Rocket piloting: as exciting as operating elevators?

A session of the Space Access ’08 conference last night dealt with “paths to rocket piloting”: how can people who are interested in piloting a number of the new suborbital vehicles under development prepare for getting those jobs. Some companies have turned to test pilots and/or former astronauts, but if this industry does grow, the pool of potential pilots will likely have to expand beyond that narrow niche. A number of the panelists, including several private pilots, talked about preparations such as acrobatic and high-performance aircraft flying that would have relevance to suborbital spacecraft.

A dissenting opinion came from John Carmack of Armadillo Aerospace. He argued that the glamour associated by many with being a rocket-powered vehicle pilot will fall far short of reality. “I don’t think this is going to be an exciting career to go into,” he said, saying that the work involved with flying these vehicles is not like the “stick-and-rudder” work associated with conventional aircraft, especially for VTVL vehicles like Armadillo’s. “It’s going to be like being an elevator operator,” something that is just not that exciting. Armadillo’s suborbital vehicle design, the “six-pack” vehicle, does not even have a pilot on the vehicle: the vehicle is controlled from the ground; the single person on board does not any flight duties.

9 comments to Rocket piloting: as exciting as operating elevators?

  • Andy Motherway

    Gee, I’m inspired. . .

  • Peter Shearer

    I’m forced to disagree with Carmack. Burt Rutan has said many times that if space tourism is ever going to be cheap enough, safe enough and reliable enough it’s going to need to be stick and rudder. Armadillo has come up with some really good software to run their flight laws but certifying that software as avionics in a man-rated aerospace vehicle with the FAA would be enormously expensive. It could cost as much as the vehicle itself.

    Besides, even if it was just a big green button that says “GO” and the pilot/operator just has to press it, and even if this operator does four flights a day, five days a week I think it’s still one hell of a job! As a pilot myself I’d still love to be the one to hit that button.

  • …certifying that software as avionics in a man-rated aerospace vehicle with the FAA would be enormously expensive. It could cost as much as the vehicle itself.

    a) FAA-AST does not certify space vehicles.
    b) “Man rating” is meaningless in this context.
    c) FAA-AST is not responsible for passenger safety, only that of uninvolved third parties.

  • Peter

    I’m very well aware that FAA and/or AST is not certifying the VEHICLES. I said AVIONICS. If it leaves the ground and is fly-by-wire (like Armadillo’s) or the vehicles operators depend on the avionics for safe flight the FAA will need to certify it or people will die.

    You cannot operate a commercial airborne vehicle of any kind without certified avionics. This is why Burt Rutan kept SS1 a mechanically control vehicle with backup “old school” instruments.

    Besides, I wouldn’t want to fly in a fly-by-wire vehicle with as many software glitches as Microsoft Windows…

  • Brock

    “the FAA will need to certify it or people will die.”

    Pardon? Does FAA certification somehow make avionics safer? Since you’re fan of Burt Rutan, you’d probably be interested in knowing that it’s his opinion that FAA certification makes passengers LESS safe, since their methods discourage safety-improving innovation.

  • FAA will need to certify it or people will die.

    Again, the FAA is not responsible for the safety of passengers in space vehicles. There is no procedure in place or regulatory authority for the FAA to “certify” Armadillo’s avionics.

  • […] follow up on a posting from during the Space Access ’08 conference, I have an article in this week’s issue of The Space Review examining what it will take to […]

Leave a Reply to Peter Cancel reply

  

  

  

You can use these HTML tags

<a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <cite> <code> <del datetime=""> <em> <i> <q cite=""> <strike> <strong>