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.

36 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 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.

    2. 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.

    3. 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.

    4. 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.
    5. 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...
    6. 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.

    7. 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.

    8. 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.
    9. 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.
    10. 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.

    11. 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.

    12. 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.

    13. 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.

    14. 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?!
    15. 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?".

    16. 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?

    17. 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
  2. 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.

  3. 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 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...)

    2. 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.
  4. 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.

  5. 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.

  6. 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.

  7. 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.
  8. 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. . . .
  9. 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.

  10. 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.

  11. 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.

  12. Re:Rabble Rabble! by ahadsell · · Score: 2

    Horses have exhaust, too.

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

  13. 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...
  14. 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.
  15. 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"
  16. 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.