4

I read on https://arstechnica.com/science/2021/06/spacex-to-launch-second-rideshare-pressuring-small-launch-industry/ (mirror 1, mirror 2):

The countdown clock got to T-11 seconds on Tuesday afternoon before SpaceX called a hold to the launch of its Transporter-2 rideshare mission. The scrub was necessitated by a range issue caused by an airplane in the launch zone. The company will now turn around the vehicle for another launch attempt on Wednesday afternoon.

Do space transportation firms such as SpaceX receive a financial compensation in the event that a launch is cancelled because of an airplane entering the launch zone?

uhoh
  • 148,791
  • 53
  • 476
  • 1,473
Franck Dernoncourt
  • 1,164
  • 1
  • 11
  • 31
  • 1
    I swapped tags; a scrubbed launch during countdown doesn't count as a mission failure, and the scrub until the next launch window (tomorrow?) was for reasons of range safety. Different but related: What aircraft scrubbed SpaceX's Transporter-2 Mission first attempt? How “unreasonably gigantic” was the exclusion zone? – uhoh Jun 30 '21 at 04:32
  • 1
    you might also consider asking a second question like "What are likely to be the most expensive aspects of scrubbing a Falcon 9 mission and attempting again the next day?" I think the total amount is quite substantial, and asking for the aspects instead of an amount avoids the issues of getting accurate numbers or addressing cost to the various military, federal and state government and private organizations involved. – uhoh Jun 30 '21 at 04:52
  • 1
    @uhoh good idea, interesting question indeed, but you're welcome to do it, I don't want to take away your idea :) I did think of the size of the exclusion zone but not that one. – Franck Dernoncourt Jun 30 '21 at 04:57
  • 2
    I suspect that SpaceX could sue the owner / operator of the airplane. But other than that, I suspect it's just a cost of doing business, with the cost of a potential delayed launch being one of the many, many things that a launch provider must factor into the amount the provider charges for a launch. – David Hammen Jun 30 '21 at 06:42
  • @DavidHammen idiots in helicopters as "acts of god" or "unusual meteorologic activity"? :-) – uhoh Jun 30 '21 at 07:50
  • @David Hammen, for a company like SpaceX, I would rather think that they would seek to change the rules, so that such things do not happen again. Either make the fine more dissuasive, or reduce the perimeter of the exclusion zone. Sure, they would go to court if they can discover that the owner/operator of the plane has some connection with their competitors! – Ng Ph Jun 30 '21 at 09:39
  • 1
    @NgPh Since I can only tag one user in a comment, my next comment applies to you and to uhoh. – David Hammen Jun 30 '21 at 14:58
  • 1
    @uhoh (and also Ng Ph): The FAA is very proud of how safe they have made air travel in the US, including "idiots in helicopters". The rather conservative rules the FAA has developed to make air travel so very safe don't quite jibe with how new space companies want to operate. All it would take to make the FAA look very, very bad would be single spacecraft launch that takes out an airplane or helicopter with people onboard. So they're conservative in their rules. – David Hammen Jun 30 '21 at 15:00
  • 1
    @David Hammen, to be clear, with my previous comment, I was not siding with E. Musk. I reflected on the logic that seeking financial compensation via a litigation is not likely to be even contemplated by SpaceX (for this particular incident). It is also well-known that there is a continuing fight between SpaceX and FAA. Clearly, E. Musk is taking every opportunity to build his public image as a maverick, against "broken bureaucratic rules". – Ng Ph Jun 30 '21 at 21:57

0 Answers0