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

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

groundbasedspacematters.com

52 pointsdublin26 comments

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.

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 Thinking in terms of 1940's missles is a bit outdated.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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... [2] https://www.mojaveairport.com/

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).

> 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).

You don't need nukes for space weapons, kinetic bombardment will do just fine.

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.

No assembly involved. You launch a 20 ton tungsten rod with minimal atmospheric steering ability to LEO. Deorbiting the rod to a target will result in a 0.1 kiloton impact, which due to the directional nature of the strike will be far more locally destructive than a nuclear weapon.

That's the reason you won't be able to launch it in the first place. A rocket with 20 ton to orbit capacity will attract scrutiny of other space-capable powers, and they will be within their right (moral as well as legal) to shoot it down if you insist on not cooperating and disclosing its payload.

Also, even if you put a single "rod of God" in orbit, the moment you've threatened anybody with it, an attempt to shoot it down will be made. If you manage to drop it on someone, it'll only add extra mass murder charges onto your life sentence or execution.

Be careful, because the ways around the law would be possible for your opponents as well. This plan in particular sounds like an excellent way to get murdered by sniper bullet with a simultaneous full spectrum EW attack to prevent a killswitch signal getting out. Possibly accompanied by simultaneous SM-3 attacks on whatever you have in orbit.

And this is just one of the many many ideas. You would also need near perfect infosec to make sure your orbital weaponry doesn't get stolen away from you and you are the biggest, shiniest target imaginable.

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.

What 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.

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).

Depends on how much they think it would annoy the US

They will have equivalent regulations, and they will tell the US all about your rocket anyway so World War III doesn't start because you thought it would be cool to try to sneak something into space.

If you're a US citizen, FAA regs still apply.

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.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com