you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] 47 points 2 years ago (3 children)

A spokesperson from the FAA told TechCrunch in an emailed statement that the company’s request was not granted at this time “due to the overall safety, risk and impact analysis.”

That could mean so many different things.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 6 child comments
  • [+] 9 points 2 years ago* (last edited 2 years ago) (4 children)
  • [–] 11 points 2 years ago (1 child)

    And I wouldn’t doubt that that played a huge role in the decision, but I’m curious as to what, if anything, changed between when they created the mission profile /launched it, and now. Did they not get some basic permit to launch it that also included the entry plan, which was approved?

    That’s what I’m unsure of.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] 7 points 2 years ago

    I don't think the launch permits have anything to do with this company at all. They would've just purchased a ride on another company's rocket (likely Space X or ULA). They probably assumed they could figure out reentry when they got to that point in the mission. I can't say for sure, but they very well may even have multiple plans for getting the capsule back, and this was just the first one they tried.

  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 4 points 2 years ago (1 child)

    Could just explicitly mean impact analysis, like we’re not cool with what happens if the parachute burns up or fails to deploy.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments