SpaceShip One to Fly at Oshkosh

"Ron Wanttaja" wrote ...

As far as I know, "public use" aircraft (and their pilots) are exempt from
the
FAA requirements. Agency *policy* may require pilots and aircraft to hold
appropriate FAA documents, but policies can be altered.

Back when the Shuttle was first launched, I seem to recall something about
the
FAA ruling that it had no jurisdiction in such a case...basically,
transitory
use of the airspace. NOTAM it, and they were satisfied.

But who knows....

Ron,

You're right about public use aircraft, the Forest Service issues its own
pilot licences though all of our company's pilots also had FAA certificates.
That wasn't true for all companies. The Forest Service also inspected all
of our aircraft and ALL FARs were optional. That's NOT a good thing when it
comes to duty times and crew rest. That made for some really miserable days
and nights. The Marshal Service, on the other hand, required FAA
certificates but understood the sensitive nature of our passengers sometimes
required some deviation from the rules.

If you think the Shuttle isn't a military craft, you should try and dig out
the spec mission that sized the payload bay.

Rich

On Fri, 1 Apr 2005 22:31:18 -0800, "Richard Isakson" wrote:

If you think the Shuttle isn't a military craft, you should try and dig out
the spec mission that sized the payload bay.

The sad thing is, much of the shuttle requirements were based on military
requirements...but the Air Force pulled out of the program in the '80s,
including mothballing the brand-new Vandenberg shuttle launch complex.

Ron Wanttaja

This is a good thing for AirVenture as they are slowly strangling on
their falsified attendance figures... It will bring a suplus of
visitors this year, heck I might even go to look at Burt's handi
work...

OTOH, it's gonna take a lot of new ticket sales to fund all the
salaries and retirement bennys that are being sucked from the
AirVenture feed trough. (a simple statement of fact, not a political
manifesto)

denny

UltraJohn wrote:

UHHHH I think you mean military vehicle. Government vehicles still need
license (both plane and pilot!).

Nope... many agencies require them by internal convention, but the FAA has
no authority to require it.

The FAA finally mandated adherance to the FAR's for their own internal
use after a couple of accidents a decade back.

Richard Isakson wrote:
...

If you think the Shuttle isn't a military craft, you should try and
dig out
the spec mission that sized the payload bay.



The bay was sized so as to be capable of deploying the HST, which
supposedly just happens to have the same aperture as a KH-12.

--

FF

In article . com,
wrote:

Richard Isakson wrote:
...

If you think the Shuttle isn't a military craft, you should try and
dig out
the spec mission that sized the payload bay.



The bay was sized so as to be capable of deploying the HST, which
supposedly just happens to have the same aperture as a KH-12.

Or perhaps it was the other way around...

Dan Nafe wrote:
In article . com,
wrote:

Richard Isakson wrote:
...

If you think the Shuttle isn't a military craft, you should try
and
dig out
the spec mission that sized the payload bay.



The bay was sized so as to be capable of deploying the HST, which
supposedly just happens to have the same aperture as a KH-12.

Or perhaps it was the other way around...

The original LST ws planned to be 120 inches aperture and scaled down
to be shuttle deployed.

That doesn't clarify the issue. Supposedly nobody knows what happened
to the 'spare' HST optics fabricated by Kodak. One supposes they went
into a KH-12.

--

FF

In article om,
wrote:

Dan Nafe wrote:
In article . com,
wrote:

Richard Isakson wrote:
...

If you think the Shuttle isn't a military craft, you should try
and
dig out
the spec mission that sized the payload bay.



The bay was sized so as to be capable of deploying the HST, which
supposedly just happens to have the same aperture as a KH-12.

Or perhaps it was the other way around...

The original LST ws planned to be 120 inches aperture and scaled down
to be shuttle deployed.

That doesn't clarify the issue. Supposedly nobody knows what happened
to the 'spare' HST optics fabricated by Kodak. One supposes they went
into a KH-12.

Smile, you are on Candid Camera!

wrote ...
The original LST ws planned to be 120 inches aperture and scaled down
to be shuttle deployed.

That doesn't clarify the issue. Supposedly nobody knows what happened
to the 'spare' HST optics fabricated by Kodak. One supposes they went
into a KH-12.

I've always wondered if putting the wrong mirror in Hubble was an accident.
Is it possible that they launched a black program right in front of our
eyes?

Rich

"Richard Isakson" wrote in message
...
wrote ...
The original LST ws planned to be 120 inches aperture and scaled down
to be shuttle deployed.

That doesn't clarify the issue. Supposedly nobody knows what happened
to the 'spare' HST optics fabricated by Kodak. One supposes they went
into a KH-12.

I've always wondered if putting the wrong mirror in Hubble was an
accident.
Is it possible that they launched a black program right in front of our
eyes?

Rich

I'm not as up with all of the satelite stuff, but am interested. What is
the HST optics, and what does that have to do with Hubble, and a black
project, right in front of our eyes?
--
Jim in NC