Response to the FAA AST Experimental Launch Permit NPRM

This page presents the issue of the FAA Office of Space Transportation's Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (NPRM) on experimental launch permits for reusable suborbital rockets.

This was submitted to the FAA in time for the May 30 deadline. See http://www.stratofox.org/news/faa-nprm-response-200606.html for a simpler presentation of the final version.

Ian Kluft's May 26 message to AeroPAC members

If you already got the e-mail, you can skip to the next section. This was also re-sent to Stratofox and XBRAT (the eXtreme BlackRock Rocket Activities Tribe mail list.)

From: Ian Kluft
To: AeroPAC members
Subject: [AeroPac Members] FAA AST experimental space-launch permit NPRM - comments due Tuesday!

The FAA has a Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (NPRM) with a comment deadline of May 30 (next Tuesday) regarding experimental space-launch permits. This is currently a subject of widespread discussion among commercial and amateur rocket forums. I haven't seen anything around AeroPAC and wonder if this is flying above Tripoli's radar.

Actually, even the small commercial users were busy with back-to-back conferences and almost got blindsided too. Jon Goff of Masten Space Systems wrote a wake-up notice for everyone in his blog a couple days ago:

http://selenianboondocks.blogspot.com/2006/05/experimental-permit-nprm-no-comment.html

The NPRM is at http://ast.faa.gov/files/pdf/Experimental%20Permit%20NPRM.pdf

Comments may be viewed and submitted for Docket 24197 at
http://dms.dot.gov/search/searchFormSimple.cfm
(Privacy note: if you submit comments, your name and any personal info you provide will become part of the public record about this NPRM.)

The NPRM as it is was written for and with discussion from companies like Scaled Composites, XCOR Aerospace, Rocketplane Kistler, Masten Space Systems and Armadillo Aerospace. So it's geared toward commercial experimental launches just because of who's been travelling to Washington to provide initial input to the new rules.

I think this is relevant for us to get comments in for this NPRM in order to make sure that we don't have a brick wall awaiting us when AeroPAC members and TRA members at AeroPAC launches work their way up to NFPA 1127 suborbital space launch attempts. There probably won't be another chance to get the FAA to include NFPA 1127 certified hobbyists in it. I'm still reading through the NPRM looking for anywhere that we need to make suggestions so that there will be nothing standing in the way of a suborbital space launch under NFPA 1127 rules when the day comes that we're ready to do one.

It's possible that the FAA just needs to define "reusable" because there's some question whether a parachute recovery is included in what they have in mind for this NPRM. If that's the case, we should ask for that clarification as one possible alternative, and an opportunity to be included in the making of future permit rules relevant to us. (Perhaps that might be the basis of a new Level 4 certification? I've been floating that idea for a couple years.)

We only have a few days, and should try to comment as a group, and/or help review each others' comments so that we don't hurt our chances when the bureaucrats consider our comments and write the final regulations.

The Tripoli Research Safety Code (a.k.a. "EX Rules") already covers motors up to T. For reference, solid-rocket amateur and entrepreneurial suborbital space launch attempts since 2002 have been in the R-S range. So the rules as stated already cover potential growth to suborbital space launches by TRA L3 certified members. Also, the TRA EX Rules are already more stringent on minimum safe distances than the ad-hoc permit conditions/rules that were written by the FAA for both the CSXT and Paragon space launches/attempts that have been held at Black Rock.

On other items, the TRA EX Rules are similar or more stringent to the FAA's previous ad-hoc permits. One item which is not covered in the TRA EX Rules is "Operating Area Containment" (a.k.a. Range Safety). A rocket with total impulse in the R-T range (the top of the scale on the TRA EX rules) can reach space, but can also easily reach the UPRR tracks on the east end of the playa. CSXT and Paragon were able to obtain FAA compliance by having Stratofox radio observers on the uprange and downrange ends of the railroad ready to call a hold on the launch when a train enters the area, and until it exits. In fact, the CSXT Space Shot on May 17, 2004 was put on hold by Stratofox for several minutes until a UPRR maintenance truck passed outside the hazard area. We had been the only "no-go" - so the count resumed at T minus 2 minutes, and then did successfully launch to space at 11:12AM.

Needless to say, when AeroPAC grows to the point of holding a space launch under NFPA 1127 rules, Stratofox will be capable of supporting it to fill that gap, because of our close ties. FAA AST staff already know who Stratofox is. But let's make sure an FAA Experimental Launch Permit will be available to the club, our members and TRA members from other prefectures. (I assume NAR regs don't go that high. But if I'm wrong or if the rules change, there's no intent to exclude NAR.) AeroPAC probably has the only launch site that can be realistically used for an NFPA 1127 suborbital space launch. So we need to be prepared that everyone who reaches that point will come to us.

Ian Kluft, TRA #9497 L2
member of AeroPAC and a founding member of Stratofox

Don't spam the staffers

One thing we need to emphasize is not to spam the staffers. This "rulemaking" process is not like writing your Congressman, though some people get them mixed up.

This is from an e-mail I responded about this topic.

...we don't want to spam the staffers who will read these inputs. They'll basically take these as suggestions to write the final rules.

The FAA AST is apparently a small department. They're the people who get our 100,000' waivers for Black Rock and also write the licenses for Boeing and Lockheed orbital launches. A number of them have been to Black Rock to observe space launch attempts which they wrote the waiver/permit conditions for CSXT and Paragon.

If someone spams them on the NPRM inputs, it'll make a lot of unnecessary work for them and they'll pretty much know which groups did it. That probably won't help the cause.

Rulemaking isn't a vote-count thing. They're going to read these inputs and have to write responses to them along with the draft of the final rules. The best we can do is be convincing and show there are people behind the comments we write. I deliberately wrote suggested wording to make it easy for them to just accept our ideas into the regulations if they like them. People who complain and tell them to write something from scratch are less likely to get results because they may not have time to do that.

Topics of discussion

Here are topics others have brought up for discussion.

§437.91 "For hire prohibition"

In the discussion at Stratofox, some pilots looked at the wording of §437.91, the "For hire prohibition". It was pointed out that in the FAA's current similar rule for aviation, a participant in the flight is allowed to contribute to the cost without being in violation of the "for hire prohibition" rule that affects Private Pilots and below.

Also, a Stratofox member points out that on Page 10, the FAA writes about this in the discussion section before the NPRM amendment text. Sponsorship logos and goodwill payloads are specifically allowed.

Masten Space Systems has received a clarification of the current proposed wording and intended inplementation that they would be allowed to be paid for sponsorship logos.

Guidance related to §437.91 "for hire prohibition" and ARLISS research payloads

This text has now been added below.

This next paragraph is one of those topics that may be helpful for them to understand our needs. But this kind of educational info may be better just spoken with FAA staffers in the future rather than placed in the text they must respond to for the NPRM. Let me know what you think - does it strengthen the point or just make it more verbose?

I added two more sentences which strengthen the argument and provide guidance that we need the research arrangements between AeroPAC and Stranford for the ARLISS project to remain allowed if there are any changes to the "for hire" prohibition.

One of the activities which drives the high end of HPR is university research. The Association of Experimental Rocketry of the Pacific ("AERO-PAC", the regional chapter of TRA which covers northern California and Northern Nevada including the Black Rock Desert) and Stanford University have an ongoing program where aerospace engineering students from many universities can fly research projects on rockets built and operated by AERO-PAC volunteers. The research projects are either the size of a soda can or a coffee can, many performing a student's thesis project. Stanford sponsors the motor reloads as a partner in the project. We wish to ensure that this cooperation between university researchers and volunteers is not considered "for hire", so that it can continue to grow toward suborbital launches. We understand FAA AST's discussion text to specifically allow goodwill payloads and for participants in the flight to contribute to the costs, similar to the "for hire prohibition" on Private Pilots. If there are any changes to that interpretation, please ensure this university research arrangement remains allowed.

Guidance related to 437.21(b)(3) "Operation of a private launch site"

This text has now been added below.

This text seeks to ensure the interpretation of use of a private launch site is as we think it is.

In 437.21(b)(3) "Operation of a private launch site", it an be interpreted to mean that an applicant proposing to launch from a private launch site which has neither permanent facilities nor ongoing operations is not required to obtain a launch site operator license. That interpretation is acceptable to us. At the largest HPR launches, the launch site equipment is portable and is taken away at then end of the launch event. We wish to ensure that this can be included in the experimental launch permit and does not require us to obtain a launch site operator license for Nevada's Black Rock Desert, for example.

Input from the Tripoli Board

This text has now been added below.

There were two suggestions from the TRA board which are significant.

First, don't mix up NFPA 1127 (which limits itself to O motors) with amateur rocketry. So all but a few references to NFPA 1127 were changed to read "amateur rocketry" or in a few cases "HPR", as appropriate. This also had the effect of changing one of the suggested conditions for issuing a permit from

• (d) Rocketry education, recreation, and sporting competition projects operating in compliance with NFPA 1127 High Power Rocketry rules.

to

• (d) Non-Profit rocketry research, education, recreation, and sporting competition projects.

That couldn't use the words "amateur rocket" because it's already defined in Part 401.5 as being below the threasholds of regulation of Part 400. So the comment adds a sentence to explain what that was trying to say. It differentiates these from the commercial rockets which are the primary focus of Part 437 permits.

Second, a new paragraph was added to ensure that Part 400 regulations are not applied in the future to rockets which are currently exempt from it.

We first want to reconfirm the understanding that Part 400 does not apply to "amateur rockets" below the following thresholds: 200,000 lb-seconds of impulse (as per 401.5), 12 lbs/square inch of ballistic coefficient (as per 401.5), and 15 seconds of burn time (as per 401.5), or to the Tripoli approved waiver for a burn time up to 60 seconds with a reduction to 100,000lb-sec total impulse. In preparation for the eventual day when an amateur rocketry project wishes to exceed any of these thresholds, we would like Part 437 Experimental Permits to be an option rather than requiring a launch license.

Discussion of the response to the FAA NPRM

After talking with a friend who attended the FAA COMSTAC (Commercial Space Transportation Advisory Committee) conferences where much of the input for this NPRM was collected, it's possible that the FAA does not intend to include parachute re-entry systems in their definition of "reusable" launch systems to which this NPRM applies. But without a definition of "reusable", we don't know for sure.

So the response will use that as a pivotal question. If "reusable" does not include NFPA 1127 launches and/or use of a parachute as an atmospheric re-entry drag device, then we simply need to request to be at the table when future rulemaking that does affect us is discussed.

But without that definition, we can currently make an argument that "reusable" alone includes a rocket designed to be flown again after re-loading the motor and performing maintenance on the systems. Everyone designs high-power rockets to be flown more than once because it would be prohibitively expensive to build everything from scratch every time.

Text of the response to the FAA NPRM

This is the final wording, including changes from the TRA Board that arrived after Stratofox's and AeroPAC's approval. Ideally we'd have gone back for more discussion but we're out of time. All the input has been excellent and made for a really good response to the NPRM.

This is in reponse to the FAA Experimental Permit NPRM (Docket 24197) issued March 31, 2006. This comment is submitted on behalf and with approval of the following:

• the Tripoli Rocketry Association (TRA) http://www.tripoli.org/ , a national high-power rocketry organization
• the Association of Experimental Rocketry of the Pacific (AERO-PAC) http://www.aeropac.org/ , the regional chapter of TRA for northern California and northern Nevada, including Nevada's Black Rock Desert
• the Stratofox Aerospace Tracking Team http://www.stratofox.org/ , a communications and rocketry club from California and Nevada which has performed operating area containment and post-flight recovery of suborbital rockets under FAA AST observation multiple times
• Ian Kluft, a resident of San Jose, California, a member of TRA and AERO-PAC and a former Coordinator (equivalent of president) of Stratofox
• Owen DeLong, a resident of San Jose, California, a member of TRA and AERO-PAC and a former Coordinator (equivalent of president) of Stratofox
• Mark C Whittington, a resident of Herndon, Virginia and current Coordinator (equivalent of president) of Stratofox
• Ben Woodard, a resident of Pleasanton, California and a member of Stratofox
• K Mark Caviezel, a resident of Norman, Oklahoma and a pending member of Stratofox
• Steve Palmer, a resident of Cameron Park, California and a member of Stratofox
• John Coker, a resident of Atherton, California, a member of TRA and a former 1st Commissioner (equivalent of president) of AERO-PAC
• Tony Alcocer, a resident of Santa Rosa, California, a member of TRA and current 2nd Commissioner (equivalent of vice president) of AERO-PAC
• Robin Snelson, a resident of Sherman Oaks, California and a pending member of Stratofox
• David Brock, a resident of Folsom, California, a member of TRA and a pending member of Stratofox

This comment addresses issues from the point of view of members of the High-Power Rocketry (HPR) community. HPR is defined by the National Fire Protection Association (NFPA) 1127 "High Power Rocketry Code", a document which was made by collaboration between national rocketry organizations and the national fire marshals organization. The two national organizations allowed to issue high-power rocketry certifications and operate launch events under NFPA 1127 are the Tripoli Rocketry Association (TRA) and the National Association of Rocketry (NAR). The TRA Research Safety Code already has rules which take HPR past the "O" motor limit of NFPA 1127 and covers experimental launches with motors up to size "T" at 890,000 N-sec, which would be capable of a suborbital space launch. For reference, the CSXT amateur rocket launched on a suborbital flight on May 17,2004 used an "S" motor. Several of the participants in the CSXT effort are or were on the TRA board of directors and many more are TRA members. That indicates some likelihood that the high end of HPR launches will eventually and possibly soon grow to intersect the range of Part 437 Experimental Permits.

We first want to reconfirm the understanding that Part 400 does not apply to "amateur rockets" below the following thresholds: 200,000 lb-seconds of impulse (as per 401.5), 12 lbs/square inch of ballistic coefficient (as per 401.5), and 15 seconds of burn time (as per 401.5), or to the Tripoli approved waiver for a burn time up to 60 seconds with a reduction to 100,000lb-sec total impulse. In preparation for the eventual day when an amateur rocketry project wishes to exceed any of these thresholds, we would like Part 437 Experimental Permits to be an option rather than requiring a launch license.

One of the activities which drives the high end of HPR is university research. The Association of Experimental Rocketry of the Pacific ("AERO-PAC") and Stanford University have an ongoing program where aerospace engineering students from many universities can fly research projects on rockets built and operated by AERO-PAC volunteers. The research projects are either the size of a soda can or a coffee can, many performing a student's thesis project. Stanford sponsors the motor reloads as a partner in the project. We wish to ensure that this cooperation between university researchers and volunteers is not considered "for hire", so that it can continue to grow toward suborbital launches. We understand FAA AST's discussion text to specifically allow goodwill payloads and for participants in the flight to contribute to the costs, similar to the "for hire prohibition" on Private Pilots. If there are any changes to that interpretation, please ensure this university research arrangement remains allowed.

Since the purpose of the proposed Part 437 Experimental Permits is to reduce the paperwork necessary for an experimental suborbital launch below the burden of launch licenses intended for orbital launches, we request that HPR launches should be explicitly included in Part 437. If FAA AST does not include amateur/high power rocket launches at this time, then please include the High-Power Rocketry community in a follow-on round of rulemaking which accomodates HPR.

The remainder of this comment assumes suborbital HPR launches will be explicitly included in Part 437 Experimental Permits. This is intended to assist in that direction.

In 437.3 "Definitions", the lack of a definition of a "reusable suborbital rocket" allows the interpretation that any rocket designed for a suborbital flight and intended to be recovered and flown again is applicable to Part 437. That interpretation is acceptable to us. However, if a definition of "reusable suborbital rocket" is added, please ensure that it remains compatible with non-profit research, education, recreation and sporting competition projects.

In 437.5 "Eligibility for an experimental permit", paragraph (a) ambiguously permits amateur/high power rocket launches if one successfully argues for one of the categories of research and development. To resolve the ambiguity, please add a paragraph (d) like this, which describes amateur rocketry projects but avoids using the term "amateur rocket" since that is already defined in 401.5.

(d) Non-Profit rocketry research, education, recreation, and sporting competition projects.

In 437.21(b)(3) "Operation of a private launch site", it can be interpreted to mean that an applicant proposing to launch from a private launch site which has neither permanent facilities nor ongoing operations is not required to obtain a launch site operator license. That interpretation is acceptable to us. At the largest HPR launches, the launch site equipment is portable and is taken away at then end of the launch event. We wish to ensure that this can be included in the experimental launch permit and does not require us to obtain a launch site operator license for Nevada's Black Rock Desert, for example.

to top