Slashdot Mirror


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

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.

18 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 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.
    4. 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...
    5. 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.

    6. 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.
    7. 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.
    8. 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.

    9. 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?".

  2. 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.

  3. 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.

  4. 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.

  5. 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
  6. 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. . . .
  7. 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.

  8. 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.

  9. 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.