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."
Thanks, we've reverted it to the original.
So You Want to Launch a Rocket? The FAA is Here for You (2017)
11–20 of 27 posts
Re: So You Want to Launch a Rocket? The FAA is Here for You (2017)
#12What happens if I go to Russians?
If you're a US citizen, FAA regs still apply.
Re: So You Want to Launch a Rocket? The FAA is Here for You (2017)
#13What happens if I go to Russians?
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.
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.
Re: So You Want to Launch a Rocket? The FAA is Here for You (2017)
#14There 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).
Re: So You Want to Launch a Rocket? The FAA is Here for You (2017)
#15Earlier quoted context omitted.
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.
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.
It's the kind of international law that results in lawsuits, which nation states don't always ignore.
Re: So You Want to Launch a Rocket? The FAA is Here for You (2017)
#16Earlier quoted context omitted.
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.
It's the kind of international law that results in lawsuits, which nation states don't always ignore.
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.
Re: So You Want to Launch a Rocket? The FAA is Here for You (2017)
#17The 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... [2] https://www.mojaveairport.com/
Re: So You Want to Launch a Rocket? The FAA is Here for You (2017)
#18OP 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 tan…
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.
Re: So You Want to Launch a Rocket? The FAA is Here for You (2017)
#19Earlier quoted context omitted.
It's the kind of international law that results in lawsuits, which nation states don't always ignore.
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.
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-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).
Re: So You Want to Launch a Rocket? The FAA is Here for You (2017)
#20OP 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 tan…
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.
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.