That's what Michael Mealing is doing at the Space Frontier Conference. You'll particularly want to read his description of Jim Muncy's talk about the new launch legislation.

"...the poison meat is in the Senate sausage machine so we're going to stop, clean out the machine, and start over..."

I'm not sure what Jim Muncy meant by "the Rocketplane Limited fiasco" but the only thing we wanted was a definition of "suborbital vehicle" that didn't exclude our architecture. About three words were added to the language, and they didn't exclude or limit any other competitor's architecture. No one was willing to alter the definition until an Oklahoma senator placed a legislative hold on the bill, but after this was done our objections were satisfied and we were happy to see the process move forward.

I have no idea where the language about "safety of the crew and passengers" came from, but it was nothing to do with us.

I'm not sure what he meant either. I'd call it an imbroglio (or perhaps just a "to do") rather than fiasco, not to imply that it was necessarily your (Ropcketplane's) fault. I wasn't following it that closely, but my sense was that the objection wasn't to the change that you wanted so much as an objection to any change, because at the time they were trying to get the bill passed smoothly, and didn't want to have to go back to conference.

Anyway, it would seem to be moot for this year, unless they get a chance to straighten it out in November.

'fiasco' was my word, not Jim's. By fiasco I meant the external view that we, as an industry, didn't seem to have our act together well enough to have figured out a cohesive and consistent legislative message. Rocketforge is not a "No Spin Zone". ;-)

Let's make sure that in the future that we all figure out what we want to say legislatively first (if possible!) before we do it so things like that don't happen again. I know that might be a hard request in a world of competing interests but we should at least try.

> the only thing we wanted was a definition of "suborbital vehicle"
> that didn't exclude our architecture.

Mitch, I hate to bother you with facts, but 1) the definition you're complaining about was writtby the FAA, not by your competitors, and 2) Rocketplane Limited initially *liked* that definition and said so publicly.

At ISDC 2003, George French said Rockeplane wanted to license Pathfinder as an airplane and promoted that as an advantage to investors.

Not only did you want AVR type certification for Pathfinder, you argued that it should be required for your competitors as well. Your posts in sci.space.policy last September, signed as as "CEO Pioneer Rocketplane," will confirm that.

In your own words, "All [piloted] vehicles should be certificated by AVR, in a category appropriate to their design."

Last spring, Rocketplane Limited suddenly changed its mind and wanted Pathfinder to be a "suborbital rocket," even though it didn't meet the FAA definition.

At that point, you immediately went to your Senator and got him to hold up the bill, which was on the verge of passage at that point, unless your changes were adopted. (Yes, changes -- there was more than one change and more than "three words.")

Rocketplane did this even though though AST had assured you the creation of the "suborbital rocket" category would not prevent Pathfinder from receiving a reusable launch vehicle license even though it wasn't in the "suborbital rocket" category.

In short, Rocketplane has been on both sides of the AST/AVR fence and in each case, you attempted to turn the legislative process against your competitors. In much the same way, you used the legislative process in Oklahoma to get prefential tax treatment over your competitors, and you supported a similar bill at the Federal level.

This is becoming a pattern.