8

The Forbes article With A Successful Launch, OneWeb Just Joined SpaceX And Others In The Satellite Internet Race says:

This marks a turning point in a new generation of communications satellites, which backers say will provide high-speed internet connectivity to the billions of people who still lack access to it. OneWeb joins SpaceX as the second company in this new generation of internet satellite to actually put spacecraft into orbit.

If OneWeb asked SpaceX to launch their internet satellites which compete with SpaceX's planned internet satellites, it might be in SpaceX's interest to say "no" and force them to go with a more expensive carrier, and to avoid the optics.

Question: But since SpaceX operates in a highly regulated niche within the already highly regulated transportation industry, would they be able to simply say "no, your money's no good here" or are there regulations that would requite them to treat all potential customers in a similar way?

I'm not asking if they could find a way to torpedo the deal or shuffle the schedule to OneWeb's disadvantage, I'm asking if they can just say no.

I'm looking for fact based answers, and those can include facts of laws and factual anecdotes where this issue may have already come up.

ex post factoid: SpaceX launches 40 OneWeb satellites into orbit, aces rocket landing

uhoh
  • 148,791
  • 53
  • 476
  • 1,473
  • 3
    Not sure what exactly are you asking about. Why do you suspect that they wouldn't be able to say no? They're just a company like any other, they are free to choose who they don't do business with. Are you asking if they can afford the lost business or negative publicity? That's IMHO impossible to answer objectively without knowing the future financial situation of SpaceX. – TooTea Feb 28 '19 at 10:16
  • @TooTea I don't suspect either way. SpaceX is not "just a company like any other", it operates in a highly regulated niche within the already highly regulated transportation industry, and may be subject to some federal laws that Toys-Я-Us is not. – uhoh Feb 28 '19 at 10:58
  • 1
    Sure, but that just means they can't just decide to do business with anyone. I'd however be really surprised if they couldn't decide not to do business with someone (perhaps with the exception of various government institutions). – TooTea Feb 28 '19 at 11:03
  • @TooTea That sounds like a personal opinion and doesn't really help. if you have some factual knowledge on this matter, please venture to post an answer, thanks! – uhoh Feb 28 '19 at 11:06
  • 3
    It's the business world. A simple "no" to such a request is not the kind of things you say in a polite company. "Oh but of course! That will be $750mln per launch, please!" is the politically correct way of saying "no" in the business world. – SF. Feb 28 '19 at 14:23
  • @SF. "I'm not asking if they could find a way to torpedo the deal or shuffle the schedule to OneWeb's disadvantage..." – uhoh Feb 28 '19 at 14:24
  • @SF. I'm asking the question that's indicated by a question mark. – uhoh Feb 28 '19 at 14:33
  • 2
    @SF. We discuss com-sat stuff here all the time -- it's a stretch from exploration per se but it's never been flagged as off topic. – Russell Borogove Feb 28 '19 at 23:58
  • 2
    I'm trying to find a source, but I recall that before Ariane, USA specifically forbade europe from launching a competing telecommunication network with its rockets. Edit: found it https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Symphonie#Launch_and_lifespan – Antzi Mar 14 '19 at 03:56
  • @Antzi is called to the sidebar ;-) – uhoh Mar 14 '19 at 04:03
  • 1
    @TooTea, there are industries where you aren't allowed to arbitrarily say "no" to potential customers. For example, FedEx and UPS are considered common carriers and are required to carry any package presented to them unless there is a compelling reason not to. – Mark May 30 '19 at 02:10
  • @TooTea have you heard about anti trust laws ? – Antzi May 30 '19 at 06:33
  • 2
    if people are down voting because they are certain the answer is obvious, I wonder why they aren't certain enough to post that as an answer? – uhoh May 30 '19 at 10:18
  • 2
    I'd suspect that you might run afoul of antitrust laws. You are asking what is fundamentally a law question in a space forum though, so I don't think you will get useful answers here. Maybe law.stackexchange.com is a better place for this question? – Tristan May 30 '19 at 14:17
  • @Tristan (at)spacelawyer used to be pretty active and had answered some of my (and others') law-tagged questions here, but not these days. I did chat about this a few times in The Sidebar and had linked to this question there, and also asked What would be a good way to attract attention in Law SE to my law-tagged questions in Space SE? in law.meta.SE... – uhoh May 30 '19 at 14:35
  • but unfortunately I can't time-travel and post there instead now. – uhoh May 30 '19 at 14:35
  • Are there prohibitions I'm unaware of regarding reasking a question in a more apt venue? Why is time travel necessary to ask this question there? – Tristan May 30 '19 at 14:37
  • @Tristan just my self-imposed restraint against blatant cross-posting. I think it's prudent to wait until it is officially impossible to migrate before knowingly posting a same/similar question in a second SE site. Checking now, it seems that amount of time has indeed passed. Okay since this one is sufficiently "aged", I'll try to formulate a similar question and post something there. – uhoh May 30 '19 at 14:39
  • I've given the question one last bump, once the bump travels completely around the Earth once, and nothing further happens, I'll act. – uhoh May 30 '19 at 14:51
  • Would it be an antitrust issue? They could go to ULA, Orbital ATK, Rocket Lab (for smaller payloads). Arianespace has launched a lot of US commercial satellites. It's not like SpaceX has ever been the only launch option, or have been around for that long. – Greg May 30 '19 at 16:51
  • @Greg I don't know about antitrust issues, but since the Oneweb constellation has 650 satellites requiring say 60 launches with SpaceX being say 60 million cheaper per launch, "They could go somewhere else" means coughing up $3.6 billion more. So it's not quite the same as just visiting the shop next door. For deploying large constellations, nobody is likely to be able to offer the same class of service or economy of scale as SpaceX. – uhoh May 30 '19 at 22:01
  • ...and (according to the link) considering quadrupling that to 1,972 satellites. Competition includes Amazon's proposed 3,236 satellites, Samsung's proposed 4,600 satellites, and SpaceX's proposed Starlink with 12,000 satellites. Holy cow, that's a lot of satellites! SpaceX must have some kind of space truck that can rocket around and place each of a dozen satellites into different orbits. – Greg Jun 01 '19 at 17:42
  • @Tristan I've just asked in Law SE: US regulations on launch-to-orbit provider refusing to launch a competitor's payload? Do common carrier concepts apply? – uhoh Oct 28 '19 at 23:44
  • @Tristan after 23 days of no activity (no votes, 24 views) I've given the question a bump. – uhoh Nov 21 '19 at 01:05
  • 2
    @uhoh I think we're in this weird situation where there's effectively no decided case law regarding most space flight concerns, so I suspect nobody will be able to answer with authority until the first lawsuit rises to a level high enough to set precedent – Tristan Nov 21 '19 at 14:55

1 Answers1

7

There are no such regulations, so I can't think of any reason why SpaceX couldn't refuse to launch a competitor's satellites.

The relevant regulator here is the FAA, and specifically AST. AST regulates the launch and reentry of space objects from the United States. AST's authority to regulate these activities is set out in U.S. law. That authority is focused almost entirely on the safety of operations (as well as some related topics like liability). So the short answer to the question is that no U.S. regulator has the ability to impose rules that would prevent SpaceX from discriminating against competitors.

There are two possible arguments that could be used to force SpaceX to accept competitor launches, but neither is currently available. First, if SpaceX and other launch providers were to be considered "common carriers", then they would not be allowed to discriminate against customers. I'm not an expert in common carrier law, but my understanding is that generally in the United States, industries are specifically designated as common carriers by legislation, either explicitly or by implication. There have been various laws in the past century or two that did that for rail operators, airlines, and see of course most recently the battle about net neutrality as this concept applies to telecoms. There has been no such legislation with regard to space launch providers.

Second, if SpaceX had a monopoly on space launches, the Department of Justice and other federal agencies could take enforcement action against them to require certain steps to protect the public. That would require actual monopoly power (which SpaceX does not have - in fact there are lots of new launchers coming online) - as well as extensive litigation, which has not occurred.

SpaceLawyer
  • 1,428
  • 10
  • 21