FAA now requires reentry vehicles to get licensed before launch | Hacker News Reader

FAA now requires reentry vehicles to get licensed before launch

theregister.com

24 pointsLorenDB20 comments

Getting flying and landing stuff certified by the agency that is in charge of certifying flying things is indeed a pretty good idea :)

I'm surprised this never happened before.

Normally re-entry vehicles fall, not fly/glide (except the shuttle), and as we know the FAA is bad...eh good at both "modes" (Boeing).

The only thing this is changing is that launchers have to get reentry approval before the launch is approved because a company messed up and thought they didn't need it or it was already approved and caused issues.

Also your distinction isn't as clear as it seems the Apollo capsule for example was able to use it's RCS to steer during reentry because the lift generated by the capsule was not directly on the center line. Where's the line between gliding and falling when even a brick can act like a lifting body due to the extreme speeds?

>Where's the line between gliding and falling when even a brick can act like a lifting body due to the extreme speeds?

Good point, and also not, but overall i would make the biggest distinction that one is a full ballistic object (reentry vehicle), and one is a gliding brick (shuttle) that makes s-turns to slow down, it's also a ballistic object but with much more freedom.

The Insane Engineering of Re-Entry

https://youtu.be/ivLX9o6Ayl8?t=1333

Official notice: https://www.federalregister.gov/documents/2024/04/17/2024-08...

If it moves, regulate it. Can't see a reasonable need for yet another government regulation.

> Can't see a reasonable need for yet another government regulation.

You really can't see a need for regulation of things that are purposefully put on an intersection course with Earth at 8km/s, and made to survive that?

The right to engage in recreational orbital bombardment is the very essence of freedom.

Applauds in 2nd Amendment

Glory to the Terran empire!

"I own an orbital rail cannon for home defense, since that's what the founding fathers intended. Four ruffians break into my compound...."

Someone more creative than me can finish this alt version of the copypasta. [0]

[0] https://www.reddit.com/r/copypasta/comments/9sc91k/own_a_mus... For those unfamiliar with the copypasta.

Yeah kinetic energy, plus hazmat sometimes like hydrazine, plus maybe there's no control over its trajectory.

Also important for FAA, if it's a domestic landing, is they may need to create an ATC window to keep aircraft out of the area, which they need advance notice for.

So it's not all pointless regs, this is real, practical, coordination.

They always required a license to reenter. The change is that if you launch intending to reenter you need the reentery license before launch.

This is because Varda launched their reentry vehicle without a reentry license. Then once they tried to reenter the FAA balked because they had just assumed since the FAA had authorized their launch the reentry license was a given, which it isn’t. This led to Varda missing their window and scrambling to find a landing site for a while until they actually got their license and landed.

This seems like a need for another regulation - the existing regulations left things ambiguous for Varda and that wasn’t good.

You must not live in Florida: https://www.cbsnews.com/news/space-station-space-junk-nasa-n...

> If it moves, regulate it.

Yes, because it might hit someone or something.

Are you willing to die to save Elon Musk some red tape?

Reply on news.ycombinator.com