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.”
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?
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.
That could mean so many different things.
Occam’s razor: They don’t want a sattelite with an new compound with unknown effects to go down in someones backyard.
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.
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.