Dispute over definition of suborbital rocket may stall US bill aimed at promoting development of private space travel
A legislative proposal aiming to spur development of the space tourism industry is deadlocked in the US Congress over the definition of the term "suborbital rocket".
The Commercial Space Launch Amendments Act of 2004 is stalled indefinitely in the US Senate, although the language was passed in the House earlier this year. Introduced by Representative Dana Rohrbacher, a California Republican, the bill intends to establish standards for regulating private spaceflight operations, perhaps helping to attract investors wary about liability and licensing issues.
But detractors are concerned the bill's description of a suborbital rocket is unclear about the status of hybrids using both rocket and jet propulsion. To ensure the US Federal Aviation Administration will not require such designs to be dual-licensed, opponents have enlisted Senator James Inhofe, an Oklahoma Republican, to block the legislation until a more explicit definition is inserted.
"I don't want to get stuck under the old legislation. If they pass it, they're not going to revisit it for four or five years," says George French, president of Rocketplane, which has received a $15 million tax credit from Oklahoma to launch a suborbital rocket development programme in that state.
Rocketplane is proposing to modify a Bombardier Learjet with a rocket engine to attempt suborbital flights in the next few years.
The legislative impasse comes as French and other space entrepreneurs seek financial backing for a variety of suborbital transport proposals, and against the backdrop of the highly publicised launch of SpaceShipOne by Scaled Composites on 21 June. Supporters of the bill fear the Senate delay could waste a window of opportunity to get federal standards in place early.
"The industry would develop a lot faster with it than without it," says Jeff Greason, president and chief executive of XCOR Aerospace.
French acknowledges finding a suitable definition will be a challenge. It took months for the FAA to craft the wording that was slipped into Rohrbacher's bill. Any definition must be broad and narrow at the same time - shutting out loopholes to non-suborbital designs but inclusive enough to accommodate a burgeoning industry.
In the bill's language, a suborbital rocket is defined as a "rocket-propelled vehicle", but is distinguished from terrestrial rockets because its "thrust is greater than its lift for the majority of the powered portion of its flight". In other words, it flies vertically more than it flies horizontally when its rocket is turned on.
French has proposed inserting the phrase "wholly or partially" before "rocket-propelled vehicle", but FAA officials are unwilling to make any changes. "We think we can do what we need to do with the language we have," says Patricia Smith, associate administrator for commercial space transportation.
STEPHEN TRIMBLE / MOJAVE
Source: Flight International
