technology for doing damage (this was a side plot in an excellent hard sci-fi book, A Sword Into Darkness, where a fictional propulsion system created by a private company could also work as a sort-of fusion bomb, without radioactive material).
- kchoudhu 8y ago
  You don't need nukes for space weapons, kinetic bombardment will do just fine.
  - TeMPOraL 8y ago
    Still, there's no stealth in space, and neither the US nor Russia nor China will let you just assemble a kinetic bombardment vehicle in orbit. Things might get easier if humanity expands meaningfully beyond GEO.

Animats 8y ago

The expensive problem is having enough liability insurance for the worst case. Space-X originally launched from a Pacific island until they had their rocket working reasonably well. Hobbyist rockets have a mass limit and a thrust limit.[1] Low-powered rockets, below those limits, have few regulations. As mass and thrust increase, the restrictions increase. Above 1 lb, you're an airspace user and have to talk to the FAA. Not much of a problem in rural areas far from an airport. Heavily restricted in controlled airspace. Reasonable enough. Remember, if it can't reach escape velocity, it's going to come down somewhere. At high velocity. Mojave Air and Space Port is supportive of people testing strange air vehicles. [2] Virgin Galactic, Scaled Composites, and the National Test Pilot School are all out there. [1] https://www.nar.org/find-a-local-club/section-guidebook/laws-regulations/ https://www.nar.org/find-a-local-club/section-guidebook/laws... [2] https://www.mojaveairport.com/ https://www.mojaveairport.com/

slededit 8y ago

The note at the end is somewhat important. If you are deciding where to incorporate your startup and you are not a US citizen, ITAR is a good reason to avoid the USA. YC generally suggests US incorporation but it has real downsides, and exporting of technology is restricted.