On Wed, 2003-10-22 at 00:44, Randall Clague wrote:
> This is probably, long term, going to be the biggest item keeping
> prices up. (After the first few hundred flights, someone's going to
> take on Space Adventures, and compete on price. Not inside scoop -
> wouldn't say it even if I knew any - just common sense. 1000 flights
> at $98,000 each is not allergy money: it's nothing to sneeze at.)
> Spaceflight participants - "passengers" is too general a term - will
> absolutely have to be trained in how to use the survival equipment.
> Even if it isn't required by the regulations (and that will be up to
> the service provider), it'll be required by the business plan. Doing
> in your customers, or even getting them bent, is bad for business.
It's much more than just that. Someone who is shelling out this kind of
money for an experience wants to feel like a participant and not a
passenger. Or so my friends in the high-end adventure travel business
tell me. But it makes a whole lot of sense to me.
> For now. We're both going to be entering launch license territory
> shortly, though the new interpretation lets us do quite a bit of our
> early flight test under a pink slip (experimental certificate). We're
> tickled pink.
So here is an interesting question that comes out of that -- is the FAA
willing to write waivers for running a non-hybrid vehicle that can
operate outside the amateur exemption inside the amateur exemption? I.e.
if ERPS built a big follow-on to POGO, capable of more than 200k
lbf-sec, could it do envelope expansion testing under the limit? Also,
did Jay talk about how willing the FAA is to write burn-time waivers?
-p
_______________________________________________
ERPS-list mailing list
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
http://lists.erps.org/mailman/listinfo/erps-list
