Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

The Billionaire Space Race Is Making Life Difficult for Airlines (bloomberg.com)

Posted by msmash on from the how-about-that dept.

On Feb. 6, Elon Musk's SpaceX launched its largest rocket into the blue Florida sky. Onboard was "Starman," a dummy strapped into the billionaire's cherry red Tesla roadster. Minutes later, fans cheered as Musk topped himself by nailing a simultaneous landing of the Falcon Heavy's boosters. It was arguably a turning point for the commercial space age. Airlines were somewhat less thrilled. From a report: On that day, 563 flights were delayed and 62 extra miles added to flights in the southeast region of the U.S., according to Federal Aviation Administration data released Tuesday by the Air Line Pilots Association, or ALPA.

America's airspace is a finite resource, and the growth of commercial launches has U.S. airlines worried. Whenever Musk or one of his rivals sends up a spacecraft, the carriers which operate closer to the ground must avoid large swaths of territory and incur sizable expenses. Most of the commercial activity to date has been focused on Cape Canaveral, the Air Force post on Florida's Atlantic coast, where Musk's Space Exploration Technologies and Jeff Bezos's Blue Origin base their stellar operations. It is one of 22 active U.S. launch sites, and a number of other locales -- including Brownsville, Texas; Watkins, Colorado; and Camden County, Georgia -- are pursuing new spaceport ventures to capitalize on commercial space activity.

103 of 152 comments (clear)

  1. Technology advances and the world changes by 93+Escort+Wagon · · Score: 5, Insightful

    The airlines need to adjust and adapt, just like everyone else.

    --
    #DeleteChrome
    1. Re:Technology advances and the world changes by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      Exactly. As we see more and more rocket launches the no-fly zones around them will gradually shrink. Somehow I doubt that over five hundred planes just happened to be flying within a few miles of the rocket's path in the few minutes it took to reach space.

    2. Re:Technology advances and the world changes by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      Why should the airline have to lose money so that SpaceX can make money?

      This is where some government capitalism should set the right incentives.

      There should be a tax put on airspace. It could be based on volume, area, and time.

    3. Re:Technology advances and the world changes by Austerity+Empowers · · Score: 4, Insightful

      I think the airlines probably deserve to have more notice about these launches, so that they can plan appropriately and avoid delays.

      Adding 62 miles to their flightpath is definitely something they need to suck up, the world cannot be held hostage for this.

    4. Re:Technology advances and the world changes by Roger+W+Moore · · Score: 4, Interesting

      The airlines need to adjust and adapt, just like everyone else.

      Actually, I think the point they are making is that those controlling the airspace need to adjust and adapt. Rockets do not take long to pass through controlled airspace and they pass through it vertically so they should not need a huge area around them to be closed for extended periods of time. It's fine to take insanely large safety margins when you have very few launches but clearly now they need to actually evaluate the risks better and come up with a more efficient way to operate safely.

    5. Re:Technology advances and the world changes by Solandri · · Score: 2

      Why is it the airlines who need to adapt? Why do rockets get priority over airliners so the airliners have to reroute around rocket launches? Why aren't rocket launches being scheduled for the middle of the night when there is less air traffic?

      Rocket launches are given priority and the airspace closed because they're rare events. The one-time closure imposes only a small economic hardship onto other industries for the year overall. But if rocket launches become commonplace, then the logic behind giving them priority no longer holds. You'll need to treat them as equals, giving them equal priority to others wishing to use the same airspace.

      If some trucking company needs to haul an historic house down your street to move it to a new location, a one-time closure of your street to regular traffic is acceptable. But if the trucking company is doing these types of moves every few days, the city needs to come up with a better solution than shutting down the street every time.

    6. Re:Technology advances and the world changes by elrous0 · · Score: 1

      And since when has any billionaire given a flying fuck about how many of us filthy commoners get shit on by their self-indulgent hobbies?

      --
      SJW: Someone who has run out of real oppression, and has to fake it.
    7. Re:Technology advances and the world changes by elrous0 · · Score: 1

      He also can't do no unions.

      --
      SJW: Someone who has run out of real oppression, and has to fake it.
    8. Re:Technology advances and the world changes by elrous0 · · Score: 1

      Why do rockets get priority over airliners so the airliners have to reroute around rocket launches?

      Cause rich asshole, of course.

      --
      SJW: Someone who has run out of real oppression, and has to fake it.
    9. Re:Technology advances and the world changes by KiloByte · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Except... airlines are useful. Private expeditions to Mars are not.

      Your leisure or business flight does nothing to advance humanity. Space research, on the other hand...

      --
      The creatures outside looked from Alt-Right to Antifa; but already it was impossible to say which was which.
    10. Re:Technology advances and the world changes by Strider- · · Score: 4, Informative

      Many rocket launches have strict launch requirements. To efficiently reach the ISS, the launch window for the rocket is instantaneous. If it launches late, it's going to wind up in the wrong orbit, and take much longer to reach the ISS. It's a similar story for many other launches, such as those that are launching into sun synchronous orbits.

      --
      ...si hoc legere nimium eruditionis habes...
    11. Re:Technology advances and the world changes by nukenerd · · Score: 3, Informative

      Rockets do not take long to pass through controlled airspace and they pass through it vertically so they should not need a huge area around them to be closed for extended periods of time

      I suppose they are allowing for the possibility or likelihood of the rocket blowing up, Challenger style, and sending a spinning Tesla a long way in a random direction.

    12. Re:Technology advances and the world changes by fluffernutter · · Score: 1

      And apparently he has mod points today.

      --
      Laws are rules for the court, but merely a bottom bar to hit for life. Think beyond laws in your actions always.
    13. Re:Technology advances and the world changes by Guspaz · · Score: 2

      The airspace doesn't just get shut down while the rocket is physically passing through it. It gets shut down for the whole launch window, as well as some time leading up to the launch.

      That said, the controlled airspace isn't all that large, and most of it only applies to low altitudes, so it's not really a big deal anyhow. It's generally something like a circle with a radius of 30-40 nautical miles, from the ground up to 18,000 feet. The launch schedules are known far in advance, the actual restrictions are announced days in advance, and even in the stated case of a 62 mile diversion (which would only apply at low altitudes), that's only an extra 7 minutes added to the length of a flight.

    14. Re:Technology advances and the world changes by Guspaz · · Score: 1

      Orbital mechanics often (but not always) dictate launch windows down to the second. A 7 minute delay for impacted flights (which are only low-altitude flights to begin with) is hardly an economic hardship.

      There were probably not 563 commercial aviation flights impacted by the rather small restricted airspace (30-40 mile radius below 18k feet). That probably includes all general aviation... if not mostly general aviation, because I can't think of any commercial airliner, jet or turboprop, that has a cruise altitude of below 18k feet.

    15. Re:Technology advances and the world changes by Daemonik · · Score: 1, Insightful

      You're talking a couple hundred pounds of fuel per plane, they only have so much capacity as it is and they tend to only carry as much fuel as they need to get to their destination. I guess you expect the public to subsidize Musk's launches through higher plane ticket prices then?

      How about Musk and his fellow space cadets pay for the airlines extra expenses whenever they're doing a launch. Or limit how many "spaceports" we really need. How about both?

    16. Re:Technology advances and the world changes by Daemonik · · Score: 1, Insightful

      Your leisure or business flight does nothing to advance humanity. Space research, on the other hand...

      Yeah, physicists, doctors, mathematicians.. those science types never fly around to conferences to speak about their humanity progressing ideas or anything..

    17. Re:Technology advances and the world changes by CryptoBear · · Score: 1

      The slight delay and/or extra distance traveled doesn't cancel their conferences or magically remove IQ points from them. What's your point?

    18. Re:Technology advances and the world changes by thegarbz · · Score: 1

      and they pass through it vertically

      errrrr no they most definitely do not just pass through the atmosphere it vertically.

      I do agree there's probably an incredible fat in the safety margins which can be cut down. There usually is. But it's not like a rocket only affects column of a few hundred meters and that's that.

    19. Re:Technology advances and the world changes by Immerman · · Score: 5, Insightful

      By all means, let's charge SpaceX for the use of airspace.

      But, if we do that we should charge the airlines as well - after all, why should they get subsidized by being given a free ride? It's not their airspace after all.

      Go ahead and make the proposal - I bet you the airlines stop complaining so fast the silence creates a sonic boom.

      --
      --- Most topics have many sides worth arguing, allow me to take one opposite you.
    20. Re:Technology advances and the world changes by Immerman · · Score: 3, Informative

      Rockets certainly do get going horizontally, but usually not until they're beyond the bulk of the Earth's atmosphere - air is a problem for them. Meanwhile commercial airliners rarely climb above 10-12km.

      --
      --- Most topics have many sides worth arguing, allow me to take one opposite you.
    21. Re:Technology advances and the world changes by dcw3 · · Score: 1

      So, if your daily commute normally takes you by this one intersection, and suddenly the government comes along and tells you that you have to take a route that's now 45 minutes longer, I guess you should just adjust and adapt. And, oh yeah, you can't move closer. So, you can just suck up that extra commute expense because we're doing something for Elon, er, umm, the greater good.

      --
      Just another day in Paradise
    22. Re:Technology advances and the world changes by Immerman · · Score: 1

      Turn the question around - why should airlines get priority? They are after all businesses out to make a quick buck. They have no more claim to the airspace than rocket companies do, and yet have routinely been granted quite generous access, even when it causes problems for people on the ground.

      Give them equal access? Sure - let's talk about that in 20-50 years when the demands of rocket launches on airspace amount to more than a fraction of a percent of those made by airlines.

      Besides which, current rocket airspace demands are almost entirely regulatory - a rocket is perfectly capable of launching straight up until well above airline cruising altitude. So - how close are aircraft allowed to encroach on each other normally? Take that distance, draw a circle around the launch pad, and make that excluded airspace. Problem solved.

      --
      --- Most topics have many sides worth arguing, allow me to take one opposite you.
    23. Re:Technology advances and the world changes by Dragonslicer · · Score: 2

      You're talking a couple hundred pounds of fuel per plane, they only have so much capacity as it is and they tend to only carry as much fuel as they need to get to their destination.

      So if there's severe weather or some other problem that prevents a plane from landing immediately when it reaches its destination, they just let the plane crash? That doesn't sound like a very good plan.

    24. Re:Technology advances and the world changes by Wrath0fb0b · · Score: 4, Insightful

      How about Musk and his fellow space cadets pay for the airlines extra expenses whenever they're doing a launch. Or limit how many "spaceports" we really need. How about both?

      The "extra" expenses come from having to share a mutually-exclusive resource to which everyone has an equally valid moral claim.

      What you're essentially arguing is that because airlines used to be the only people using the airspace and got by with some particular expenses, then that gives them the right to demand the same level of service (or money to compensate) in perpetuity.

      What's more, this is true even when airlines compete with other airlines. When Southwest adds a flight from ORD to SFO, the other airlines incur some additional costs due to scheduling. This might mean sitting on the tarmac at O'Hare for a few more minutes or having to slow their approach to slot in on approach. By your logic, they owe United the money for this "extra" expense.

    25. Re:Technology advances and the world changes by SharpFang · · Score: 1

      FAA needs to adapt and adjust. The launch + landing take a couple minutes and not a chance to take longer. If the launch is delayed, it's delayed by days, not minutes or hours. This means the restrictions shouldn't affect more than a couple airplanes that would be in the immediate vicinity of the launchpad and downrange, for duration of the rocket flight; some of them could even just throttle down and add extra 15 minutes of delay without changing the route.

      Restrictions due to rocket launches have ridiculously, unreasonably huge safety margins in that respect; these could be reduced by like 90% without increasing risk *at all*.

      --
      45 5F E1 04 22 CA 29 C4 93 3F 95 05 2B 79 2A B2
    26. Re:Technology advances and the world changes by David_Hart · · Score: 2

      Why do rockets get priority over airliners so the airliners have to reroute around rocket launches?

      Cause rich asshole, of course.

      It's the same as boating rules. The more maneuverable vessel gives the right away to the less maneuverable vessel.

      Spacecraft during a launch have much tighter windows to make a specific orbit, have much tighter environmental requirements (i.e. a relatively calm day), have a limited amount of fuel (in comparison to an airplane), and, by their nature, cannot avoid other objects. All of these add up to good reasons why airlines have to give way and re-route.

      Also, space launches are seen as much more important and have much more invested in them then a 10 minute delay for a few passenger jets.

    27. Re:Technology advances and the world changes by Actually,+I+do+RTFA · · Score: 1

      You don't need to advance humanity... that's an insane goalpost shift by the responder. Well, space flight has to. But all airplanes have to do is make life better on earth. Businessmen who meet to create products are useful. Scientists are useful. Heck, even vacations are useful. Just looking at the fuel, you can get 14 tons of whatever to Mars, or 80,000 people to and from a vacation on another continent (trans-Atlantic flights).

      --
      Your ad here. Ask me how!
    28. Re:Technology advances and the world changes by Austerity+Empowers · · Score: 2

      The general public subsidizes taxi rides when it has to detour due to construction, they have to subsidize it when a subway or bus line is out for any reason, that's the way of the world. We already subsidize airlines when they fly around other forms of restricted airspace, including (as is the subject of numerous court cases) because darth cheeto happens to be golfing that day.

      But, strictly speaking, if airlines are given adequate notice about launch blackouts and they plan properly, it really is their problem to not waste fuel. I'm not interested in saddling one industry to another. If, however these blackouts are scheduled too frequently or are blocking access to pre-existing resources too often, then there needs to be restrictions on how often they can happen.

    29. Re:Technology advances and the world changes by zmooc · · Score: 2

      equally valid moral claim

      I consider claims of the kind of "I need to go through it because I want to get on the other side" kind of more valid than "I want to go through it because it is faster and more comfortable". You can get from A to B on earth's surface just fine without using airspace at all. Try to leave the earth's surface without using a little airspace and things get quite difficult.

      --
      0x or or snor perron?!
    30. Re:Technology advances and the world changes by lilgerry · · Score: 1

      I'm all for it if I get 62 additional frequent flyer miles in the deal.

      --
      I may not have gone where I intended to go, but I think I have ended up where I needed to be.
    31. Re:Technology advances and the world changes by Quarters · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Why should the airlines desire to make money supercede other business' access to the airspace? SpaceX isn't making money at the expense of the airlines. The airlines are losing a trivial amount of money because they haven't accounted for the airspace not being entirely theirs.

      And yes, $70/min * 8 minutes * 568 flights = $318,080.00 is trivial to airlines. The average passenger count on a domestic flight is 90 (https://www.quora.com/What-is-the-average-amount-of-passengers-on-a-plane) and the average per passenger profit for a domestic one-way flight is $17.75 with an average profit margin of 9% (http://time.com/money/5158363/airline-profit-per-passenger/). So the average per-one-way profit is 90*$17.75 = $1597.50. That multiplied by those 568 flights is a profit of $970,380.00. Well maybe ~30% of profit isn't paltry. But, those 568 flights only account for 2% of the 28,537 average daily US airline passenger flights (http://www.answers.com/Q/What_is_the_total_number_of_US_commercial_flights_daily). That $1,597.50 profit per flight multiplied by almost 30,000 daily flights equates to an industry daily profit of $45,587.857.50. Of that the $318,080.00 the airlines "lost" so the Falcon Heavy could launch comes out to a, yes, trivial 7/10ths of 1%.

      Cry me a river, "Why should the airlines have to lose money so that SpaceX can make money?".

    32. Re:Technology advances and the world changes by mschuyler · · Score: 1

      Right. They fly to climate change conferences to complain about excessive CO2 emissions.

      --
      How about a moderation of -1 pedantic.
    33. Re:Technology advances and the world changes by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      Haha a tax based on usage would cost the airlines MORE than it would the space companies
        Bring it on, I do think it's more fair that way

    34. Re:Technology advances and the world changes by whitesea · · Score: 2

      Why should the airline have to lose money so that SpaceX can make money?

      This is where some government capitalism should set the right incentives.

      There should be a tax put on airspace. It could be based on volume, area, and time.

      And then we'll pay this tax in addition to what we pay now. It's our limited space these folks are using and we'll be the ones to pay for it. How on earth is this fair?

    35. Re:Technology advances and the world changes by jabuzz · · Score: 1

      A seven minute delay to a flight is like being on time to begin with, so it really really matters not one jot.

    36. Re:Technology advances and the world changes by AmiMoJo · · Score: 1

      They can't dip into the emergency reserve just to detour around a rocket because then if there was an emergency they wouldn't have a full reserve to deal with it.

      --
      const int one = 65536; (Silvermoon, Texture.cs)
      SJW, n: "Someone I don't like, and by the way I'm a fuckwit" - AC
    37. Re:Technology advances and the world changes by AmiMoJo · · Score: 2

      The car was a dummy load on a rocket they half expected to explode. Normally such things are tested with blocks of concrete or other inert mass, because no-one will insure sending up anything valuable on an experimental flight.

      --
      const int one = 65536; (Silvermoon, Texture.cs)
      SJW, n: "Someone I don't like, and by the way I'm a fuckwit" - AC
    38. Re:Technology advances and the world changes by mjwx · · Score: 1

      By all means, let's charge SpaceX for the use of airspace.

      But, if we do that we should charge the airlines as well - after all, why should they get subsidized by being given a free ride? It's not their airspace after all.

      We already do charge them per mile in fuel taxation. 21.9 cents per gallon on Jet fuel, 19-something cpg on AvGas. The more you burn, the more you pay.

      Next daft idea.

      --
      Calling someone a "hater" only means you can not rationally rebut their argument.
    39. Re:Technology advances and the world changes by Roger+W+Moore · · Score: 1

      errrrr no they most definitely do not just pass through the atmosphere it vertically.

      Actually, they do because the most important thing initially is to get out of the atmosphere. They only start to gain a large horizontal component once they are high enough that air resistance is much less at which point they will be well above the level of any aircraft which rely on air for lift.

  2. Come on.... by locrien · · Score: 1

    "Musk topped himself by nailing a simultaneous landing of the Falcon Heavy's boosters."

    I guess he was riding on top of them guiding them into place right? It was Musk's engineers not Musk.

    1. Re:Come on.... by jeremyp · · Score: 1

      In the UK if you say "Fred topped himself", you mean Fred committed suicide.

      --
      All I want is a secure system where it's easy to do anything I want. Is that too much to ask ~~ Randall Munroe
  3. Re:But satellites are showing planes faster routes by jfdavis668 · · Score: 2

    Yes, I like how this story directly follows a story giving the benefits of increased space launches.

  4. Rabble Rabble! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    God damn horseless carriages ruining everything...

    1. Re:Rabble Rabble! by elrous0 · · Score: 1, Insightful

      God damn horseless carriages ruining everything...

      Except I'm pretty sure none of us commoners are every going to get to ride on a SpaceX rocket. It's not like Musk is ever going to produce a Model T spaceship for the rest of us. He's just a rich prick indulging a hobby that will, at best, let NASA continue to pretend they aren't just wasting taxpayer money on a useless space station for a little longer.

      --
      SJW: Someone who has run out of real oppression, and has to fake it.
    2. Re:Rabble Rabble! by ahadsell · · Score: 2

      Horses have exhaust, too.

      https://www.historic-uk.com/Hi...

  5. SpaceX nonstop to Tokyo by Charcharodon · · Score: 4, Interesting
    I look forward to them crying when SpaceX starts trying to fly their rockets as commercial airliners and start stealing their lucrative overseas routes.

    Sorry horse buggy whip makers of the world your time is over.

    1. Re:SpaceX nonstop to Tokyo by DigiShaman · · Score: 1

      WTH is that crap? Horse and buggy my ass! Those "air buggies" will probably be redesigned and equipped with the SABRE (rocket engine) before you know it.

      --
      Life is not for the lazy.
    2. Re:SpaceX nonstop to Tokyo by Daemonik · · Score: 1

      Who mods this shit up? At best only a handful of people would pay millions to fly to Tokyo by space rocket. Why would the airlines care about that?

      Musk fanboys who think they'll be taken up to Musk's personal meritocracy based Martian society. 99.9999% are likely to be replaced by AI before that could ever happen though.

    3. Re:SpaceX nonstop to Tokyo by Mike+Van+Pelt · · Score: 2

      I look forward to them crying when SpaceX starts trying to fly their rockets as commercial airliners and start stealing their lucrative overseas routes.

        Sorry horse buggy whip makers of the world your time is over.

      Who mods this shit up? At best only a handful of people would pay millions to fly to Tokyo by space rocket. Why would the airlines care about that?

      Blue Origin, for their "Pretend to be an Astronaut" ballistic flights, charges ... what, $250K? Less than "millions".

      The current vehicles are totally unsuited for regular air travel, but I could certainly imagine a "ballistic" transport that would take you anywhere on Earth in less than 90 minutes*. Having recently spent 20 air hours, each way, flying to Bangalore and back, getting rid of over 18 hours of center-seat torment would be worth ... quite a bit. Not $250K of course, but about what the late Concorde used to cost? Then it starts to get really interesting.

      * (Of course, you still have two hours of getting through check-in security at the airport, and an hour getting through customs...)

    4. Re:SpaceX nonstop to Tokyo by thegarbz · · Score: 1

      Sorry horse buggy whip makers of the world your time is over.

      Huh? You think a rocket engine is going to be even remotely competitive with airline travel even if they cut the time taken down by a factor of 10? Musk may do a lot of things, but he won't displace the airline industry in the slightest.

    5. Re:SpaceX nonstop to Tokyo by Immerman · · Score: 1

      Not necessarily - I seem to recall several people running numbers for the BFR, and coming out with passenger-mile carbon emissions as low as 1/3rd that of commercial airliners for a flight halfway around the world - that total lack of friction can make a big difference on long flights.

      --
      --- Most topics have many sides worth arguing, allow me to take one opposite you.
    6. Re:SpaceX nonstop to Tokyo by Immerman · · Score: 1

      >Rockets currently only fly in perfect weather
      Fixed that for you.

      Rockets launch in perfect weather because they're very expensive, relatively untested under rough conditions, and have very few demands for promptness. A launch window to a particular orbital interception can be very narrow, minutes or even seconds, but it generally doesn't matter if the launch happens today or next Tuesday, so why take the added risk of launching in bad weather - it's a risk with no reward, and thus a guaranteed amortized loss.

      Suborbital flights on the other hand have no such launch window, and considerable pressure to be reasonably on-time. If the weather is bad, you wait until it gets better, and then launch. And you've got economic pressure to push those boundaries and run some risks - a rocket would *probably* be fine flying though rough weather, it will only be a couple minutes before it climbs above it anyway, and you've got unhappy customers and wasted money-making potential pushing you to make the attempt.

      Presumably you'd test such rough-weather limits carrying sandbags instead of passengers, but not until there's an actual incentive to do so.

      --
      --- Most topics have many sides worth arguing, allow me to take one opposite you.
    7. Re:SpaceX nonstop to Tokyo by Immerman · · Score: 2

      People get killed all the time, life is a 100% fatal condition. I bet you drive, or at least ride in cars, and that's far more dangerous than, say, taking an airplane ride in rough conditions.

      Besides, killing people is generally quite expensive, especially the sort of people that can afford first-class ticket prices. Not to mention SpaceX is projecting that the ship itself will cost $200M, with another $230M for the booster - which the SpaceX animations all show being used for suborbital flights. So there's also significant economic incentive to not kill anyone.

      And so far as I know, there's not actually any reason a rocket should have any more trouble in rough weather than an airplane - in fact it would probably face considerably fewer difficulties since it doesn't have all those wings and other large aerodynamic surfaces to be stressed by turbulence, and won't care about downdrafts and other problems that can destroy aircraft. The one issue that could be a problem is lightning - since unlike an aircraft there's almost no chance of a controlled glide back to the ground in case of system failure. However, unlike an aircraft a rocket will ride directly up through the storm on a huge plume of plasma in only a minute or two - with the plasma presenting a much larger and more conductive neutrally charged target for lightning to strike. Especially since the ship is going to be carbon-fiber composites instead of metal like most aircraft.

      --
      --- Most topics have many sides worth arguing, allow me to take one opposite you.
    8. Re:SpaceX nonstop to Tokyo by Kjella · · Score: 1

      The current vehicles are totally unsuited for regular air travel, but I could certainly imagine a "ballistic" transport that would take you anywhere on Earth in less than 90 minutes*.

      * (Of course, you still have two hours of getting through check-in security at the airport, and an hour getting through customs...)

      Also rockets inevitably make sonic booms where they take off and land as they need to clear the atmosphere, they can't fly subsonic until they clear populated areas like the Concorde did. For the F9/FH the boom is 5.3/7.4 miles in radius @ 100 dBA which probably means restrictions on housing for >10 miles around a rocket base, probably 25 miles or more from the city center. So you can add travel time for that back and forth too. The bigger practical issue though is where you'd find that big a deserted area anywhere near any major metropolis. So maybe you could get a ride from Vandenberg to Cape Canaveral, but I don't see you taking a rocket out of New York or San Francisco.

      --
      Live today, because you never know what tomorrow brings
    9. Re:SpaceX nonstop to Tokyo by Immerman · · Score: 1

      Do they really though? How much have the deaths really cost them?

      --
      --- Most topics have many sides worth arguing, allow me to take one opposite you.
    10. Re:SpaceX nonstop to Tokyo by Charcharodon · · Score: 1
      "Huh? You think a rocket engine is going to be even remotely competitive with airline travel even if they cut the time taken down by a factor of 10?

      Yes. You are forgetting, as everyone else that keeps going on and on about the price of what a ticket would cost, a ballistic flight would not be orbital. No reason to go up 500-700 miles and hit 17,000mph. It would be more on par with an ICBM which is less than 250 miles up and half that speed. With reusability and the much cheaper to burn methane fuel the tickets should be more on par with luxury 1st class accommodations rather than NASA's $10,000 per pound to orbit prices.

    11. Re:SpaceX nonstop to Tokyo by thegarbz · · Score: 1

      No I'm not forgetting a thing. I am just acutely aware of the cost of burning rocket fuel to propel something. Whether you're shooting into space or launching horizontally what you've achieved is orders of magnitude less efficient than a jet engine, which also wouldn't be cost effective compared to turbofans.

      the tickets should be more on par with luxury 1st class accommodations

      So even assuming you're correct, what you're saying is that the tickets should be on par with a class of flight that airlines fail to fill and in many cases are actively eliminating from their services due to cost reasons? Like I said, the airline industry has nothing at all to worry about.

  6. Being taken care of by Catbeller · · Score: 5, Interesting

    Eric Ralph at Teslarati has an article up right now:
    "SpaceX urges Congress to expedite commercial spaceflight regulation reforms"
    https://www.teslarati.com/spac...
    "Related to the focus of this particular hearing, namely regulatory reform, Representative Rick Larsen (WA-2) appeared to speak for everyone when he mirrored the four panelists’ sense of urgency for beginning the process of reforming federal space launch regulations by asking for an informal meeting outside the doors of the chamber once the session concluded, stating that “it’s that urgent.” In order for companies like SpaceX (and eventually Blue Origin) to be able to sustainably and reliably reach cadences of one launch per week in the near future, the currently cumbersome and dated launch licensing apparatus will almost invariably require significant reforms."

    Blue Origin, SpaceX, the United Launch Alliance and the the Air Line Pilots Association (ALPA) are on it. Expect some rapid change, mostly in approval time for flights (right now: 200 days!) and a reduction in the huge time periods (90 minutes pre- and post- activity) of the no-fly restrictions around launches and landings.

  7. Re:And this is different than a NASA launch... how by Higaran · · Score: 2

    Yes, but NASA launches are just a few times a year, SPACE X and its competitors want weekly or even daily launches.

  8. Move it; Launches from FL are just "OK" anyway by magarity · · Score: 1

    Launches from the top of a Hawaiian island would be closer to the equator and higher up in the sky to start with.

    1. Re:Move it; Launches from FL are just "OK" anyway by guruevi · · Score: 1

      Yeah, and every few years, you don't even need propellant to start the rocket up, earth itself will give it a nice shove upwards.

      --
      Custom electronics and digital signage for your business: www.evcircuits.com
    2. Re:Move it; Launches from FL are just "OK" anyway by magarity · · Score: 1

      Yeah, and it's way cheaper to get the stuff you are launching into space and the rockets and fuel over to Hawaii first!

      If you meant to be sarcastic you are incorrect; fuel for an ocean ship to go to Hawaii and a truck to grind up a mountain road are a rounding error to the fuel needed to fly straight up 2 miles.

    3. Re:Move it; Launches from FL are just "OK" anyway by Strider- · · Score: 1

      2 miles of alttiude is rounding error. Spaceflight isn't about altitude, it's about velocity. Launching from a higher elevation doesn't gain you anything significant, it's rounding error compared to the diameter of the earth. It's much safer to launch from a coastline, where if something goes wrong, you're just dropping it in the ocean.

      --
      ...si hoc legere nimium eruditionis habes...
    4. Re:Move it; Launches from FL are just "OK" anyway by mnemotronic · · Score: 1

      Launches from the top of a Hawaiian island would be closer to the equator and higher up in the sky to start with.

      How about launching from the top of Kilimanjaro or Everest? Replicate the Cape Canaveral infrastructure on a couple different mountain tops to provide redundancy. Make a Tr*mp International Hotel part of the package and you've got a winner.

      --
      The Russians have won. They have made the world a cesspool of distrust, greed, fear and hate.
  9. Watkins Colorado? by rijrunner · · Score: 1

    That is right on the approach to Denver International...

    Think prior use applies there..

  10. The costs of living in modern society by DutchSter · · Score: 5, Interesting

    At least in this instance society derives some benefit from the scientific work. Increased costs due to the actions of others with no societal benefit already occur every day and we tolerate it, just like we'll tolerate road delays due to construction (which does actually have societal benefit).

    When somebody causes an accident on the freeway and thousands of cars creep along for an hour they might each burn an extra half gallon or gallon of fuel, not to mention trucks that only get eight miles to the gallon under the best circumstances. I read an article once that a good fender-bender in the middle of rush hour may cost society $5,000 or more in increased gasoline consumption alone. Then you start looking at opportunity costs and the figures quickly skyrocket.

    That's just the way the world works.

  11. Yes well BOOHOO by DarkOx · · Score: 3

    Airspace has been defined as a public good. Many of us can't fully enjoy the use of our property because of air space considerations and have to put up will all kinds of noise pollution from over flights. To frigging bad if the airlines suffer because someone else wants to enjoy the use of the public good.

    Frankly the World would be much much better off without the airline industry. The risk of invasive species and pathogens spreading would be greatly reduced. A significant amount of pollution would be cut.

    --
    Repeal the 17th Amendment TODAY! Also Please Read http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/right-to-read.html
    1. Re:Yes well BOOHOO by jwhyche · · Score: 2

      Frankly the World would be much much better off without the airline industry. The risk of invasive species and pathogens spreading would be greatly reduced. A significant amount of pollution would be cut.

      Total agreement. The Airline industry releases huge amounts of carbon into the upper atmosphere. Time to reorganize our thinking about them. In the United States we should get with the program and do high speed rail like the rest of the world.

      --
      I read at +2. If your post doesn't reach that level I will not see or respond to it.
    2. Re:Yes well BOOHOO by Daemonik · · Score: 1

      Frankly the World would be much much better off without the airline industry. The risk of invasive species and pathogens spreading would be greatly reduced. A significant amount of pollution would be cut.

      Bwuahahahahahah! Oh wait, you're serious? I didn't realize, it was hard to tell with you gargling Musk's genitials.

      One, more invasive species and pathogens move around via ships than ever on planes simply by the factor of cargo carried.

      Two, weekly or daily rocket launches like the billionaire-o-nauts want will be just fiiiiine for the atmosphere.. right? They'd have no environmental impacts whatsoever! LMFAO

      Three, actual science people who do life saving and progressing humanity work fly commercial planes every day.

    3. Re:Yes well BOOHOO by mnemotronic · · Score: 1

      Frankly the World would be much much better off without the airline industry ...snipsnip ...

      Total agreement. The Airline industry releases huge amounts ...snipsnip... In the United States we should get with the program and do high speed rail like the rest of the world.

      Still pollutes. The construction of the rail system, it's support infrastructure and the required "last mile" or "last hundred miles" shipping all contribute to carbonnara loading and globular climate change. IMHO wagon trains piloted by well trained monkeys driving teams of high-speed yaks is the way to go. I plan on signing an Executive Order making it so. ALL KNEEL BEFORE ZOD!


      Dam spell correction. I was trying to say "Yea. Like totally".

      --
      The Russians have won. They have made the world a cesspool of distrust, greed, fear and hate.
  12. I see by nospam007 · · Score: 1

    So lots of retirees were late for Bingo.

    1. Re:I see by mnemotronic · · Score: 1

      So lots of retirees were late for Bingo.

      +1

      --
      The Russians have won. They have made the world a cesspool of distrust, greed, fear and hate.
  13. Dumbest thing I've read all week. by fahrbot-bot · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Whenever Musk or one of his rivals sends up a spacecraft, the carriers which operate closer to the ground must avoid large swaths of territory and incur sizable expenses.

    They're not launching things willy-nilly for funzies - ding-dongs; they're doing it because they're providing a service for paying customers (commercial and governmental) and preparing for future services. It's not the "billionaire space race" it's commerce and the free market. If it wasn't SpaceX or Blue Origin, etc... it would be the Air Force or NASA directly. Air carriers would have to delay and/or re-direct their traffic regardless. Jesus, get some critical thinking skills.

    --
    It must have been something you assimilated. . . .
  14. You know it's bad because "billionaires" by BenJeremy · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Sigh... seriously, the headline is clearly written by somebody who either hates space travel, or somebody who just hates that billionaires are involved in it.

    Grow up.

    1. Re:You know it's bad because "billionaires" by Darkness+Of+Course · · Score: 1

      Well said.

      When I saw the link was to bloomberg I moved on. Either they're on an anti-Musk tirade or they don't remember shuttles launches.

    2. Re:You know it's bad because "billionaires" by cmseagle · · Score: 1

      Or someone who knew that with a provocative headline, he could attract clicks from both the readers thinking "Yeah! Screw the billionaires!" and the readers thinking "Who is this moron who thinks airlines have exclusive right to airspace?"

  15. Restricted Airspace by DatbeDank · · Score: 1

    You don't hear about airlines complaining about restrictions flying over military bases or other "top secret" places.

    Put a permanent flight path block over the area and be done with it. "Our fuel costs jump an extra hundred dollars because we had to fly around a flight restriction which incurred a 10 cent increase on a ticket price."

    Womp womp, get over yourselves.

    1. Re:Restricted Airspace by Strider- · · Score: 2

      The airspace closures vary in location and shape depending on the intended destination orbit. The closures are noticeably different between an ISS launch and a GTO launch, never mind other orbits.

      The bigger issue is the impact the launches have on maritime trade. The launches out of Florida have closure areas over some pretty significant shipping lanes.

      --
      ...si hoc legere nimium eruditionis habes...
    2. Re:Restricted Airspace by CrimsonAvenger · · Score: 2

      You don't hear about airlines complaining about restrictions flying over military bases or other "top secret" places.

      It must be conceded that military bases and other "top secret" places don't change from hour to hour.

      That said, it's an idiotic thing to complain about. Not like it's new or anything. We've been dealing with this sort of thing (rocket launches) since before most of us were born...

      --

      "I do not agree with what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it"
    3. Re:Restricted Airspace by desdinova+216 · · Score: 1

      I thought the Womp Womp was a vocalization of a "sad trombone" effect

    4. Re:Restricted Airspace by WindBourne · · Score: 1

      In addition, NOTAMs are trivial to deal with. They are available at the airport prior to take-off and even during most commercial flights.

      --
      I prefer the "u" in honour as it seems to be missing these days.
  16. Delays? by eagle52997 · · Score: 4, Insightful

    The Bloomberg article makes a point of stating how many flights were delayed and extra distance traveled on the day of the launch, but how many flights are delayed on other days? How much extra distance is added because of bad weather? Without these numbers to compare to, the launch day may have had fewer delays. We have no way of knowing from this article.

  17. Space launches for satellites to route planes by swb · · Score: 2

    We just had a story where airlines could save "big. big, money, huge money" using satellite comms to reroute planes. How the fuck are they supposed to get the satellites up there if they can't launch them on rockets?

    Once that sat net is up, airlines will just route around the rocket plume like a road closure.

    1. Re:Space launches for satellites to route planes by mentil · · Score: 1

      Airlines haven't discovered the hypotenuse yet, so they reroute via a series of right angles. Very expensive.

      --
      Corruption is convincing someone that the selfless ideal is the same as their selfish ideal.
  18. Pay as you go by stephenmac7 · · Score: 1

    ...for airspace.

    They should pay for the airspace they use. That is, the rocket companies as well as the airline companies. If you use a lot of air space and cause inconveniences for others in the space, you pay a lot. If you use a little, you pay less. People who buy airplane tickets shouldn't have to subsidize commercial space companies (nor the other way around, but that doesn't seem like an issue at the moment). No special favors for anyone -- not even Musk.

    --
    "No man's life, liberty, or property are safe while the legislature is in session." -- Judge Gideon J. Tucker
  19. Musk has Topped Himself !? by nukenerd · · Score: 1

    fans cheered as Musk topped himself

    Musk topped himself? End of his problems then.

    Oh, I see from Wikipedia that it has a different meaning in US slang from UK slang.

  20. Let's blame "billionaires" - like Bloomberg by mi · · Score: 2

    Whenever Musk or one of his rivals sends up a spacecraft

    Damn those evil soulless billionaires! If only it were NASA doing the launches, things would've been completely different...

    the carriers which operate closer to the ground must avoid large swaths of territory and incur sizable expenses

    Those are FAA requirements, from the same people, who only a few years ago claimed (and compelled the airlines to claim), your cellphone could bring down your airliner...

    --
    In Soviet Washington the swamp drains you.
    1. Re:Let's blame "billionaires" - like Bloomberg by cmseagle · · Score: 1

      The FCC bans use of cellphones on aircraft, not the FAA. The Wikipedia article on the topic links out to a few other good sources.

    2. Re:Let's blame "billionaires" - like Bloomberg by mjwx · · Score: 1

      The FCC bans use of cellphones on aircraft, not the FAA. The Wikipedia article on the topic links out to a few other good sources.

      This.

      The big problem was from pilots in the early days, headphones have to be incredibly clear, which makes them very sensitive to EM interference. Basically as soon as you were airborne phones would start screaming for a tower (which transmit down, not up) and this translated into that annoying electronic beep/buzz that you used to get with your TV when your 90's Nokia went off.

      Also they interfered with navigation system (pretty sure the announcements used to say "please switch of your mobile phone as it interferes with aircraft navigation systems" back in the day). Having to do course adjustments during the flight meant more time airborne. This may not matter to Freddy Facebookadict but I want to get to where I'm going reasonably on time.

      --
      Calling someone a "hater" only means you can not rationally rebut their argument.
    3. Re:Let's blame "billionaires" - like Bloomberg by mi · · Score: 1

      They both do — for different reasons. Now you know...

      --
      In Soviet Washington the swamp drains you.
    4. Re:Let's blame "billionaires" - like Bloomberg by cmseagle · · Score: 1

      Quote from the article you linked - "For years, cell calls were banned on commercial flights—not from the FAA, but from the FCC."

    5. Re:Let's blame "billionaires" - like Bloomberg by mi · · Score: 1

      And further down it says: "If this happens, the FAA is apparently going to let individual airlines make their own decisions as to whether or not to allow the cell calls."

      Just as I said, both FAA and FCC ban it. Just as I said, FAA is (or was a year ago) forcing individual airlines to claim, the phones "interfere" with the plane.

      More here and, quite officially, here...

      This was all so easy for you to find yourself, I strongly suspecting, you aren't arguing in good faith...

      --
      In Soviet Washington the swamp drains you.
    6. Re:Let's blame "billionaires" - like Bloomberg by cmseagle · · Score: 1

      The first source you linked does state that the FAA had a "long-standing ban" on cellphones, but it cites no source for that claim. I've never heard of Monroe Aerospace so I'm not inclined to take them at their word, especially when it contradicts a more reputable source - the other one that you linked to. Quote from that source -

      What I do want to emphasize is that the FAA is not changing its rules....If an air carrier elects to permit cell phone usage (or other PED) onboard during flight, they must determine that the use of that particular model phone won’t interfere with the navigation or communication systems onboard the specific type of aircraft on which the phone will be used.

      The Wikipedia article I linked calls out something similar and includes a source in its second sentence

      I'm not arguing with you in bad faith. I think we're getting caught up on a difference in opinions on whether "only allowed under certain conditions" constitutes a ban.

    7. Re:Let's blame "billionaires" - like Bloomberg by mi · · Score: 1

      What I do want to emphasize is that the FAA is not changing its rules....If an air carrier elects to permit cell phone usage (or other PED) onboard during flight, they must determine that the use of that particular model phone won’t interfere

      This means, FAA will continue to ban cellular phones — because, given the variety of devices, it is impossible to certify each model as non-interfering.

      Either way, FAA's ban exists, just as I said. And, according to the FAA official, it is not going away...

      whether "only allowed under certain conditions" constitutes a ban

      That depends on the conditions, does not it? The cited conditions — airline certifying each phone model — does constitute a ban. Or do you see the flight attendant checking "Oh, sorry, sir, you have iPhone 5c — you can't use it, only iPhone 5 has been certified"?

      --
      In Soviet Washington the swamp drains you.
    8. Re:Let's blame "billionaires" - like Bloomberg by cmseagle · · Score: 1

      Apple has sold 14 models of iPhone, ever. Southwest currently operates 3 varieties of 737. Is it so inconceivable that Apple and Southwest team up, as a marketing gimmick, to get those 42 combinations approved and then advertise that you can now use any iPhone on any Southwest flight to call your ride before you land? (actually, now that I've written it, I think it is inconceivable, but not for any reason to do with the FAA: who wants to deal with other passengers talking loudly on the phone in-flight?). The fact that such a (admittedly hypothetical) scenario exists says to me that there isn't an FAA ban on cellphones on airplanes.

      I agree that a regulation can become so onerous that it effectively becomes a ban, but I don't think we're quite at that point with cellphones on airplanes.

  21. 90% population reduction by raymorris · · Score: 1

    Japan 336 people per square kilometer
    United Kingdom 266
    Netherlands 411
    Germany 226
    United States 33

    Rail works okay when you live and work within 2km of the station. Compared to many countries, the US has 90% less people close to the station. What makes sense in one scenario doesn't make sense with the population density an order of magnitude lower.

  22. Re:But satellites are showing planes faster routes by Applehu+Akbar · · Score: 3, Interesting

    Airlines love to blame their efficiency problems on everyone else. Gee, I thought space programs were were supposed to be an insignificant part of the economy. I suppose they were, back in the days when we had to sit around waiting out NASA's endless delays (see adjacent article on the JWST project). So now that private enterprise is upgrading the game, we are to believe that their launches are suddenly an obstacle to the friendly skies of commercial aviation?

    Airframe manufacturers have a new generation of large, high efficiency aircraft on offer. So long as airlines would rather cram us into puddle-jumpers on major routes instead of buying the new planes, those crowded skies are their own fault.

  23. Sour grapes of the short sellers? by 140Mandak262Jamuna · · Score: 1
    Short sellers have borrowed and sold 39 million shares of TSLA, 30% of float. Or 23% of total stock. They have pledged 12.5 billion dollars of other securities as collateral to hold this position, and they are paying 2 million dollars a day to sustain the position, as fees/interest for the borrowed shares. They have already suffered 2 billion dollars mark to market losses in the recent surge to 370+.

    Elon has been taunting and teasing them, "Tsunami of hurt coming their way ..." "In three weeks their position is going to explode ..." "They are going to get a rude awakening ...". It is coming to a head, tomorrow is a short settlement date and next week Q2 numbers are going to be released. Meanwhile AWD models are announced, and price has been dropped, and people are configuring AWD, performance options, white interior etc etc.

    Goldman Sachs had been whispering it is going to miss the production numbers, now it is saying "even if it meets the production number it does not mean much".

    The shorts are painting the picture of wild eyed liberal tree huggers enamoured by con man who is making cars in a tent, burning cash, losing money in every car sold, and trying to make it up in volume. But 85% of the float is owned by institutions, that is 60% of the total, that is 100 million shares valued at 30 billion dollars. It does not compute these seasoned mutual funds and investment managers would risk their return "to save the world". Shorts are still have not started covering their position. So we will know end of next week, how it all ends.

    Either shorts are right, stock crashes to 100$, SpaceX buys Tesla and takes it private.

    Or they are wrong, and the stock hits 500$, and so many hedge funds go bankrupt we actually learn the names of the people behind the shorting.

    Anyway it sounds more like sour grapes story spun up by the shorts.

    --
    sed -e 's/Chuck Norris/Rajnikant/g' joke > fact
    1. Re:Sour grapes of the short sellers? by Required+Snark · · Score: 1
      Wall Street has a love/hate, or more accurately a love/jealously, relationship with successful high-tech entrepreneurs. They love the money and hate the successful individuals who make it. The hatred comes from the realization that despite the money and power, the tech types are smarter and make a bigger mark on society then any finance type ever will.

      The only Wall Street types who have name recognition are all from the late 19th and early 20th century, for example Rockefeller or Vanderbilt. Not one name comes to mind in the post WWII era from finance. Meanwhile names like Edison, Einstein, Watson, Crick, Feynman, and Higgs have name recognition. Revealing that the Wall Street Masters of The Universe are ultimately second raters makes them insanely angry. Wall Street is not rocket science and SpaceX is. That's why they want to see people like Musk fail.

      --
      Why is Snark Required?
  24. airlines do NOT own the air by WindBourne · · Score: 1

    And the fact is, that the amount of air space combined with length of time, is minimal. Seriously. Even if they end up doing a daily launch at Kennedy, and then close it off 24x7, the airspace really is minor.

    --
    I prefer the "u" in honour as it seems to be missing these days.
  25. Re:Whatever by micahraleigh · · Score: 1

    "You give someone the privilege of flying through a space..."

    Ha !! This reminds me of the jumped-up French explorers cruising down the Mississippi proclaiming that France now rules over all and everyone there can only stay if they are extended the privilege.

    You would think the federal government BUILT THE AIR they are sooo generously allowing air planes to fly through.

    Human beings are like bugs, and the abstractions and policies and blah blah blah they hold over each other are much, much lower than that. I'm surprised sometimes heaven doesn't just reach down and squish us all.

    Next we're going to hear about what a privilege it is to keep some of our own money that we earn. And about how the government was the one who really earned my paycheck, etc. etc.

  26. Re:Cry me a river by terrycarlino · · Score: 1

    The spoke and hub system is the biggest contributor to airline schedule inflexibility. If I had a dollar for every time I've had a flight from the southern U.S to the west coast delayed because O'Hara, to which I wasn't even going, has some kind of weather related flight delay I could take the sub-orbital transport when it gets here.

    Between the airlines and the TSA flying now sucks so much that unless I'm flying to the other coast or internationally I simply refuse to do it any more. I take mileage or a rental and go surface. Half the time when you include the airport TSA gropefest and the inevitable delays I get there with an hour or two when I would have anyway. And I can get a decent meal on the way, arrive stress free and not feel like I need a shower, just because I feel so unclean because I dealt with the airlines.