

SpaceX receives first-ever FAA license for commercial reentry - widgetycrank
http://www.space.com/news/spacex-faa-license-private-spaceship-reentry-101122.html

======
electromagnetic
This is quite simply amazing news. The implications are astounding, beyond the
mere selfish prospect of one day travelling to space as a tourist.

Considering a loose estimate on the value of the asteroid belt is like
$5(10^20), it could literally be a new gold rush. It would be awesome (to the
true definition of the word) if one day our manufactured goods are being
landed from space rather than shipped across the ocean.

Beyond that, I envy my offspring that could one day live in space as if it
were mundane.

~~~
mey
Brings new meaning to carbon footprint?

~~~
sliverstorm
One thing that I have learned in the past is that large problems can often be
completely absolved simply by growing beyond them. As an example, during the
industrial revolution, cities were covered in soot. They were a mess. But we
plowed ahead instead of saying "gee, we should stick with current technology
and stop expanding until we fix the soot", and look where we are now. Today's
power makes 1800's power look like a pigsty, purely as a side effect of our
growth & development.

What I mean to say is, if past experiences are any indicator, supposing we
push on into space, carbon footprints will probably become a concern of the
past- most likely due to some development we couldn't possibly have foreseen
from our current vantage point. (what 1800's coal plant worker could have
foreseen nuclear reactors?)

~~~
nostromo
The classic example of this is the 'manure crisis' at the end of the 19th
century. Since commerce and transportation over land and in cities usually
required horses at that time, a simple calculation in 1894 by the Times of
London forecasted that every street in London would be covered in 9 feet of
horse manure by 1950. [http://ibloga.blogspot.com/2010/04/weve-recently-had-
some-di...](http://ibloga.blogspot.com/2010/04/weve-recently-had-some-
discussion.html)

------
burgerbrain
I firmly believe that SpaceX is the best chance humanity currently has at
achieving space travel for the general population. They are one of the few
companies I can get honestly excited about these days.

~~~
jballanc
Agreed. Them and Virgin Galactic seem like they're the next logical step. I'm
especially excited because they have the opportunity to succeed where the
supersonic jetliners failed: Imagine if any spot on the globe was within 2 hrs
travel time...

~~~
brc
I wonder, though, if the same problems will apply : high per-passenger-mile
costs and restricted takeoff/landing sites. Eventually the Concorde overcame
the per-passenger-mile costs but they could never evade the takeoff and
landing restrictions. If they had flown the LA/NY route it would have been
much more successful. I can see any type of space transportation coming across
the same issues.

~~~
iwr
While flying twice as high as passanger aircraft, the sonic boom would still
be a problem with the Concorde. The restriction would be greatly reduced with
a suborbital plane, which cruises outside the atmosphere.

~~~
jballanc
This. There are some real benefits to not having to fly through air the whole
way.

------
dantheman
Congrats to them. The FAA seems to be doing a good job not getting in the way
of space travel.

------
sliverstorm
Why does a company need a licence from the FAA to perform re-entry? The FAA
doesn't regulate all of the earth's outer atmosphere, right?

~~~
lucasjung
No, but they regulate the part where a chunk of white-hot metal and composite
plummets into an area of the sky they're responsible for. That extends well
beyond U.S. territorial airspace--by international agreements, much
international airspace has been assigned to various nations to control. If
SpaceX were to conduct their entire reentry out in the middle of the pacific
in completely uncontrolled areas then they probably wouldn't need a license,
but recovering the capsule would be a whole lot harder.

~~~
yellowbkpk
Do they also require a license to exit the planet through said airspace? Is it
possible to receive one but not the other? i.e. If by some clerical error
SpaceX received their "Exit License" but then forgot their "Re-Entry License",
would the capsule then be stuck in the outer atmosphere?

Pedantic, I know, but still oddly intriguing to me. The fact that such a
legacy organization like the FAA has to stretch to fit into this business
space is interesting to me.

~~~
lucasjung
They do need a license to launch, and such licenses are very common:
commercial satellite launches happen all of the time. The FAA needs to be
involved because those rockets pass through controlled airspace on the way up
and the FAA needs to take measures to keep aircraft away from them. This is
news because, for the first time, a commercial entity is going to attempt to
bring something back from orbit instead of just sending it up and leaving it
there.

Reading between the lines, SpaceShipOne apparently didn't need a re-entry
license, probably because they never achieved orbit and so their return didn't
meet some technical criteria to be considered a "re-entry" by the FAA. They
probably had some sort of special license from the FAA, though.

