An Introduction to the Spaceport Industry: Runways to Space [1 ed.] 0815348851, 9780815348856

Citation preview

An Introduction to the Spaceport Industry

This book provides a contemporary look at spaceports, not only from relevant technological drivers, policies, and legal perspectives, but also from impacts associated with airspace use and aviation stakeholders. Economic, business, financial, and environmental considerations; issues facing airports transitioning to air and space ports; and spaceport planning are discussed. Through case and event studies, research and analysis, along with information obtained through professional experience, this book provides an overview of the many benefits, unique challenges, and issues facing commercial spaceports and spaceport operators. Each chapter is a standalone key topic such that the reader can focus on the most compelling issues relevant for them or can view the book as an integrated whole for a full perspective. While examples and case studies come largely from the United States, the reader can draw conclusions that are independent of country and situation. Information on other nation-state policies and advancements, among other topics, is provided to give a global perspective, further expanding the relevancy and benefits of the book to both domestic and international audiences. An Introduction to the Spaceport Industry: Runways to Space fills a gap in the literature, providing professionals, government officials, researchers, professors, and students deep insights into the fast-growing commercial spaceport industry. Janet K. Tinoco, Ph.D., is a systems engineer and Professor of Management and Marketing at Embry-Riddle Aeronautical University, David B. O’Maley College of Business in Daytona Beach, FL, U.S. Chunyan Yu, Ph.D., is Professor of Air Transport Management at Embry-Riddle Aeronautical University, David B. O’Maley College of Business in Daytona Beach, FL, U.S. Diane Howard, Ph.D., is a non-resident scholar at University of Texas – Austin’s Strauss Center for International and Security Studies and Adjunct Professor in its School of Law. Ruth E. Stilwell, Ph.D., is currently serving as a non-resident scholar to the Space Policy Institute at George Washington University. She is also the Executive Director of Aerospace Policy Solutions LLC, and adjunct faculty at Norwich University, VT, U.S.

An Introduction to the Spaceport Industry Runways to Space Janet K. Tinoco, Chunyan Yu, Diane Howard, and Ruth E. Stilwell

First published 2020 by Routledge 2 Park Square, Milton Park, Abingdon, Oxon OX14 4RN and by Routledge 52 Vanderbilt Avenue, New York, NY 10017 Routledge is an imprint of the Taylor & Francis Group, an informa business © 2020 Janet K. Tinoco, Chunyan Yu, Diane Howard, and Ruth E. Stilwell The right of Janet K. Tinoco, Chunyan Yu, Diane Howard, and Ruth E. Stilwell to be identified as authors of this work has been asserted by them in accordance with sections 77 and 78 of the Copyright, Designs and Patents Act 1988. All rights reserved. No part of this book may be reprinted or reproduced or utilised in any form or by any electronic, mechanical, or other means, now known or hereafter invented, including photocopying and recording, or in any information storage or retrieval system, without permission in writing from the publishers. Trademark notice: Product or corporate names may be trademarks or registered trademarks, and are used only for identification and explanation without intent to infringe. British Library Cataloguing-in-Publication Data A catalogue record for this book is available from the British Library Library of Congress Cataloging-in-Publication Data Names: Tinoco, Janet K., author. | Yu, Chunyan, author. | Howard, Diane, author. | Stilwell, Ruth E., author. Title: An introduction to the spaceport industry : runways to space / Janet K. Tinoco, Chunyan Yu, Diane Howard and Ruth E. Stilwell. Description: Milton Park, Abingdon, Oxon ; New York, NY : Routledge, 2020. | Includes bibliographical references and index. Identifiers: LCCN 2020007914 (print) | LCCN 2020007915 (ebook) Subjects: LCSH: Space launch industry. | Launch complexes (Astronautics) Classification: LCC HD9711.5.A2 T56 2020 (print) | LCC HD9711.5.A2 (ebook) | DDC 387.8–dc23 LC record available at https://lccn.loc.gov/2020007914 LC ebook record available at https://lccn.loc.gov/2020007915 ISBN: 978-0-8153-4885-6 (hbk) ISBN: 978-0-8153-4887-0 (pbk) ISBN: 978-1-351-16584-6 (ebk) Typeset in Times New Roman by Swales & Willis, Exeter, Devon, UK

Contents

List of figures List of tables Acknowledgments List of acronyms

vii ix x xi

1

Spaceports: Definitions, History, and Policy

1

2

Commercial Space Activities and Civil Airspace

11

3

Launch Vehicles, Propulsion Systems, and Payloads: The Underpinnings of Spaceport Infrastructure

28

4

Spaceport Infrastructure and Operations

70

5

Spaceport Business and Financial Management

113

6

Impacts of Spaceports on the Economy, Aviation, Community, and Environment

164

7

Spaceport Licensing and Planning

183

8

Future of Commercial Spaceports

197

Index

207

Figures

1.1 2.1 3.1 3.2 3.3 3.4 3.5 3.6 3.7 3.8 3.9 3.10 3.11 3.12 3.13 3.14 3.15 3.16 3.17 3.18 3.19 3.20 3.21 3.22 3.23 3.24 4.1 4.2 4.3

Frequency of Use over Time “Spaceport” (1940–2008) Structure for Memoranda of Understanding for Airspace Access ISS First U.S. Air Force Javelin Sounding Rocket on Launcher Typical Sounding Rocket Trajectory with Expendable Rocket and Reusable Payload SpaceLiner Separation of Stages Space Shuttle Columbia Leaves the Launchpad SNC’s Dream Chaser in California for Testing Ariane 5, Carrying Galileo Satellites, during Transfer to Launch Zone, French Guiana ESA’s Aeolus Satellite on Vega Rocket, Kourou, French Guiana ISRO’s Polar Satellite Launch Vehicle (PSLV) Rocket Launch, Satish Dhawan Space Centre, India Japanese H-IIA Rocket on Launchpad 1, Tanegashima Space Center, Japan Soyuz VS01 on Launchpad French Guiana Orbital ATK Antares Launch at NASA Wallops Flight Facility ULA Atlas V, CCAFS Space Launch Complex 41 Delta ULA Launch SpaceX Falcon 9 Launch from SLC- 40 Common Propellants Used by the U.S. Common Propellants Used by Russia Common Propellants Used by China SpaceX Falcon Heavy Carried the Tesla Payload United Launch Alliance Delta II Rocket United Launch Alliance Delta IV Rocket Space Launch System with Secondary Payload Locations CubeSats Deployed as Single Units CubeSats Deployed on a Nanorack CCAFS Aerial View of Missile Row in 1964 General Flow of Key Spaceport Elements U.S. Space Shuttle

3 16 29 32 33 40 41 44 47 48 49 50 51 52 53 54 54 61 61 62 63 63 64 65 66 66 71 73 74

viii 4.4 4.5 4.6 4.7 4.8 4.9 4.10 4.11 4.12 4.13 4.14 4.15 4.16 4.17 4.18 4.19 5.1 5.2 5.3 5.4 5.5 5.6 5.7 5.8 5.9 5.10 5.11 5.12 5.13 5.14 6.1 6.2 6.3 6.4 6.5 6.6 6.7 6.8 8.1 8.2

Figures 2015 Map of Kennedy Space Center and Cape Canaveral Air Force Station Vehicle Assembly Building Vertical Lift Doors on the East Side of the VAB NASA SLS and Orion Mobile Launcher Inside VAB High Bay Refurbished Crawler-Transporter 2 (CT-2) Moves along the Crawlerway back to the VAB Launch Complex 39B Cryogenic LOX Tank Fill at Pad 39B Flame Trench at Launchpad Three out of Four Lightning Masts, KSC Launch Pad 39B Launch Control Center at KSC Mission Control Center Post-Shuttle Retrieved SRB, Arriving Back at Cape Canaveral, FL Orbiter Landing at KSC Shuttle Landing Facility Runway Main Components of an Air and Space Port NASA’s Super Guppy Cargo Transport Aircraft Atmospheric Laboratory for Applications and Science ATLAS-3 Payload in Orbiter Atlantis Cargo Bay California Commercial Spaceport at Vandenberg Mid-Atlantic Regional Spaceport (MARS) Cape Canaveral Spaceport Mojave Air and Space Port Oklahoma Air and Space Port Cecil Spaceport Midland International Air and Space Port Ellington Airport Pacific Spaceport Complex – Alaska Spaceport America Key Variables Impacting Spaceport Partnerships Sample of Partnership Agreements at KSC Sample of License Agreements at CCAFS Integrated Partnership Models for Multimodal Spaceports Trash Collection at Canaveral National Seashore Challenger Accident Columbia Events and Initial Debris Fallout Recovered Liquid Storage Tank Highly Concentrated Debris Field, Texas Debris Field Showing Location of Dallas and Extending into Louisiana Columbia Debris Collected at KSC Launchpad at Wallops Flight Facility Following Rocket Explosion The Spaceport of Tomorrow as Envisioned by NASA Main Components of an Air and Space Port

78 80 82 83 84 85 86 87 88 90 90 91 92 100 101 103 123 124 128 130 132 134 136 139 141 142 153 156 156 158 172 174 175 176 177 178 178 179 202 204

Tables

3.1 3.2 3.3 3.4 3.5 3.6 3.7 3.8 4.1 4.2 4.3 4.4 5.1 5.2 7.1 8.1

Suborbital Reusable Launch Systems Currently Under Development Comparison of FAA Reusable Spacecraft Concepts for HTO/HL SRV Configuration and U.S. Spaceport Site Operator License Holders Orbital Fully Reusable or Partially Reusable Launch Systems Under Development List of ELVs Worldwide Major Liquid Propellant Families Common Fuels, Oxidizers, and Propellants Type of Propellant Commonly Used by Country U.S. Space Shuttle NASA Organizational Responsibilities KSC Processing Facilities Overview Flight Schedule of U.S. Shuttle from 1982 to 1998 A Comparison of Air and Space Port Components and Terminology Operational Spaceports and Commercial Customers/Tenants as of 2018 Additional Selected Spaceports and Partnerships Key Elements of Launch Site License and Launch License by Country Commercial Spaceports Proposed or In Development as of 2018

34 38 39 42 44 55 55 60 76 79 95 98 115 157 187 200

Acknowledgments

No effort this monumental can be attained without the unending encouragement, support, and enthusiasm from our families, friends, and colleagues. We thank them all. We would also like to specifically acknowledge the following individuals for their efforts in the development of this book: Mr. Maximilian Meintgens, who as a Master of Business Administration (MBA) graduate research assistant in the O’Maley College of Business at Embry-Riddle Aeronautical University, saw a need for a comprehensive introductory reference book that could support the efforts of many professionals in industry and government, as well as introduce students and space enthusiasts around the world to the exciting spaceport industry. Ms. Gabriella Gagliardi and Ms. Kalee M. Kelly, undergraduate students in the college, who aided in our photograph research, data collection, and analysis. We would also like to acknowledge the following organizations for their support during this endeavor: Embry-Riddle Aeronautical University for the research grant awards that provided the opportunity for Janet Tinoco and Chunyan Yu to enter the intoxicating new field of research on commercial spaceports. Inderscience Publishers and Deutsches Zentrum fü Luft- und Raumfahrt (DLR) German Aerospace Center for granting permission to use previously published work and photographs, respectively. And also to the National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA) for aiding in photograph searches and allowing permission of use for material. Your willingness to help and to share information was invaluable. Finally, Routledge Taylor & Francis Group for believing that our book was valuable and being patient as we moved forward through the publication process.

Acronyms

AAC AADC AATF AC ACI AFB AIP ALP ALPA ALTRV ANSP AOPA APU AR ARFF ARTCC AST ATC ATLAS ATO BOOT BOT C3PF CALT CASC CASIC CFR CCAFS CCS CCSI CDS CCMS CGWIC

Alaska Aerospace Corporation Alaska Aerospace Development Corporation Airport and Airway Trust Fund Advisory Circular Airport Council International Air Force Base Airport Improvement Program Airport Layout Plan Air Line Pilots Association Altitude Reservation Air Navigation Service Provider Aircraft Owners and Pilots Association Auxiliary Power Unit Augmented Reality Aircraft Rescue and Firefighting Air Route Traffic Control Center Office of Commercial Space Transportation Air Traffic Control Atmospheric Laboratory for Applications and Science Air Traffic Organization Build-Own-Operate-Transfer Build-Operate-Transfer Commercial Crew and Cargo Processing Facility China Academy of Launch Vehicle Technology China Aerospace Science and Technology Corporation China Aerospace Science and Industry Corporation Code of Federal Regulations Cape Canaveral Air Force Station Cape Canaveral Spaceport California Commercial Spaceport, Incorporated Central Data Subsystem Checkout, Control and Monitor Subsystem China Great Wall Industry Corporation

xii Acronyms CLPS CNSA COPUOS CRS CT DB DBO DBOM DLR DOD DOP DOT EASA EC ELV EMI ESA EU FAA FARs FBO FCR FDOT FOM FSI FSS GA HAZMAT HIE HIF HL HMCF HTO HTOL HTPB HVAC IAI ICAO ICC ICF IDF IDIQ IEV IFR

Commercial Lunar Payload Services China National Space Administration Committee on the Peaceful Uses of Outer Space Commercial Resupply Services Crawler-Transporter Design-Build Design-Build-Operate Design-Build-Operate-Maintain German Aerospace Center (Deutsches Zentrum für Luft- und Raumfahrt) Department of Defense (sometimes DoD) Diver Operated Plug Department of Transportation European Aviation Safety Agency European Commission Expendable Launch Vehicle Electromagnetic Interference European Space Agency European Union Federal Aviation Administration Federal Air Regulations Fixed-Based Operator Flight Control Room Florida Department of Transportation Fund, Own or Operate, and Maintain FlightSafety International Fixed Service Structure General Aviation Hazardous Material Highlands and Island Enterprise Horizontal Integration Facility Horizontal Landing Hypergolic Maintenance and Checkout Facility Horizontal Takeoff Horizontal Takeoff and Landing Hydroxl-Terminated Polybutadiene Heating, Ventilation, andCooling Israel Aerospace Industries International Civil Aviation Organization Interstate Commerce Commission Integration and Control Facility Israel Defense Forces Indefinite Quantity Intermediate eXperimental Vehicle Instrument Flight Rules

Acronyms ILS IPO ISO ISRO ISS ITAR JAA JAWSAT JAXA JUA KLC KSC LADEE LaRC NASA LC LCC LEO LEP LH2 LLF LMCLS LNG LoA LOX LPS LSOL LV MAF MARS MCC MCLF MDC MDD MHI MLP MMH MOA MOL MOU MPH NACA NAP NAS NASA NASP

International Launch Services Initial Public Offering International Organization for Standardization Indian Space Research Organization International Space Station International Traffic in Arms Regulations Jacksonville Aviation Authority Joint Air Force Academy-Weber State University Satellite Japan Aerospace Exploration Agency Joint Use Agreement Kodiak Launch Complex Kennedy Space Center (NASA) Lunar Atmosphere and Dust Environment Explorer Langley Research Center Launch Complex Launch Control Center Low Earth Orbit Local Enterprise Partnership Liquid Hydrogen Launch and Landing Facility Lockheed Martin Commercial Launch Services Liquefied Natural Gas Letter of Agreement Liquid Oxygen Launch Processing System Launch Site Operator License Launch Vehicle Michoud Assembly Facility Mid-Atlantic Regional Spaceport Mission Control Center Medium Class Launch Facility Midland Development Corporation Mate/Demate Device Mitsubishi Heavy Industries Mobile Launcher Platform Monomethylhydrazine Military Operation Areas Manned Orbiting Laboratory Memoranda of Understanding Miles per Hour National Advisory Committee for Aeronautics National Airport Plan National Airspace System National Aeronautics and Space Administration National Airport System Plan

xiii

xiv Acronyms NMSA NOTAM NPIAS NRO NTSB O&C OMRF OPF ORV OSIDA PBAN PCC PMMA PPP PSCA PSLV PuP QRA R&D RFP RFNA RIMS RNP RPS RPSF RLV ROI Roscosmos RP RP-1 RSAT RSS SARP SAST SCAA SCLF SFA SIS SLC SLF SLS SLSL SLV SNC SRB

New Mexico Spaceport Authority Notice to Airmen National Plan of Integrated Airport Systems National Reconnaissance Office National Transportation Safety Board Operations and Checkout Orbiter Modification and Refurbishment Facility Orbiter Processing Facility Orbital Reusable Vehicle Oklahoma Space Industry Development Authority Polybutadiene Acrylonite Processing Control Center Polymethyl Methacrylate Public–Private Partnership Pacific Spaceport Complex Alaska Polar Satellite Launch Vehicle Public–Public Partnership Quantitative Risk Assessment Research and Development Request for Proposal Red Fuming Nitric Acid Regional Input-Output Modeling System Required Navigation Performance Record and Playback Subsystem Rotation Processing and Surge Facilities Reusable Launch Vehicle Return on Investment Russian Federal Space Agency Rocket Propellant Rocket-Grade Kerosene Range Safety Assessment Tool Rotating Service Structure Standards and Recommended Practice Shanghai Academy of Spaceflight Technology Swedish Civil Aviation Authority Small Class Launch Facility Spaceport Florida Authority Strategic Intermodal System Space Launch Complex Shuttle Landing Facility Space Launch System Space Life Sciences Lab Suborbital Launch Vehicle Sierra Nevada Corporation Solid Rocket Booster

Acronyms xv SRV SSC SSI SUA TAAM TERLS TFR U.A.E. UAS UAV UDMH U.K. ULA UN UN OOSA U.S. USC USAF U.S.S.R. VAB VCSFA VFR VL VR VTO VTOL WCSC WFF WFNA

Suborbital Reusable Vehicle Swedish Space Corporation Spaceport Systems International Special Use Airspace Total Airspace and Airport Modeler Thumba Equatorial Rocket Launching Station Temporary Flight Restriction United Arab Emirates Unmanned Aircraft Systems, Unmanned Aerial Systems, or Unmanned Aerospace Systems Unmanned Aerial Vehicle Unsymmetrical Dimethylhydrazine United Kingdom United Launch Alliance United Nations United Nations Office of Outer Space Affairs United States United States Code United States Air Force Union of Soviet Socialist Republics Vehicle Assembly Building Virginia Commercial Space Flight Authority Visual Flight Rules Vertical Landing Virtual Reality Vertical Takeoff Vertical Takeoff and Landing Western Commercial Space Center Wallops Flight Facility White Fuming Nitric Acid

1

Spaceports Definitions, History, and Policy

United States (U.S.) Senator Gore Sr. said, “Outer space is not a new subject, just a new place where old subjects come up” (cited by Hughwey 1963, p. 150). This is somewhat true of spaceports, the still-terrestrial element of space transportation. What precisely is a spaceport? Is it a futuristic construct, designed only to launch adventurous souls into the great unknown? Is it simply a property suitably distanced from dense populations potentially impacted if something goes awry with a launch? Could it be as simple as a parking lot under the stars? The answers come with futuristic vision with a course set with challenging goals, bounded by safety for all, while acknowledging and preparing for the inevitable failure as well as success. History plays a role, but as the reader advances throughout this book, it is clear that we learn from history yet improve and modify based on the unique environment of space and the ecosystem in which spaceports operate to be successful and sustainable. To start, this chapter delves into the definitional aspects of spaceports, as well as their history and relevant space legislation using past and present U.S. policies as the foundation of our in-depth discussion. As the reader will see, the connection to early aviation, the birth of airports, regulation thereof, and the commercialization of flight are highly relevant and the perfect place to start our book on runways to space.

1.1 Spaceport Definitions Definitions of spaceports are in flux, largely because requirements for launch are changing as spaceflight technology moves forward and flight profiles continue to change. A case in point is the ability to reenter and reuse parts of a launch vehicle, long considered a Holy Grail in rendering spaceflight more affordable and therefore more accessible. Another is the growing number of launches performed in the air. These technological developments underpin the recalibration of launch and launch site regulations currently underway in the U.S. as well as in countries such as the United Kingdom and Australia. Currently, U.S. regulations define a launch site as “the location on Earth from which a launch takes place … and necessary facilities at that location” (14 U.S.

2

Spaceports: Definitions, History, and Policy

Code of Federal Regulations 405.1). Launch sites and reentry sites are licensed separately in the United States, but, more often than not, are located in the same place. But the statutory definition falls a bit short. The Merriam-Webster Dictionary (2019) expands the definition a bit, including testing as well as launching at the spaceport. That said, spaceports involve a great deal more than a slab or runway and are home to activities far beyond testing and the actual launch. They represent a portion of the entire ecosystem of spaceflight itself. Launch sites and spaceports have been around for some time, first emerging in the U.S. in the 1940s when the federal government began building and operating launch ranges (U.S. Federal Aviation Administration 2011). In fact, the first time the term “spaceport” shows up in literature is in 1930 in a science fiction tale called The Birth of a New Republic by M. Breurer with J. Williamson (spaceport, technovelgy.com). The past few years have shown significant activity in the modification of existing facilities and the siting and build-outs of new ones all over the world. The topography of spaceports is undergoing an enormous shift, moving from strictly federal facilities used by the Department of Defense (DOD) and the National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA), to public private partnerships (e.g., Adams and Petrov 2006), bistate partnerships (cf., Virginia Commercial Space Flight Authority 2012), and even thoroughly private endeavors (e.g., David 2006; Foust 2010; Sprague 2010). Dr. Kurt Debus first began setting up Cape Canaveral Air Force Station (CCAFS) as a federal launch site in the early 1950s (Heiney 2002). However, the Air Force station and adjacent NASA Kennedy Space Center (KSC) are very good examples of the everevolving shifts in use and operations at a spaceport. The Kennedy Space Center Master Plan (U.S. NASA 2017) allows the site to continue to adapt to the changing demographics and requirements of launch providers, including purely commercial, private sector operators. For all these changes, and the raised awareness and visibility of spaceports among the mass citizenry, spaceports still show up in literary statistics at a relatively low rate – in the bottom 20% of words searched online as of this writing (statistics for spaceport – Google Books Ngram Viewer 2019; MerriamWebster Dictionary 2019). Further, Figure 1.1 shows the pattern of growth in frequency of use of the terms, spaceport and space port. The vertical axis represents the percentage of hits of these terms out of the total scanned words. The reader is cautioned that this analysis, using Google Books Ngram Viewer which searches for these terms in a large body of books, does not include all literary works and uses data limited by date to 2008. Regardless, the frequency of the occurrence of the terms is quite low. Since 1996, the United States Office of Commercial Space Transportation (AST) has granted site licenses to 12 nonfederal launch sites serving both commercial and government launch operators: Mojave Air and Space Port; Spaceport America; Cape Canaveral Spaceport (at CCAFS and KSC); Pacific Spaceport Complex – Alaska; Mid-Atlantic Regional Spaceport (MARS) at Wallops Flight Facility/MARS; California Spaceport at Vandenberg Air Force

1945

1950

1955

1960

1965

1970

Figure 1.1 Frequency of Use over Time “Spaceport” (1940–2008). Source: Google Books Ngram Viewer [Accessed: 8/15/19]

0.0000000% 1940

0.0000020%

0.0000040%

0.0000060%

0.0000080%

0.0000100%

0.0000120%

0.0000140%

0.0000160%

0.0000180%

1975

1980

1985

1990

1995

2000

2005

Space port (All)

Spaceport (All)

4

Spaceports: Definitions, History, and Policy

Base (AFB); Oklahoma Spaceport at Burns Flat; Houston Spaceport at Ellington; Midland International Air and Space Port; and Cecil Spaceport (Active Launch Site Operator Licenses, U.S. FAA 2019). Midland International Air and Space Port in Midland, Texas is the first Part 139 airport serving commercial aviation carriers that has been licensed as a spaceport. Three licensed spaceports are co-located with federal facilities: California Spaceport, Cape Canaveral Spaceport and MARS. Internationally, federal and multinational spaceports are located in Australia (Woomera Test Range), Brazil, China, French Guyana, India, Iran, Israel, Japan, Kazakhstan, North Korea, the Pacific Ocean (Sea Launch), Russia, South Korea, Sweden, and, of course, those in the U.S. (e.g., Space Foundation 2017). Proposals for spaceports, offering at least some level of launch capability, are currently in the works in Abu Dhabi, Canada, Italy, and the United Kingdom (U.K.), among others (e.g., Space Foundation 2017). The list is growing. But, in actuality, at this point in time, almost any entity with an airport could market their facilities as a spaceport. This becomes increasingly clear throughout the book, but particularly in Chapter 5 where we discuss common business models of commercial spaceport.

1.2 History and Policy: Airports and Spaceports Interestingly, jurisdictions discussing spaceport licensing and regulation around the globe, do not even house spaceports at present. Further, most jurisdictions do not directly regulate spaceports; much less, do they clearly set forth policy goals such as those in the U.S. Looking at some overarching goals for transportation law, intermodality, and early U.S. laws pertaining to airports provides some insight into some of the high-level objectives found in U.S. policy. The history of early U.S. airport construction and financing can serve as a cautionary tale for spaceports now in use and in development. Airports, like spaceports, are on the ground but house the operations necessary to prepare for flight and landing, as well as navigation. One early author noted, “Public airports form a part of the navigation facilities along public airways” (Blaine 1954, p. 270). In similar fashion, spaceports are the terrestrial element of the launch and, sometimes, reentry, and it is contemplated that they will also participate in the navigation of vehicles. Speculators and investors, looking to capitalize on the sensationalism resulting from Lindbergh’s early aviation accomplishments, developed early U.S. airports (Blaine 1954). They were built in a one-off fashion, piecemeal, apparently without consideration of anything beyond adventure and certainly without benefit of a cohesive master plan. Early legislation carved airports out of the U.S. federal regulatory scheme. Control was given to local bodies with exceptions made for airways under the jurisdiction of the U.S. Postmaster General, emergency landing fields, and navigation facilities. Airports themselves were expressly excluded.

Spaceports

5

Despite this, during the mid-1930s, federal funds were often used to build and improve airports as part of the government initiative to manage mass-scale unemployment.1 These airport projects were constructed without consideration of the current or future needs of the air transport industry. Often, they were built to accommodate only one type of aircraft, quickly rendering them obsolete.2 Eventually, the U.S. Civil Aeronautics Act of 1938, 52 Stat. 973, Section 302(a) Proviso (United States Congress 1938) broadened the reach of the federal legislation to include “air navigation facilities at and upon any municipally owned or other landing area approved for such installation, operation, or maintenance by the Administrator”. This Act also directed the Administrator to survey the existing system of airports and to make recommendations to Congress dealing with the construction, improvement, development, operation, and maintenance of a national system of airports. Ultimately, the resulting report found that development of an adequate system was worthy of federal funding, and preference should be given to projects essential to the maintenance of safe and efficient air transportation if they met a number of specified requirements. These findings helped articulate the early regulatory policies applied to airports in the U.S. The report recommended the National Airport Plan (NAP) (Blaine 1954), which took a backseat during World War II. After the war, this plan returned to the Administrator’s focus. The Federal Airport Act of 1946 first established the requirement that a five-year NAP be formulated and that it be revised annually. This mandate is ongoing although it has evolved. The NAP and its funding were first replaced by the Airport and Airway Development Act of 1970 which established requirements for a coordinated National Airport System Plan (NASP) and an aid program. Subsequent legislation has amended this federal requirement for an ongoing systemic plan, now called the National Plan of Integrated Airport Systems (NPIAS). These requirements are found in Title 49 of the United States Code Chapter 471. There we find the policies that drive the legislation governing airports in the U.S. The highest priority is given to safe operation. Responsive development, taking into consideration the needs of the surrounding communities, is emphasized. 49 United States Code (USC) 47,101 (a)(5) states that it is the policy of the U.S. “to encourage the development of intermodal connections on airport property between aeronautical and other transportation modes and systems to serve air transportation passengers and cargo efficiently and effectively and promote economic development”. This statement represents treatment of the airport as a part of a larger system, not just of airports, but integrated with other modalities, a position hinted at in the system of capabilities discussed in the U.S. National Space Transportation Policy. The regulatory goal of integration is further expanded in section (b) of the same statute, which states that the development of a national intermodal system that coordinates with other complementary modes of transportation is an express goal, allowing the U.S. to compete in the global marketplace. Intermodality is implicit in the U.S. National Space Transportation Policy use of the term “regions of

6

Spaceports: Definitions, History, and Policy

space” when discussing access to space (See 49 USC 47101 (2)). Additionally, U.S. leadership in the world economy is considered at stake if this goal is not met and a complete overhaul of the existing airport infrastructure is contemplated as a potential necessity. “Intermodality and flexibility are paramount issues in the process of developing an integrated system that will obtain the optimum yield of United States resources” (See 49 USC 47101(b)(6)). In keeping with this prioritization, integration of the National Airspace System (NAS) into imminent space transportation coordination and management is an issue now in implementation at the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) (Murray 2014). The reshaping of U.S. infrastructure in the 2013 U.S. National Space Transportation Policy is presented in mandatory terms to allow the country to compete in the global economy, referring to airports, not spaceports, but they contemplate several issues that are pertinent. The first issue is that transportation is intermodal and the second is that in order to engage with the global economy, airport systems must be reshaped in order to be integrated. Recently, the United States Congress (2018) recognized the importance of spaceports in the grand transportation scheme and established a policy office within the FAA, the Office of Spaceports, to bring spaceport policy forward. The functions of the office include supporting the licensing activities for operations at launch/reentry sites, developing policies promoting infrastructure improvements, providing technical assistance and guidance to spaceports, promoting U.S. spaceports within the larger Department of Transportation, and strengthening competitiveness and resilience of the commercial space transportation infrastructure (U.S. FAA Reauthorization Act of 2018). In the National Space Transportation Policy of the United States of America (2013), space launch ranges are given a subsection. The discussion focuses upon interagency coordination and cooperation with the private sector, rather than coordination among different modes of transportation. Spaceport infrastructure is acknowledged as a component of the space transportation system but not a focus of the policy. In the airport statutes, the United States Code states that the Secretary of Transportation shall consider the needs of each segment of civil aviation and the relationship of the airport system to forecasted technological developments in aeronautics (49 USC 47101 (a)(2)). While aeronautics is used to describe activities in the air, the nature of the technologies involved in suborbital and orbital activities and some aviation activities are leading many to use the term aerospace more often than aeronautics. The statute says what it says, limiting its reach to air, however, it does appear to contemplate the practical reality that technological developments can be the driver for change to the plan for integrated airport systems. It is possible to envisage orbital and suborbital activities as different modalities of space transportation, and space transportation and aviation as different modalities of transportation in the big picture. Intermodality, or coordination between transportation modes, came under discussion prior to the time frame in which the Civil Aeronautics Act of 1938 was

Spaceports

7

enacted, when motor and water transport were significantly impacting rail transport. Ultimately, the Interstate Commerce Commission (ICC) in the U.S. managed both rail and highway carriers, while air and motor carriers coordinated their operations in order to maximize the benefits of expeditious air service. Fair and Wilson (1934) describe coordination as “the act of regulating and combining so as to give harmonious results, and the harmonious adjustment of the persons or things coordinated” (p. 270) and state that in this coordination, each type of facility has its place. Nelson (1938) identifies several goals of coordination. First, that it is necessary to shape a public transport policy better designed to provide a more efficient transportation system and stating the “task of coordination by regulation, then is to find the proper economic sphere of each competing agency and give it the transport work to do for which it is most economically adapted” (p. 169, 171). The need for coordination between different methods was eloquently expressed by Henry Newman, Regional Director of the Southwest Region of the FAA, when Dallas Fort Worth Airport was built. At the airport’s dedication, he said “We can’t afford economically, nor will society tolerate any more hit-or-miss random action designed perhaps to benefit all of aviation or some segment of it which is unmindful of other transportation modes or of society as a whole” (Newman 1973, p. 359). And, in Europe, “Transport has historically been an area where the Community has been empowered to establish common policies and common rules” (Marciacq et al. 2013, p. 3). The U.S. addresses its policy goals for space activities and space transportation in two recent directives issued by the executive branch, the U.S. National Space Policy (June 28, 2010) and the U.S. National Space Transportation Policy (November 21, 2013). The first, and broader, of these is the U.S. National Space Policy, containing both principles and goals for U.S. space activities. The principles clearly commit the U.S. to encouraging and facilitating (mirroring the statute’s language) the robustness and global competitiveness of the U.S. space sector (the state’s economic interests). Spaceports and spaceport operations are addressed both directly and as components of infrastructure. The goals and underlying social values in the parts of the document that touch upon launch activities and facilities include participation in global markets and development of domestic commercial markets, expansion of international cooperation, and safe and responsible operations. The U.S. Government is instructed to transfer routine operational space functions to the private sector if safety and national security will not be compromised and to encourage the use of U.S. commercial space services in international arrangements. The U.S. National Space Transportation Policy also includes discussion of spaceports. The policy is more specific, focusing upon space transportation as a system of capabilities. Facilities may be modernized when necessary to maintain both access to space as well as U.S. leadership. Space is discussed in terms of “regions of space”, including suborbital, through Earth’s orbit, and to deep space. Governmental departments and agencies, such as NASA and DoD, are to

8

Spaceports: Definitions, History, and Policy

develop, operate, and enhance infrastructure and support activities and to do so extending encouragement for participation by the private sector, and state and local governments. Further, those departments and agencies are told to pursue policy and regulatory measures for space transportation that factor in public safety while promoting commercial development. The Secretary of Transportation works with DoD and NASA to establish and/or refine common public safety requirements and standards for launches from all sites (commercial spaceports, federal and state ranges) while working toward international adoption of U.S. safety regulations, standards, and licensing measures. Global interoperability and safety of international commercial space transportation activities are expressly stated goals. In addition to the space policy directives discussed above, and in addition to the airport statutes discussed to contextualize spaceports in a larger transportation ecosystem, there is a long-standing legislative framework in place. The Commercial Space Launch Act of 1984 (United States Congress 1984) grants statutory authority to license spaceports to the Department of Transportation. The Department, through AST located within the FAA, uses this authority to promulgate the implementing regulations that actually give the requirements for those licenses.

1.3 Where Do We Go from Here? We draw the reader to some key takeaways from this chapter. First, spaceports have been with us for decades, but commercial spaceports are new and exciting entrants to the space sector. Second, aviation and space have been and will continue to be connected; they both have roots in science and technology and have been vital to the advancement of humankind. By extension, the connection between airports and spaceports cannot be understated. Third, national policy typically lags our technological abilities, but we can look to history to help define our policies for spaceports and commercial space activities. Fourth, risk is high: foremost to humans and the environment, but also politically, financially, and economically, among other areas. Human life is at stake when anomalies occur. The need for safety is paramount. Finally, while we use U.S. policy and regulation as our case study, we invite the reader to draw relevant implications for his or her own needs. With the history and policy of spaceports in place, we now explore some other driving concerns for spaceports. We will explore licensing and regulation further in Chapter 7. But first, we must examine the activities that take place in, around, and from the spaceport, as well as the larger systems into which spaceports figure, such as the national airspace and the integration of launches with mature and well-developed users of that airspace and some other users as well. We also look at technological drivers of spaceport infrastructures; economic, business, financial, and environmental considerations; issues facing airports transitioning to air and space ports; as well as spaceport planning.

Spaceports

9

Notes 1 See Airport Survey, U.S. House of Representatives Document No. 245, 76th Congress, 1939, 1st Session, pp. 12–13 ceding responsibility for airport projects to the Works Progress Administration. 2 This fact is eerie in its foreshadowing of the situation at Spaceport America in New Mexico, originally built to Virgin Galactic’s specifications and only recently modified to accommodate other craft.

References Adams, C. and Petrov, G.(2006). ‘Spaceport Master Planning: Principles And Precedents,’ In: Space 2006. San Jose, CA: American Institute of Aeronautics and Astronautics. https://arc.aiaa.org/doi/abs/10.2514/6.2006-7325. Blaine, J.C.D. (1954). ‘The development of a National Airport Plan,’ 30 Land Economics, No. 3 (Aug. 1954), p. 270. Breurer, M. and Williamson, J. (1930). The Birth of a New Republic. Publisher: Amazing Stories. www.technovelgy.com/ct/content.asp?Bnum=2173 (Accessed: 6 July 2019). David, L. (2006). ‘Spaceports: Building up the Space Travel Industry,’ Space.com. Available at: https://www.space.com/2413-spaceports-building-space-travel-industry.html (Accessed: 28 March 2020). Fair, M. and Wilson, G.L. (1934). ‘Coordination in Transportation: A National Economic Problem’ Annals of the American Academy of Political and Social Science Vol. 171 Banking and Transportation Problems (Jan. 1934), pp. 268–276 at 270. Foust, J. (2010) ‘The spaceport glut,’ The Space Review. Available at: www.thespacere view.com/article/1545/1 (Accessed: 10 August 2010). Google Books Ngram Viewer. (2019). ‘Search for spaceport and space port.’ https://books. google.com/ngrams/graph?content=spaceport%2Cspace±port&case_insensitive=o n&year_start=1940&year_end=2008&corpus=15&smoothing=3&share=&direc t_url=t4%3B%2Cspaceport%3B%2Cc0%3B%2Cs0%3B%3Bspaceport%3B%2Cc0%3B %3BSpaceport%3B%2Cc0%3B%3BSPACEPORT%3B%2Cc0%3B.t4%3B%2Cspace% 20port%3B%2Cc0%3B%2Cs0%3B%3Bspace%20port%3B%2Cc0%3B%3BSpace% 20Port%3B%2Cc0 (Accessed: 15 August 2019). Heiney, A. (2002). ‘Germans led during the early days of KSC,’ Spaceport News, Vol. 41, No. 14: 1, 12 July 2002. Hughwey, E.W. (1963). ‘Criminal Responsibility in Outer Space,’ Proceedings on the Conference on Space Science and Space Law, p. 150. Marciacq, J.-B., Tomasella, F., Erdelyi, Z., and Gerhard, M. (2013). ‘Establishing a regulatory framework for the development & operation of sub-orbital & orbital aircraft (SOA) in the EU: The role of EASA,’ Presented 13 September 2013 at CUSST. Copyright EASA/KU Leuven. Merriam-Webster Dictionary. (2019). www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/spaceport#h1 (Accessed: 6 July 2019). Murray, D. (2014). ‘The FAA’s Current Approach to Integrating Commercial Space Operations into the National Airspace System’. Available at: www.faa.gov/about/office_org/ headquarters_offices/ast/reports_studies/media/REMAT-Murray-FAA-FINAL.pdf (Accessed: 8 June 2014). Nelson, J.C. (1938). ‘Coordination of Transportation by Regulation,’ The Journal of Land & Public Utility Economics, Vol. 14, No. 2, pp. 167–181 at 169, 171, (May 1938).

10 Spaceports: Definitions, History, and Policy Newman, H.L. (1973). ‘An Innovative Approach to Airport Planning,’ Journal of Air Law and Commerce, Vol. 39, No. 3, p. 359, Article 5. Space Foundation. (2017). The Space Report: Authoritative Guide to Global Space Activity. Washington, DC: Published by The Space Foundation. Sprague, R. (2010) ‘Roadmap to center’s future takes shape,’ Spaceport News. Vol. 50, No. 14. Available at: www.nasa.gov/centers/kennedy/pdf/468131main_070910spn_co lor.pdf (Accessed: 9 July 2010). technovelgy.com. (2019). ‘Technovelghy.com Where Science Meets Fiction.’ Available at: www.technovelgy.com/ (Accessed: 6 July 2019). United States. (2010). National Space Policy of the United States of America (June 28, 2010). United States. (2012). 49 United States Code 4710, Policies. Available at: https://uscode. house.gov/view.xhtml?path=/prelim@title49/subtitle7/partB/chapter471/subchapter1&e dition=prelim (Accessed: 25 July 2019). United States. (2013). National Space Transportation Policy of the United States of America (November 21, 2013). United States. Code of Federal Regulations, Title 14 Aeronautics and Space; Volume 4, Chapter III, Part 405.1, Definitions. Available at: www.ecfr.gov/cgi-bin/text-idx? SID=68fecdc5c85d713c638cf58bed2a31d8&mc=true&node=pt14.4.401&rgn=div5 (Accessed: 24 May 2019). United States Congress. (1938). Civil Aeronautics Act of 1938, Act of 23 June 1938, 52 Stat. 973, Section 302(a) Proviso. United States Congress. (1984). Commercial Space Launch Act of 1984, 98th Congress, H.R. 3942. United States Congress. (2018). FAA Reauthorization Act of 2018 H.R. 302, 115th Congress (2017–2018). United States Federal Aviation Administration. (2011). ‘U.S. Commercial Space Transportation Developments and Concepts: Vehicles, Technologies, and Spaceports (January 2011).’ Available at: www.faa.gov/about/office_org/headquarters_offices/ast/media/ 111355.pdf (Accessed: 25 January 2013). United States Federal Aviation Administration. (2019). ‘Active Launch Site Operator Licenses.’ Available at: www.faa.gov/data_research/commercial_space_data/licenses/ (Accessed: 25 July 2019). United States House of Representatives. (1939). Airport Survey, Document No. 245, 76th Congress, 1st Session, pp. 12–13. United States NASA. (2017). The Kennedy Space Center Master Plan 2012–2032. KSCPLN-8810.1. Available at: https://masterplan.ksc.nasa.gov/ (Accessed: 6 July 2019). Virginia Commercial Space Flight Authority. (2012). Virginia Commercial Space Flight Authority Strategic Plan 2012–2017 (1 December 2012). Available at: http://www.space ref.com/news/viewsr.html?pid=42880 (Accessed: 25 January 2013).

2

Commercial Space Activities and Civil Airspace

Space launch and reentry operations have an effect on ground and airborne activities as objects transit from Earth to space. Spaceport design and approvals generally focus on environmental and safety issues on the ground; however, the viability of a spaceport is predicated on the ability to launch. The effects of commercial space launch and reentry operations on commercial aviation and other airspace users should be considered in spaceport site selection and design. The aviation community is increasingly aware of the impact of space launch activities and the costs imposed by airspace closures. As the pace of launch continues to increase, so will opposition from other airspace users who are expected to bear the operational cost of required airspace closures. It is in the economic interest of spaceport operators to consider this factor in the spaceport site selection. From a policy perspective, space and aviation have developed independently and often without regard for the impact that one industry has on the other. This is a largely a historical artifact, as the space industry developed as part of government space programs and not as a commercial enterprise. Beyond space exploration, defense space dominated the orbital domain and was the majority customer of launch services. Geopolitical changes coupled with the diminishing cost and size of satellites have created a significant market shift and commercial space has eclipsed defense space as the dominant user. In 2018, commercial space products and services comprised 55.3% of the space economy (Space Policy Online 2019) indicating that launch activities are no longer dominated by state interests. This shift naturally raises the overlying policy question of airspace access. The access question is of particular importance to spaceport operators and planners and the spaceport community should consider the drivers in the underlying policy question rather than rely on historical precedent. As a government operation, whether conducted by the state or on behalf of a state, access to airspace is prioritized. The location of a launch site and the timing of launch for a state activity need not consider the effects on other airspace users. The airspace itself is a state asset and as such the state has priority for its use. This is not the case for the commercial user. The interests of the commercial space user must be balanced against the interests of other commercial airspace users.

12 Commercial Space Activities This has not always been obvious, particularly in the United States (U.S.), where launches on behalf of the government have been conducted by commercial providers since the Commercial Space Launch Act of 1984. Consider the highly visible SpaceX launches, more than one-third of their launches in 2018 and 2019 were on behalf of the U.S. Government (SpaceX 2019). For the observer and spaceport operator, the government and commercial launches appear identical. However, from the perspective of the airspace planner, the approval process can be very different. The risk assessment does not change based on launch customer, but the economic analysis weighs different factors. While there is an interest for the government to mitigate economic disruption, mission need will dictate the extent to which the effect on other commercial airspace users is weighted in the launch scheduling decision. Simply put, a launch on behalf of the government has priority over other airspace users in a way that a launch for commercial purposes does not. One can argue that the commercial space customer has mission-need factors similar to that of the government customer, including the timing of the launch window to achieve the desired orbital insertion. However, this commercial consideration does not override the commercial considerations of other airspace users. How this balance is achieved is a challenge for governments in airspace planning and launch approval. This challenge is further complicated by the diversity in launch customers and the launch purpose. The purpose of the launch creates a subjective element in the approval decision. Using a generic, but common, example of a three-hour window for launch from a spaceport, assume the launch: • • •

causes 200 aircraft to be rerouted; each aircraft incurs an average delay of 15 minutes; there is an average load of 100 passengers per commercial aircraft.

This generic launch would result in 3,000 total minutes of delay. Airlines for America currently defines the delay cost to the airline at $74.20 per minute (Airlines.org 2019). The direct cost to airlines for this launch is $222,600. Considering the additional cost of passenger time of $49 per hour there is another $245,000 in economic costs imposed on the competing airspace users. (Note that Chapter 6 delves more deeply into the impacts to aviation.) While this cost may be considered nominal in the context of a resupply mission to the International Space Station or the completion of a major telecommunications constellation that would serve as critical infrastructure, the same perspective would not apply to a launch that provides a space tourism adventure to an individual for recreational purposes. There is inherent conflict when competing users seek access to the same resource – airspace. There are several approaches that the commercial launch providers have available to reduce the conflict by reducing the competing demand for the resource. For airspace, this can be reducing the duration of the launch window, reducing the size of airspace required, shifting the time of the

Commercial space activities

13

launch window to periods of lower demand, or locating the spaceport in areas where the demand for the overlying airspace is low. The need to balance the competing demands of airspace users is not unique to commercial space activities. Civil–military cooperation in airspace management is a global issue and countries around the world expend significant resources in order to effectively reduce the amount of disruption caused by one segment of aviation on another. The question of airspace priority is not new, and there is an expectation on airspace users to participate in policies, procedures, and technologies that increase airspace capacity and availability and can lead to access restrictions to those who do not participate. For example, on the congested North Atlantic track system, aircraft are required to meet specific navigation performance standards in order to access the most desirable airspace. This Required Navigation Performance (RNP) requires considerable investment by the aircraft operators as a condition of use. The sole purpose of the RNP approach is to reduce separation to allow more aircraft to access congested airspace and reduce the pressure one operator puts on another. It is not realistic for the space launch community to assume that they would not be subject to provisions that would reduce their impact on other airspace users. Understanding these challenges can provide insight into the question of access to space, through civil airspace, for the spaceport operator and launch industry. From a policy perspective, this is a concern for spaceports in a manner that does not parallel that of airports. For airports, there is a presumption that the surface capacity dictates the approval for the operators. Airport programs that restrict the number of operations, like slot allocations, are generally predicated on surface capacity and are not related to airborne traffic (IATA 2018). As a result, the airport operator could determine capacity based on the infrastructure it provides. For a spaceport operator, the ground infrastructure can limit launch capacity, but expanding that infrastructure may not provide increased access to space if the overlying airspace cannot accommodate the demand. Spaceports have additional complexity related to the diversity of launch vehicles and types. There is no one-size-fits-all approach to launch approvals. The type of launch vehicles supported by a spaceport has a significant influence on how a launch can be integrated into the overlying airspace. Like the capacity question, this is a key difference between airports and spaceports. For an airport, there is a presumption that if the airport infrastructure can support a particular aircraft type, for example, if the runway is long enough, that the aircraft will be permitted to depart. An exception for airports was seen in the evolution of supersonic transport, where environmental concerns surrounding the effects of a sonic boom restricted the use of the aircraft. Spaceports and launch operators should consider the supersonic experience as a lesson in the business risk of developing an operational model without fully considering the potential resistance. In general, if an airport is built with sufficient runway capacity to support jet operations, the airport can seek to attract those operators. A spaceport does not

14 Commercial Space Activities have the same presumption. A launch approval is currently processed on a caseby-case basis and considers numerous factors, including risk to aircraft in flight and the economic impacts of displacing other airspace users. Spaceport planning needs to consider these access issues as an integrated partner in the airspace user community.

2.1 Airspace, Mission, and Air Traffic Control The foundational purpose of air traffic control (ATC) is to prevent collisions between aircraft. There are well-established roles and responsibilities between pilot and controller to ensure this objective is achieved. Standards and responsibilities for preventing collisions between aircraft and terrain or other obstacles are also well established. Other hazards to flight, including wildlife and hazardous weather, are identified and mitigated through the systems of airspace management. At its core, ATC is a safety service; however, safety and efficiency are not divorced partners. The regulatory environment is designed to promote safe and efficient access to airspace for all user types. The efficiency mandate requires that an Air Traffic Service balances the interests of diverse user types. In the U.S., the mission of ATC is to provide for the “safe, orderly, and expeditious” flow of air traffic (FAA 2017b, p. 2-1-1). The distinction between the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) as a regulatory authority and the FAA Air Traffic Organization (ATO) as the air navigation service provider (ANSP) is important to recognize in the consideration of how access to airspace, and consequently access to space, is managed. Most countries have a similar overall structure, where the regulatory authority and the service provider are distinct; how this distinction is made, whether the ANSPs are separate agencies, corporations, or contracted services, varies from country to country. As the U.S. has a high number of active and planned spaceports and a mature industry, it is used as a model to illustrate the underlying issues related to airspace access and spaceport planning. The FAA, as the regulatory body, has statutory responsibility for the National Airspace System (NAS). The terms airspace and NAS are not globally interchangeable. The U.S. uses the term NAS to distinguish it as a national authority not a civil authority. The FAA mandate encompasses navigation and ATC for both civil and military aircraft. This was a national policy choice, originally organized within the Department of Commerce, and the Civil Aeronautics Authority became an independent agency and later a federal authority. The decision to create a federal authority was deliberate and reflective of the need to include airport traffic control and consider the airspace demands of both civil and military operations. The more common model used outside the U.S. is to distinguish between authorities for civil and military. The term NAS is specific to the U.S. and is defined by the FAA as:

Commercial space activities

15

The common network of U.S. airspace; air navigation facilities, equipment and services, airports or landing areas; aeronautical charts, information and services; rules, regulations and procedures, technical information, and manpower and material. Included are system components shared jointly with the military. (FAA, 2017d, p. N-1) Airspace, as a subset of the NAS, is defined in statute and has a more globally applicable definition: ‘navigable airspace’ means airspace above the minimum altitudes of flight prescribed by regulations under this subpart and subpart III of this part, including airspace needed to ensure safety in the takeoff and landing of aircraft. (49 United States Code (USC) 40,102 (a)(32)) Aviation operators are familiar with segregated military airspace and restrictions on access, however, the underlying policy construct regarding airspace and its allocation is relevant as we discuss the airspace needs of other airspace users. From a legal and statutory mandate, the FAA is responsible for all the U.S. airspace. This is reflective of the federal authority approach and differs from other countries where airspace is geographically divided between military and civil authorities. The FAA has delegated operational control of U.S. airspace to its ATO as the ANSP. Special Use Airspace (SUA), colloquially referred to as “military airspace”, is delegated from FAA’s ATO to a using agency through letters of agreement and memoranda of understanding (MOU). These agreements, between the FAA and military offices, consider not only mission need, as they are developed in a manner to minimize disruption to other airspace users. FAA Joint Order 7400.2H, Procedures for Handling Airspace Matters includes provisions for optimum use of airspace and affirmatively states, SUA should be located to impose minimum impact on nonparticipating aircraft and ATC operations. This should be balanced with consideration of the proponent’s requirements. To the extent practical, SUA should be located to avoid airways/jet routes, major terminal areas, and known high volume VFR routes. For spaceports, understanding the structure of airspace ownership and control is important (see Figure 2.1). Spaceports that operate within a federal range in the U.S. will interact with the using agency, who is constrained by the terms of the agreement with the ANSP. Changes to the airspace and its usage are negotiated between the ATO and the using agency. The spaceport operator will need an agreement with the federal range, who, in turn, has an agreement with the ATO. For spaceports and launch operators outside federal ranges, operational agreements are directly with the ATO, often at the operational facility level.

16 Commercial Space Activities

ATO

Using Agency (Federal Range)

Spaceport

Launch Operator

Spaceport

Launch Operator

Figure 2.1 Structure for Memoranda of Understanding for Airspace Access.

The use of federal range airspace can streamline the process as agreements between ranges and the ATO are generally well established. There is interest in standardizing these processes as the pace of launch increases. The role of the ATO in managing the airspace is not changed by the fact that an operator is using a federal range. While SUA in the U.S. is colloquially referred to as “military airspace”, it is more precisely SUA where a military command is the using agency. It is important to understand the precise meanings of airspace terminology when seeking to interact with the airspace. There are several terms that are often not well understood because the plain language definitions may differ from their technical application. Terms like uncontrolled or nonregulatory airspace often create confusion. Uncontrolled airspace is not the same as unregulated or unoccupied. Uncontrolled airspace is airspace in which ATC separation services are not provided. However, that does not preclude aircraft from operating in the airspace, including Instrument Flight Rules (IFR) operations. Uncontrolled airports are similarly managed. While ATC services are not provided on the airport surface, aircraft can receive IFR air traffic clearances while the pilot retains responsibility to avoid obstacles and terrain until entering controlled airspace. The term uncontrolled does not mean that it is entirely outside the responsibility of the ANSP and aviation regulations still apply. Similarly, nonregulatory airspace does not exclude the airspace from the authority of the service provider. The management of the airspace is the same for both regulatory and nonregulatory airspace, the difference is that the FAA does not exercise enforcement authority over the operations of the using agency while operating inside nonregulatory airspace. Outside of SUA, military aircraft are subject to the Federal Air Regulations (FARs), inside nonregulatory SUA they are not.

Commercial space activities

17

Activities that may pose a hazard to nonparticipating aircraft are conducted in segregated airspace. This can be accomplished through the use of SUA, Temporary Flight Restrictions (TFRs), or Altitude Reservation (ALTRV). Notably, segregated airspace can include uncontrolled airspace. In order to ensure that nonparticipating aircraft, including those that are not in contact with ATC, are protected from the hazardous activity, segregated airspace must be scheduled in advance and transmitted through a Notice to Airmen (NOTAM). The need for segregated airspace for space launch and recovery operations displaces other users seeking to access the airspace. It is important to recognize space operations as airspace users with access rights, and not as disruptors or simply hazards. Understanding how airspace is managed instead of how air traffic is controlled helps build an understanding of the role of the ANSP and the relationship to space operations. The U.S. model is not the dominant model, as many countries distribute the airspace between military and civil authorities. However, the U.S. has relatively long experience with commercial space launch activity, since the Commercial Space Launch Act of 1984. Other states with launch capacity conduct the majority of launches as state operations. As a state activity, airspace priority is assumed. As commercial space launch activity increases around the world, this priority cannot be assumed, and the U.S. model is likely to become more prevalent.

2.2 Stakeholders and Their Roles In the U.S., “spaceport” is defined in federal statute, 51 USC, as: “spaceport” means a launch or reentry site that is operated by an entity licensed by the Secretary of Transportation. The use of the term spaceport or cosmodrome is accepted for any location from which objects are launched into orbit, however, the terminology may evolve as new operational launch models are developed. In the long term, for suborbital spaceflight, reusable launch vehicles, and air launch models, certain phases may not require specialized facilities. For example, during the U.S. Space Shuttle program, returning shuttles were planned for designated spaceports, however, several international airports were designated as abort landing sites and did not require a spaceport designation. A future state could include spaceports, combined airport–spaceports, or conventional airports where space plane landings are permitted. In each configuration, different categories of stakeholders may be operating in shared airspace. 2.2.1 Regulator The distinction between regulator and ANSP is important. For the FAA, the Office of Commercial Space Transportation is the regulatory authority and is

18 Commercial Space Activities responsible for issuing launch licenses and permits. Like ATO, it is an organization contained within the FAA. Changes in government structures and mandates for Space Traffic Management to be conducted outside the FAA do not seek to remove the authority for launch approvals from the FAA. This authority ensures the safety of the launch and that appropriate aircraft hazard areas are defined. However, this function does not include the management of the airspace itself. That function is within the mandate of the ANSP, which is the ATO within the FAA. This is similar to the treatment of aircraft. While the FAA, as a safety regulator, approves an airline to operate, the clearance for any given flight to take off and enter the airspace is provided by the ATO. In the U.S., both entities fall under the umbrella of the FAA, however, this is not the case in other countries where the regulator and service provider do not operate within the same government entity. Whether the space launch operator is treated as an airspace user, with interests to be balanced with other airspace users, or as a hazard in the airspace can vary by country. The current U.S. model is a hybrid approach, using segregated airspace to mitigate hazards but, in approving an individual launch window, the airspace demand is evaluated by traffic flow management to determine the number of aircraft affected. This evaluation of airspace is not a regulatory function. The opacity of the internal relationship between the Office of Commercial Space Transportation and the ATO may lead to a perception that the functions are provided by a single entity. This structure was designed to provide the commercial space industry with a single point of contact for launch approval while the lines of authority within the agency remain distinct. 2.2.2 Air Navigation Service Provider The ANSP is responsible for managing the airspace. Eurocontrol provides the commonly accepted definition of ANSP as, any public or private entity that manages flight traffic on behalf of a company, region, or country. The FAA recognizes its ATO as the ANSP for U.S. managed airspace and describes it as: The Air Traffic Organization (ATO) is the operational arm of the FAA. It is responsible for providing safe and efficient air navigation services to 29.4 million square miles of airspace. This represents more than 17 percent of the world’s airspace and includes all of the United States and large portions of the Atlantic and Pacific Oceans and the Gulf of Mexico. (FAA 2017c) Each ANSP manages the airspace under its responsibility in accordance with the standards and recommended practices issued by the International Civil Aviation Organization (ICAO), the United Nations (UN) specialized agency for aviation. The ICAO portfolio for addressing commercial space operations in civil airspace is limited, although there is periodic interest in the ICAO taking an expanded role. The UN does not have a similar agency for space operations, as

Commercial space activities

19

the UN Office of Outer Space Affairs (UN OOSA) supports the Committee for the Peaceful Uses of Outer Space (COPUOS) but does not develop standards and procedures. As the airspace manager, the ANSP is responsible for allowing airspace access and restricting other operations from aircraft hazard areas created by the launch. This can be done through the use of danger areas, TFRs, or the use of published SUA. In sovereign national airspace, ANSPs have the flexibility to implement state-specific rules to allow or restrict operations in launch airspace. However, for high seas airspace delegated to a state from the ICAO Council for the purpose of providing air traffic services, the requirements of the ICAO Annex 2, Rules of the Air, apply without exception. This may limit the ability to allow launch activities that require exclusionary airspace. Outside the U.S., ANSPs are funded through aviation route charges. Many charging regimes are tied to performance measures of both safety and efficiency. Accommodating launch activities that restrict airspace access could adversely affect the performance measures of capacity, environment, and cost efficiency. For corporatized ANSPs, if spaceports do not generate adequate revenue to support the costs of airspace closures and traffic flow management, ANSPs will have little incentive to meet the demands of the commercial space industry. In states where space launch activity is given a public policy priority, ANSPs will seek resources from the government to support the demand. It is in the interest of spaceport planners to seek options that limit the disruption to other airspace users to avoid this conflict. 2.2.3 Military Command For commercial spaceports co-located at military installations or under military SUA, the spaceport operator will have direct interaction with the responsible military command. As using agency, the military command will have authority to permit operations in the airspace, consistent with existing MOU with the relevant ATC facilities on behalf of the ANSP. The command will not have the authority to approve operations outside existing agreements which may require additional coordination or agreements with the ANSP. The U.S. currently negotiates these agreements at the local air traffic facility level which could result in inconsistencies. In addition to operations at military facilities or in SUA, spaceport operators need to be concerned with proximity to SUA. Launch activities that may disrupt a military mission cannot expect to be accommodated. 2.2.4 Space Launch Operator The primary customers of a spaceport are its key stakeholders. It is important that spaceport design and location consider the potential airspace access needs of the providers of space launch services.

20 Commercial Space Activities 2.2.5 Other Airspace Users The spaceport may not have direct interaction with other airspace users, however, their interests can have a significant influence on when, how, and how often, spaceport customers will be able to access the overlying airspace. It is important to understand the needs, flexibility, and constraints of these stakeholders. Understanding the demands for the airspace above the spaceport and along the trajectory required by the launch vehicle, is necessary to ensure that spaceport users will have realistic expectations of the access to airspace.

2.3 Integration of Commercial Space Operations in Civil Airspace The type of launch vehicle supported by the spaceport dictates the characteristics of airspace integration. Both the aviation and space industries have an interest in reducing the impact that the one has on the other. The integration of commercial space operations as routine airspace users will facilitate that goal. The ability for ANSPs to treat a commercial launch as an airspace user to be accommodated rather than a hazard to be mitigated is dictated by the characteristics of the launch and the safety performance of the industry. Advancements in prediction, detection, and conformance in the launch industry will facilitate integration. Assessing the impacts of a space launch on airspace is a function of measuring time and volume of airspace required and the number of aircraft impacted. The U.S. follows this model in approving a launch, however, other ANSPs may consider other factors including controller workload, environmental cost of aircraft reroutes, and cost efficiency. The discussion of launch approvals focuses heavily on the launch phase because the energy required to launch the vehicle into space carries the bulk of the safety concerns to nonparticipating actors. However, the reentry phase is also of interest to airspace planners. The diversity of proposed reentry vehicles presents additional challenges for airspace planners. Reentry types include current models, like the returning reusable stages, reusable lifting bodies, space planes, and capsules. More information on the airspace demands for reentry types is needed for effective airspace planning. This need goes beyond the safety analysis. The Space Shuttle Columbia reentry accident has been heavily studied from the perspective of aircraft risk from falling debris. This safety analysis is not the same as an airspace analysis to determine the economic impact of reentry on other space users. Issues need to be addressed in the prospective planning stage as an ANSP cannot deny reentry in the same manner as a launch. However, the Columbia accident looms large in the discussion of inland spaceport approvals and is a current consideration in the development of hypersonic suborbital point-to-point transport. 2.3.1 Vertical Launch and Return (Various) The traditional vertical launch provides little opportunity to move beyond the segregated airspace model, however, improvements in safety, coupled with

Commercial space activities

21

reductions in the window of time required for mission assurance, will substantially increase the ability for ANSPs to accommodate launches. Under the segregated airspace model, the large vertical launch consumes considerable airspace, which creates a significant effect on other airspace users. It is important to recognize that emerging models of small launchers may change this paradigm and divide the category in terms of airspace planning. A large vertical launch can include several returning segments in conjunction with the launch as well as a returning vehicle at a later time. The manner in which the returning bodies can vary and use different reentry models, including capsule, space plane, or controlled reusable stage. Each requires different airspace planning and will affect other airspace users in different ways. In addition, returning vehicles may be manned or unmanned, which introduces additional complexity. In the U.S. the launch license includes the reentry portion and as a result the term vertical launch is not an encompassing term. It is feasible for vertical launch to fall into several categories including: • • • • •

vertical vertical vertical vertical vertical return.

launch with no returning stages; launch with vertical returning stage(s); launch with horizontal return; launch with splashdown return; launch with vertical returning stage(s) and horizontal (or other)

Each category affects the airspace in a different way, which determines the manner in which other airspace users are required to react. The individual characteristics of the returning space vehicles, including the performance characteristics and tracking capability, are important considerations in modeling the airspace requirements. 2.3.2 Horizontal Launch or Return The horizontal launch or return of a reusable lifting body presents both challenge and opportunity for the airspace manager. If the vehicle can be equipped with communication, navigation, and surveillance equipment that provides consistency with aviation operations, the vehicle can be integrated without the need for large areas of segregated airspace. However, supersonic or hypersonic speeds require new procedures to integrate these operations outside segregated airspace. The term horizontal launch is used generically to describe a variety of current and proposed launch models including launch from aircraft and single stage to orbit hypersonic flight. 2.3.2.1 Suborbital Hypersonic Transport Suborbital hypersonic operations can cover a diverse set of operational types that are in the concept stage. Suborbital space vehicles used for space

22 Commercial Space Activities tourism would have a very different airspace usage profile than those used for point-to-point suborbital transport. These may use a vertical or horizontal launch profile. For a horizontal launch for point-to-point suborbital hypersonic flight, some countries may restrict or prohibit a route that overflies inhabited areas before exiting navigable airspace. Spaceport site selection should consider these potential restrictions. Specific techniques for airspace management will need to be developed to assess the impact of these types of operations as the technology is developed. ANSPs can look to the approach taken to accommodate supersonic aircraft in developing hypersonic airspace management tools. 2.3.2.1.1 SUBORBITAL SPACE TOURISM

Suborbital space tourism occurs in a relatively constrained area and is expected to become routine and repeatable. This will provide significant benefits to airspace planners. Infrequent launches often require bespoke aircraft hazard areas and traffic evaluations. If space tourism markets develop as anticipated, the flight paths will be known and predictable and approvals should be routine. However, this is predicated on a launch location that does not conflict with the needs of other airspace users. While the airspace need becomes predictable, smaller windows of both time and airspace volume can be used. However, the path toward predictability is a result of frequency of operations. Increased spaceport utilization increases demands on the airspace. So, while the space tourism spaceport may consume less time from the regulators, the frequency of launch may cause this type of user to be the most disruptive to other airspace users based on the total minutes airspace is segregated. In projections for launch activity for 2025, the FAA forecasts 17 launches per year at the Kennedy Space Center at Cape Canaveral, a number consistent with current usage. But for Spaceport America, a planned hub for space tourism, the projection is 618 launches per year (FAA 2017a). There is low demand for access to that airspace by civil aircraft, especially when compared to the busy Florida to Northeast airports’ corridor that overlies the National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA) SUA associated with Cape Canaveral. However, the difference in frequency may lead to a nearly equivalent impact to other airspace users if measured on an annual basis. This raises additional complexity for airspace planners. Currently, launch approvals are considered on a case-by-case basis and the economic impact is confined to the single launch in question. It is unclear whether space tourism activity will change this paradigm or if change is necessary. It is likely that change would only result from pressure from other airspace users who believe that access to airspace is unbalanced. 2.3.2.1.2 SUBORBITAL POINT-TO-POINT TRANSPORT

Suborbital point-to-point transport is an emerging model still in the development stage. However, prospective models are considering existing laws and

Commercial space activities

23

restrictions to airspace access. Both the U.S. and Europe ban civil flights in excess of Mach 1 (supersonic) over land. That would restrict these operations to certain airports similar to that of the Concorde. However, unlike Concorde, suborbital supersonic transport space planes will exit the Earth’s atmosphere for a portion of the flight. Current regulatory models do not anticipate this activity. It is without question that spacecraft, operating in space, are able to overfly land without regard to speed. However, there is not an agreed upon altitude that defines the limit between air and space. As a result, it is unclear how high a suborbital aircraft would have to be to allow supersonic or faster speeds over land. For example, the U.S. considers flight above 80 km to be astronautics, while the European standard is 100 km. This distinction is made for the purpose of categorization, not to determine regulatory authority. This ambiguity could present a problem for spaceport proposals as there is a risk of site location where operations may not be permitted. From a market perspective, spaceports that may be suitable to accommodate the physics of launch and flight limitations may add travel time and inconvenience, offsetting the benefit of the hypersonic transport as a travel option. 2.3.2.2 Horizontal Return Horizontal return is a more straightforward term than launch, but still includes diverse operations. The most common design is a glider, however, future designs may include a powered vehicle. The method of launch does not change the airspace management required for the reentry phase. The U.S. Space Shuttle launched on a vertical rocket, while the Virgin Galactic SpaceShipTwo was air launched from a purpose-built carrier aircraft. The method of launch has little to do with the reentry profile and both the shuttle and SpaceShipTwo reenter at a steep angle and spend only a few minutes in airspace usable by commercial aircraft. It is important to distinguish between the airspace demands for a normal reentry and the possible debris path for an off-nominal event. The Columbia accident is often cited with a path that crosses from the Pacific Ocean to Louisiana with a debris field that extends for more than 400 km. It is important to note that the breakup of the shuttle occurred as it descended through 203,000 feet. Commercial aircraft operate below 60,000 feet, returning space planes are well above commercially utilized airspace for the majority of the reentry profile and spend only a few minutes in airspace that affects civil aviation. 2.3.3 Airborne Launch In some usage, particularly with regard to spaceports, airborne launch is considered a horizontal launch because the carrier aircraft takes off from a runway on a horizontal trajectory. This terminology reflects a policy perspective that the aircraft can be considered a de facto first stage as it carries the rocket from the surface of the Earth through a portion of the atmosphere.

24 Commercial Space Activities Launch from an aircraft, balloon, or other airborne platform creates the greatest flexibility for airspace management for the rocket ignition and launch. However, issues related to the transport and positioning of the launcher may create new complexities, especially with regard to balloons. The carrier vehicle has the characteristics of traditional airspace users and can be managed under established standards. The carrier vehicle also has the option of positioning in airspace that is clear of other traffic prior to the launch. From a technical standpoint, these carrier vehicles could take off from any appropriate facility and would not require a spaceport to support the operation. However, considering that a launch is anticipated, and the rocket is on board, there may be policy considerations that dictate the use of a designated spaceport. This type of launch can be used for manned spaceflight, as is the case with the Virgin Galactic approach. However, it is more commonly used for small satellite launchers, as is the case with both Northrop Grumman Pegasus and Virgin Orbit. Both use a model where the launcher is transported by aircraft, L1011 and B747 respectively, to an appropriate altitude where the launcher is released and the rocket is ignited. The rocket ignites in free fall and exits the airspace in less than two minutes, and the carrier aircraft returns to an appropriate airport or spaceport. Unlike the Virgin Galactic model, where a purpose-built carrier aircraft, WhiteKnight, is used to launch a manned aircraft, the small satellite launchers use commercial production aircraft with a certified modification to attach the launcher to the aircraft. This is important from an airspace management perspective because operations outside of the active launch are routine and can be subject to normal ATC procedures and handling. Some regulators may opt to impose additional safety buffers while the launcher is being carried, however, once the launch has occurred, there is no practical reason to treat the carrier aircraft differently than any other L1011 or B747. This provides airspace planners with the greatest flexibility to accommodate a launch request and, as a consequence, provides the spaceport with reliable access to the airspace. Airborne launch from balloon has been demonstrated, but is not a common proposal. This approach has unique airspace requirements. Neither the ICAO nor FAA standards and procedures on unmanned free balloons anticipate the transport of hazardous materials. The fuel necessary for rocket ignition may require the development of specific procedures for this operational model. In considering segregated airspace, it is important to recognize the navigational limitations of an unmanned free balloon. Segregated airspace would need to be sufficiently large to ensure that the balloon platform did not stray from the confines of the airspace. Balloons gain altitude slowly, particularly those transporting heavy cargo. A scientific research balloon will take more than two hours to transit civil airspace. Large airspace volumes coupled with long occupancy times can create a commercial space airspace usage footprint that is unworkable in areas with regular air traffic. The site selection of a spaceport to support this type of launch should consider the overlying airspace of the spaceport and the potential flight path of the unmanned free balloon.

Commercial space activities

25

Another operational type, currently unique to the U.S., is balloon-based space tourism. Under this model, a balloon is launched with an attached capsule that has life-support systems to allow for flight above 100,000 feet. The FAA has determined that the characteristics of the capsule warrant a determination that it is a space operation. There is no rocket ignition or propulsion system, eliminating the hazard of a rocket launched from the balloon. However, this is intended to be a manned operation, which may require segregated airspace to ensure the safety of the participants.

2.4 Launch Frequency Considering the effects of commercial space activity on civil airspace is a factor of time, size, and frequency. While current economic analysis for launch approval requests are on a case-by-case basis, one cannot reasonably assume that this will continue. Launch frequency is a considerable driver of research in airspace management. Other airspace users are aware of the potential effects of increased launch frequency. Consider the example provided of a commercial launch with a three-hour window. Airline data supports a cost imposed of nearly half-a-million dollars. Dramatic increases in launch frequency will cause resistance from other airspace users and increase the pressure put on airspace planners.

2.5 Airspace Consideration in Spaceport Site Selection The site selection phase offers the first opportunity to minimize the amount of disruption to other airspace users. Spaceport planning should consider factors including proximity to airports, the expected launch and reentry paths, and airborne congestion. Other elements can create additional workload and coordination for the ANSP, including airspace requirements that would involve multiple air traffic facilities or cross international boundaries. Considering the vertical dimension may add complexity to spaceport design and planning, but can significantly increase launch access for the spaceport users.

2.6 Future Outlook The continual increase in safety as commercial space operations become more frequent can change the operational thinking of ANSPs and regulators. While reducing the time and size of protected airspace volumes will continue, change to the underlying requirement to use segregated airspace for the active launch phase remains on the far horizon. A commercially viable spaceport operation requires an assurance that access to the overlying airspace can be expected. A particular challenge in this regard is that both ANSPs and airspace users are working to address this issue, but often doing so in the absence of spaceports and launch operators.

26 Commercial Space Activities The ICAO is responsible for developing global standards and recommended practices for airspace matters. How airspace is managed is well within the ICAO mandate. The international treaty establishing the ICAO and its mandate includes in article 37 (Convention on International Civil Aviation, commonly known as the Chicago Convention): To this end the International Civil Aviation Organization shall adopt and amend from time to time, as may be necessary, international standards and recommended practices and procedures dealing with: … (c) Rules of the air and air traffic control practices; … and such other matters concerned with the safety, regularity, and efficiency of air navigation as may from time to time appear appropriate. While this language does not grant the ICAO the authority to develop standards with regard to spaceports, it does include standards with regard to the airspace procedures related to the launch and reentry of space vehicles. It has been argued that the approval of launch and reentry operations qualify as “such other matters concerned with the safety, regularity, and efficiency of air navigation” as the launch airspace disrupts the regularity and efficiency. The consultative process of the ICAO provides for expert inputs from industry, however, spaceports and launch providers have not self-identified as an industry relevant to the ICAO. As a result, the avenue to provide input to the ICAO standards processes has not been exploited. Spaceport operators have an interest in how airspace is managed in the same way that airports do. The increase in launch activity and diversity will lead to changes in the way that airspace is managed and how other airspace users respond to the commercial space industry. The development of collaborative processes to engage in airspace planning and management will facilitate the reliable and predictable access to airspace necessary to maintain access to space.

References Airlines for America. (2019). U.S. Passenger Delay Costs [Online]. Available at: www.air lines.org/dataset/per-minute-cost-of-delays-to-u-s-airlines/ (Accessed: 26 November 2019). Federal Aviation Administration. (2017a). Next Gen Space Vehicle Operations (powerpoint) [Online]. www.faa.gov/about/office_org/headquarters_offices/ang/offices/tc/library/v&vsum mit/v&vsummit2017/presentations/14%20Space%20Vehicle%20Operations-Integrating% 20Commercial%20Space%20in%20the%20NAS%20-%20Philip%20Bassett_Jason% 20Coon.pdf (Accessed 26 November 2019). Federal Aviation Administration. (2017b). JO 7110.65X Air Traffic Control [Online]. Available at: www.faa.gov/documentLibrary/media/Order/7110.65X_w_CHG1_CHG2_and_CHG_3. pdf (Accessed: 25 May 2019). Federal Aviation Administration. (2017c). Air Traffic Organization [Online]. Available at: www.faa.gov/about/office_org/headquarters_offices/ato/ (Accessed: 14 May 2019). Federal Aviation Administration. (2017d). Pilot Controller Glossary [Online]. Available at: www.faa.gov/air_traffic/publications/media/pcg_10-12-17.pdf (Accessed: 21 December 2018).

Commercial space activities

27

IATA. (2018). Worldwide Airport Slots Fact Sheet [Online]. Available at: www.iata.org/ pressroom/facts_figures/fact_sheets/Documents/fact-sheet-airport-slots.pdf (Accessed: 21 February 2019). Space Policy Online. (2019). Commercial Space Activities [Online]. Available at: https:// spacepolicyonline.com/topics/commercial-space-activities/ (Accessed: 26 November 2019). SpaceX. (2019). Completed Missions [Online]. Available at: www.spacex.com/missions (Accessed: 26 November 2019).

3

Launch Vehicles, Propulsion Systems, and Payloads The Underpinnings of Spaceport Infrastructure

The last chapter reviewed airspace considerations with respect to spaceport location and the viability of launching into and through airspace in order to reach outer space. This chapter delves into the underpinnings of the spaceport ground-based infrastructure, focusing on its three main drivers: the launch vehicle (LV), its propulsion system, and to a lesser extent, the payload. In order to begin the discussion of spaceport infrastructure requirements, one must conceptually understand what constitutes these system elements. •

• •

The LV is by general definition “a rocket used to launch a satellite or spacecraft” (Merriam-Webster Dictionary 2019) and has a unique “capability … to insert an object in an orbital or suborbital trajectory” (Space Foundation 2017, p. 21). In strict definition by the United States (U.S.), a LV “means a vehicle built to operate in, or place a payload in, outer space or a suborbital rocket” (U.S. 14 Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) 401.5, Definitions). Note that the term, suborbital, refers to a trajectory that is less than one orbit of the Earth. The propulsion system is the power behind the launch of the vehicle and its payload into space and also maneuvering of the craft while in space, if applicable. Similar to aviation, the payload is that which is “carried by a vehicle that is necessary to the mission of the flight, but not necessary for its operation” (Merriam-Webster Dictionary 2019). The payload can therefore be either human (passengers, astronauts, pilot, crew, etc.) or nonhuman cargo (spacecraft, satellites, telescopes, supplies). The term payload originated during World War I with respect to the carried load and is often used to mean the amount of “paying” weight that can be lifted by transport (McCoy 2012).

Spacecraft is a term used to specify a “vehicle or device designed for travel outside the Earth’s atmosphere” (spacecraft, NASA Jet Propulsion Laboratory 2018). Depending on the design, it can be separate from the payload, can hold the payload, or be considered part of the payload. Note that there is an important distinction to be made between satellites and spacecraft. Satellites observe orbital trajectories while spacecraft may or may not orbit the Earth. If a spacecraft orbits the Earth, it

Launch Vehicles, Propulsion, and Payloads 29

Figure 3.1 ISS. Source: NASA 2000

is often referred to as an artificial satellite. This is the case of the International Space Station (ISS), shown in Figure 3.1, as well as other man-made satellites such as those used for ommunications, weather observation, remote sensing, etc. Conversely, Voyager, the spacecraft launched in 1977 from Cape Canaveral, Florida, was not a satellite (Harvard-Smithsonian Center for Astrophysics 2008; NASA Jet Propulsion Laboratory 2018). Thus, a man-made satellite is a spacecraft, but a spacecraft is not necessarily a satellite. Our Moon is a natural satellite as it orbits Earth. Finally, it is noted that a probe is an unmanned spacecraft that collects scientific information for study (United States NASA 2018).

30 Launch Vehicles, Propulsion, and Payloads With respect to LVs and spacecraft, either can be expendable or reusable, in total or by component. A reusable launch vehicle (RLV) is a launch vehicle that is designed to return to Earth substantially intact and therefore may be launched more than one time or that contains vehicle stages that may be recovered by a launch operator for future use in the operation of a substantially similar launch vehicle. (U.S. 14 CFR 401.5) Thus, an RLV is a launch system that can launch into space more than once (Tian et al. 2015) while an expendable launch vehicle (ELV) is destroyed during use or simply cannot be reused. In more specific terms, an ELV is “a launch vehicle whose propulsive stages are flown only once” (U.S. 14 CFR 401.5). Most systems today have a hybrid of reusable and expandable components. LVs vary in size, design, capability, and launch configuration (vertical or horizontal). Classes of vehicles are defined in terms of payload capacity. Small LVs are those that can carry a payload of less than 5,000 lbs (2,268 kg) at 115 miles (185 km) altitude with an inclination angle of 28.5 degrees. Medium to heavy LVs can carry more than 5,002 lbs (2,269 kg) at 115 miles (185 km) altitude with a 28.5 degree inclination (United States FAA Office of Commercial Space Transportation 2018). With respect to launch configuration, vehicles can be launched vertically or horizontally for suborbital, orbital, or space travel beyond the Earth’s orbits. Current configurations of RLVs can be suborbital or orbital, launched vertically or horizontally, but are not yet capable of space travel beyond our orbits. As of today, ELVs are typically launched vertically, but this is changing with new concepts and designs. There are two distinct areas of suborbital launch vehicles (SLVs): sounding rockets and the emerging suborbital reusable vehicles (SRVs). Sounding rockets, typically expendable, are most often used for research purposes. Alternately, the new SRVs are being touted for transport of cargo or passengers and can travel outside the Earth’s atmosphere but do not reach orbit. They are generally less complex and are smaller than the more common orbital LVs (Space Foundation 2017). With respect to orbital configurations, there are almost 90 LV variants in use today, but over 50 new systems in development. While some of these will replace systems that are coming to the end of life, others are being developed to accommodate new markets as well as compete in already established markets (United States Federal Aviation Administration Office of Commercial Space Transportation 2018). Last, besides launch and return configurations (horizontal takeoff (HTO), vertical takeoff (VTO), horizontal landing (HL), and vertical landing (VL)), the type of propulsion system, including the fuel/propellant/oxidizers, plays a role in the spaceport infrastructure, as well as land and air safety considerations.

Launch Vehicles, Propulsion, and Payloads 31 With that backdrop, the following paragraphs delve deeper into the unique developments occurring with LVs around the world.

3.1 Reusable Launch Vehicles The following sections are divided into SRVs and orbital reusable vehicles (ORVs). As technology and concepts evolve, many older vehicles, originally designed as expendable, are moving toward more reusable components as cost savings are realized. We highlight those areas, where appropriate. Further, reusability can now be applied not only to the spacecraft, such as the U.S. Space Shuttle Orbiter, but also to the stages and elements of the LVs themselves, such as that associated with SpaceX and the Falcon first-stage and second- stage rockets. 3.1.1 Suborbital Reusable Vehicles The most common and enduring suborbital LVs are vertically launched sounding rockets and, as noted earlier, are utilized largely for atmospheric, microgravity, and astronomical research. The National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA), the German Aerospace Center (Deutsches Zentrum für Luft- und Raumfahrt or DLR), and the Indian Space Research Organization (ISRO), among other country space organizations, have supported sounding rocket programs for decades. For example, Figure 3.2 illustrates the first U.S. Air Force Javelin sounding rocket at Wallops Flight Facility, Virginia in 1959. Sounding rockets are often considered the most cost-effective solution for conducting space experiments where a suborbital trajectory is required. Additionally, the rocket payload is often recovered and reusable leading to more cost savings (cf., Jenner 2015). Once predominantly expendable, newer sounding rocket designs are moving toward reusability of components (cf., Ogawa et al. 2016). These rockets predominantly use solid propellant (United States Federal Aviation Administration Office of Commercial Space Transportation 2018), however, some designs use liquid propellant (cf., Ogawa et al. 2016). As shown in Figure 3.3, sounding rocket vertical takeoff and landing (VTOL) operations are straightforward. After the launch, the rocket motor separates from the payload once fuel is consumed. The rocket (expendable or reusable) falls back to Earth while the payload continues the suborbital trajectory before returning to Earth, typically by way of parachute use (Marconi 2004). As part of the experiment requirements, the payload may travel to the Kármán line, the generally recognized definition of where space begins (62.1 miles or 100 km above Earth), before falling back to Earth. In the U.S., NASA conducts experiments using sounding rockets launched from Wallops Flight Facility in Virginia, White Sands Missile Range in New Mexico, Poker Flat Research Range in Alaska, and Andøya Rocket Range in Norway (United States Federal Aviation Administration Office of Commercial Space

32 Launch Vehicles, Propulsion, and Payloads

Figure 3.2 First U.S. Air Force Javelin Sounding Rocket on Launcher. Source: NASA 1978

Transportation 2018). Around the world, however, India’s ISRO launches the Rohini sounding rockets or others similar in design from Thumba Equatorial Rocket Launching Station (TERLS) or Sriharikota. German universities with DLR support launch sounding rockets from Esrange Space Center in Sweden (Space Foundation 2017). Arion 1, currently under development by PLD Space, will launch from INTA-CEDEA launch site near Seville, Spain (PLD Space 2018). Beyond sounding rockets, a new generation of SLVs, particularly RLVs, is emerging. While the mission of sounding rockets centers on experiments and tests, the mission for these new RLVs includes manned flight to suborbital space. Design concepts for SRVs vary between horizontal and vertical orientation at takeoff and/or landing. As with any new emerging industry, a dominant design is slowly emerging, partially driven by reusability requirements and lower costs, by the requirements and repurposing of the port infrastructure, and by the integration requirements of launch operations into airspace where safety is paramount.

Launch Vehicles, Propulsion, and Payloads 33

Figure 3.3 Typical Sounding Rocket Trajectory with Expendable Rocket and Reusable Payload. Source: NASA/Marconi 2004

Table 3.1 lists known RLVs that are currently under various stages of development, test, and prototype. As reflected in the table, there is diversity in takeoff and landing orientations. Where there is a separation of the spacecraft from the LV, the rocket and the spacecraft return to Earth in ways unique to their design. Clearly, the mix of horizontal takeoff and landing (HTOL) and VTOL SRVs above requires further explanation. In the following sections, we delve further into the unique attributes of each, as well as the top design concepts currently in development for each. 3.1.1.1 Suborbital Reusable Vehicle Horizontal Takeoff and Landing The U.S. Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) currently identifies three categories of (HTOL) SRVs as shown in Table 3.2. Each concept requires similar,

Operator/ Developer

ESA

Airbus

DLR

ISRO

Blue Origin

UP Aerospace

Virgin Galactic

Country

Europe

Europe

Germany

India

U.S.

U.S.

U.S.

White Knight carrier aircraft with SpaceShipTwo spacecraft

SpaceLoft XL launch vehicle

RLV System with booster and spacecraft New Shepard launch system comprised of booster and spacecraft capsule

SpaceLiner

SpacePlane

Intermediate eXperimental Vehicle (IEV)

Launch System

VTO/VL fully reusable. Lands with parachute HTOL system. Both components fully reusable

VTO/VL

VTO/HL

VTO/HL

HTOL

VTO/VL

Takeoff and Landing Profile

Table 3.1 Suborbital Reusable Launch Systems Currently Under Development

Manned: 6 passengers/2 crew

Unmanned

Manned: 6 seats in capsule

Demonstrator/ unmanned; reusable; VTO; land in water with parachute Reusable; manned: 4 passengers Manned or unmanned Unmanned

Manned/Unmanned

SpaceShipTwo air-launched under rocket power from carrier aircraft

Both components reusable; booster lands vertically under rocket power on land; capsule returns by parachute on land Suborbital sounding rocket

Notes

World View

Boeing for DARPA

Stratolaunch Systems

PLD Space

U.S.

U.S.

U.S.

Spain

Arion 2

Voyager is comprised of a highaltitude balloon and a capsule Experimental Spaceplane (XS-1). Also referred to as Phantom Express Stratolaunch plane carrier aircraft for rocket launchers

GOLauncher 1

HTOL. The rocket is airlaunched from the carrier aircraft VTOL

VTO/HL

VTOL

HTOL for the carrier aircraft

Partially reusable

Reusable, autonomous unmanned; places payloads in LEO Reusable manned carrier aircraft

Manned: 6 passengers/2 crew

Reusable manned carrier aircraft Unmanned rocket.

Payload launch to LEO

Rocket payload launch for orbital trajectory; rocket will be expendable

Orbital for payload

At the time of writing GO1 is a suborbital ELV. GO2, also an ELV, is in development for orbital missions Fully reusable; capsule returns via parasail

Note: Table was developed using the following sources, with the first two being the most used sources: FAA Office of Commercial Space Transportation 2018; Space Foundation 2018; Aero-News Network 2018; Airbus 2014; Blue Origin 2018; Boeing 2018; Clark 2017; DARPA 2017; PLD Space 2018; Whitfield 2014.

Orbit Generation Launch Service

U.S.

36 Launch Vehicles, Propulsion, and Payloads but not the same, spaceport infrastructure to support its operations, largely due to propellant, fuel, and oxidizer use and storage, but also due to the safety considerations that must be given to the spaceport, the natural environment, surrounding community, and the airspace. As of this writing, vehicles can carry up to 1698 lbs (770 kg) of payload (United States Federal Aviation Administration Office of Commercial Space Transportation 2018) which can include either humans or supplies. The most popular HTOL concepts are Concept X and Concept Z which have the least impact with respect to safety on the ground and in the air and are designed to utilize runways for takeoff under jet power, the same as other aircraft of today. Each concept includes rocket engines or motors with highly explosive propellants on board, but their configurations differ significantly. In Concept X, there is no carrier aircraft for the SRV; engines and rocket motors are integrated within the vehicle. After takeoff, the concept dictates that jet engines are shut down and rocket engines are ignited at approximately 60,000 feet, that is, 20,000 feet above the highest altitude that conventional aircraft currently fly. Following jet engine shut down, rocket power will take the craft on a suborbital trajectory. At a certain point when either propellant is consumed or rocket engines are shut down, inertia will bring the vehicle to the trajectory apogee, allowing one to five minutes of microgravity as it nears the Kármán line. When appropriate, the rocket motors will fire to allow the vehicle to reenter the Earth’s atmosphere and either glide with a skid stop to a runway landing or glide then land under jet power. It is highlighted that sufficient runway length is necessary to support a glide flight profile with a skid stop for all concepts that use an unpowered glide return. Current estimates suggest a runway length requirement of 12,000 feet (Gulliver and Finger 2010; United States Federal Aviation Administration Office of Commercial Space Transportation 2005). Similar to Concept X in terms of runway needs, Concept Z is comprised of an SRV, powered by rockets, and mated to a reusable carrier aircraft powered by jet engines. The spacecraft can be attached to the top of the carrier, mated to the underside fuselage, or attached between two fuselages on a two-fuselage carrier. In Concept Z, the carrier aircraft with the mated SRV takes off horizontally on a traditional runway under jet power. At a certain point in altitude, the SRV is jettisoned from the carrier aircraft and its rockets are ignited. Again, this would typically occur at approximately 60,000 feet in altitude. While the carrier aircraft returns under jet power to land horizontally on a runway, rocket power will take the SRV on a suborbital trajectory. As with Concept X, when either propellant is fully consumed or rocket engines are shut down, inertia will bring the vehicle to the suborbital trajectory apogee, allowing one to five minutes of microgravity. When appropriate, the rocket motors will fire to allow the vehicle to reenter the Earth’s atmosphere and return as a glider with a skid stop (Gulliver and Finger 2010). Note that while we write of suborbital vehicles, Concept Z could include an orbital craft released from the carrier aircraft. If this is the case, the vehicle or spacecraft, launched from the carrier aircraft, would climb to the designated orbit. At one

Launch Vehicles, Propulsion, and Payloads 37 time, there was also a possible concept with a tow configuration where the spacecraft was tethered to the back of the carrier aircraft (United States Federal Aviation Administration 2005). However, this tethered concept does not appear among the prevalent designs today. Note that the definition of tether remains in the U.S. CFR 401.5: Tether system means a device that contains launch vehicle hazards by physically constraining a launch vehicle in flight to a specified range from its launch point. A tether system includes all components, from the tether’s point of attachment to the vehicle to a solid base, that experience load during a tethered launch. Concept Y, the lesser of the pursued concepts, differs from Concept X and Z in one distinct area: HTO under rocket power. There is no jet power takeoff as in Concept X and no carrier aircraft takeoff as in Concept Z. Vehicles based on this concept return unpowered as a glider with a skid stop (Gulliver and Finger 2010; United States Federal Aviation Administration 2005). Although the company filed for bankruptcy (SpaceNews 2017), XCOR Aerospace designed its Lynx vehicle to this concept. During the design phase, the Lynx was anticipated to require 3000 feet of runway for HTO. At the time of writing, the authors are not aware of any vehicle being designed to the Concept Y profile. There are several commercial companies that are pursuing Concept X and Concept Z designs. The Airbus Defence and Space SpacePlane, currently under development, is based on Concept X. Still in the early design stages, the SpacePlane completed development test with a scaled down version in 2014. The space plane design concept includes runway takeoff under turbofan engine power with ignition of rocket engines at approximately 39,370 feet (12 km), reaching an estimated altitude of 197,000 feet (60 km) in 80 seconds. As noted for the Concept X general description, the rocket propulsion system will then shut down, allowing the space plane to reach a planned apogee to the Kármán line on its own inertia. On reentry, this SRV will initially act as a glider, but at approximately 65,600 feet (20 km), turbo engines will be restarted for a normal airplane landing on a runway (Howell 2014; Thisdell 2014). The current mission for this spaceplane is for manned travel with a 4-passenger load (Howell 2014). The two prominent examples of Concept Z include two systems under development by commercial entities: Virgin Galactic and Stratolaunch Systems. Under the Virgin Galactic concept, the White Knight double fuselage aircraft will carry the SRV, SpaceShipTwo, for launch on a suborbital trajectory. White Knight will return under jet power for a traditional aircraft runway landing while SpaceShipTwo will return as a glider to a skid stop on a runway. Using a similar concept, but different mission, Stratolaunch Systems’s twin fuselage carrier aircraft will include mated rockets. While Virgin Galactic focuses on passenger participants and point-to-point travel, Stratolaunch Systems is focusing on deployment of satellite payloads to low Earth orbit (LEO) with the use

38 Launch Vehicles, Propulsion, and Payloads Table 3.2 Comparison of FAA Reusable Spacecraft Concepts for HTO/HL Characteristics

Concept X (See note below)

Concept Y (See note below)

Concept Z (See note below)

Launch Vehicle/Space- Integrated craft Configuration HTO Concept Jet powered/turbofan engines with integrated rocket motors in single-stage-tospace HL Concept Varies: glide or jet powered

Integrated

Separate; uses carrier aircraft Jet powered

Suborbital or Orbital Trajectory. Note: recall that suborbital refers to a trajectory that is less than one orbit of the Earth.

Suborbital

Suborbital

Rocket powered; ignition on ground and rocket power throughout flight Glide

Carrier aircraft returns under jet power; spacecraft returns as unpowered glide or is expendable Either suborbital or orbital

Note: Concepts X, Y, and Z were designated as Concepts 1, 2, and 3, respectively in U.S. FAA Final Programmatic Environmental Impact Statement for Horizontal Launch and Reentry of Reentry Vehicles, 2005. Sources: Gulliver and Finger 2010; U.S. Federal Aviation Administration 2005.

of rockets. With a wingspan of 385 feet, the aircraft will take off and land horizontally in traditional fashion. Rockets will be mated under the wing between the two fuselages. The aircraft will fly to approximately 35,000 feet where the rockets will be jettisoned and their engines ignited, carrying them to LEO for satellite deployment (Gent 2018). As is apparent from the above discussion, SRV reentry and landing of these vehicle concepts can be either powered or unpowered. Based on research to date, the unpowered glide method with skid stop is the popular concept for those vehicles that land horizontally, particularly for smaller SRVs where the need for a lightweight design is mandatory. Note that concerns have been expressed by aviation authorities over possible damage to runways using this method with analyses underway. Depending on the speed and design of the SRV, parachute or parafoils may be added to reduce the descent rate and, possibly, allow for some steerability. This could be applicable to both powered and unpowered landings. For larger vehicles especially, a powered return under jet engine power is preferred due to safety considerations and the ease of runway use (United States Federal Aviation Administration 2005).

Launch Vehicles, Propulsion, and Payloads 39 Table 3.3 SRV Configuration and U.S. Spaceport Site Operator License Holders SRV Configuration

U.S. Spaceport

Concept X

• • • • •

Concept Y

Concept Z

• • • • •

Cecil Air and Space Port, Jacksonville, FL Colorado Air and Space Port at Front Range, Denver, CO Midland Air and Space Port, Midland, TX Mojave Air and Space Port, Mojave, CA Shuttle Landing Facility, Cape Canaveral Spaceport, Cape Canaveral, FL Cecil Air and Space Port, Jacksonville, FL Houston Spaceport, Houston, TX Mojave Air and Space Port, Mojave, CA Shuttle Landing Facility, Cape Canaveral Spaceport, Cape Canaveral, FL Spaceport America, Truth or Consequences, NM

Currently, spaceports in the U.S. that have successfully received site operator licenses (launch) for horizontal SRV configurations are noted in Table 3.3. For Concept Y, licenses are noted to include landing as well, where appropriate. Additionally, the U.S. FAA is currently reviewing licenses for HL of orbital vehicles, such as Dream Chaser from the Sierra Nevada Corporation (SNC). Careful planning goes into the appropriate configuration for the geographical location which includes in-depth analysis of airspace and environmental considerations. 3.1.1.2 SRV Vertical Takeoff and Landing Developers of suborbital RLVs are striving for maximum reusability and maximum use of supporting launch and land infrastructure. There is, therefore, often a mix, even within the same system, of takeoff and landing methods and attitudes. Like HTOL, the VTO concepts are based on the reusable vehicle attached to a vertical carrier launcher or an integrated vehicle and launcher system. Landing is often a powered–unpowered hybrid of components returning separately as dictated by design and safety considerations, such as Blue Origin’s New Shepard launch system. This system is fully reusable with the LV returning to Earth for a vertical rocket landing while the spacecraft capsule, after reaching microgravity, returns with an unpowered landing vertically on land with parachute assist (New Shepard, www.blueorigin.com). Conversely, World View’s Voyager system is a helium-filled balloon with gondola capsule, classified as a spacecraft by the U.S. FAA. For a VTO/VL method, the balloon-gondola launch system will rise to 100,000 feet and cruise at that altitude for approximately two hours. The pilot will then vent helium

40 Launch Vehicles, Propulsion, and Payloads and descend. The balloon and capsule will separate, and the gondola will land with the aid of a steerable parafoil. The balloon itself will also descend and be retrieved. Hence, both components are reusable. Possible launch sites include Florida and Arizona; however, landing may be as far as 300 miles (480 km) from the launch site (Wall 2015). DLR is developing the fully reusable SpaceLiner, a hypersonic winged passenger craft, for suborbital point-to-point travel for intercontinental/ultra-long haul (>9,000 km) flights or for orbital travel. The conceptual design is a twostage RLV with a VTO/HL configuration. The general concept includes a reusable unmanned booster and a manned stage, designed for 50 passengers and two crew members (Sippel et al. 2005). The booster will return and land horizontally (Luchkova et al. 2016). Most of the flight processes will be fully automated with two pilots on board to monitor all procedures and operations (Ros 2016; SpaceLiner, www.dlr.de). For the SpaceLiner, the first flight phases of this two-stage concept will resemble those of any conventional launch system taking off vertically. At the opportune point, the booster stage will separate (see Figure 3.4) and begins its flight back to the launch site under power whereas the orbiter stage will continue to travel. Main engine cutoff will be commanded when the orbiter stage attains the scheduled suborbital velocity and altitude (Dietlein et al. 2013) and,

Figure 3.4 SpaceLiner Separation of Stages. Source: DLR, CC-BY 3.0

Launch Vehicles, Propulsion, and Payloads 41 subsequently, it will return to Earth. Primarily for point to point travel, the SpaceLiner is also intended as an RLV that is capable of delivering heavy payloads into orbit. (Sippel et al. 2016). 3.1.2 Orbital Reusable Vehicles The U.S. Space Shuttle system, shown in Figure 3.5, held the world’s first reusable orbital spacecraft, the Orbiter, and also held key RLV components,

Figure 3.5 Space Shuttle Columbia Leaves the Launchpad. Source: NASA 1998

Boeing

SpaceX

Sierra Nevada

United Launch Alliance (ULA) China Aerospace Science and Technology Corporation (CASC) CASC

U.S.

U.S.

U.S.

U.S.

Long March 8

VTOL

Unknown. Space plane HTOL configuration (Tengyun Project)

VTO on carrier spacer launcher (Atlas V or other ELV). VL on land with parachute assist

VTO/HL

Reusable, autonomous unmanned; places payloads in LEO

Manned/Unmanned

Unmanned; reusable first stage

Manned or unmanned

Orbital for payload

Notes

Sources (the table was developed using the first two references and supplemented with the others): United States Federal Aviation Administration Office of Commercial Space Transportation 2018; Space Foundation 2018; Aero-News Network 2018; Boeing 2018; Nowakowski 2018; Space Daily 2018.

China

China

Experimental Spaceplane (XS-1). Also referred to as Phantom Express CST Starliner capsule

Boeing for DARPA

U.S.

Takeoff and Landing Profile

Manned; 7 seats maximum, or a payload mix of astronauts and cargo Falcon 9 launch vehicle VTOL for first-stage booster and spacecraft. Reusable; manned or with Crew Dragon SpaceX is currently working on second-stage reu- unmanned (manned) spacecraft sability. Crew Dragon will splash down for a sea landing with parachute assist Dream Chaser Concept 1: VTO in a carrier space launch vehicle Unmanned for Concept 1; such as Atlas V or Ariane 5. Concept 2: Airmanned for Concept 2. Caplaunch on carrier. HL as a glider sule has seating for 7 passengers Vulcan VTO with VL for reusable first stage-engines Unmanned

Launch System

Country Operator/Developer

Table 3.4 Orbital Fully Reusable or Partially Reusable Launch Systems Under Development

Launch Vehicles, Propulsion, and Payloads 43 such as the solid rocket booster (SRB) casings. Following the end of the U.S. Space Shuttle program, national space programs, commercial space companies, and aviation enthusiasts began to investigate other concepts and missions for reusable vehicles for both suborbital and orbital applications. Using the lessons learned and designs of the Space Shuttle system with knowledge obtained from other space programs worldwide, space enthusiasts and national programs began to conceptualize, design, build, test, and manufacture RLVs, spacecraft, and their components, advancing the concepts and designs with the new technologies and capabilities of today. As shown in Table 3.4, the U.S. currently leads in the development of orbital reusable launch systems, buoyed by regulatory changes and the subsequent advancements by the commercial space industry. These advancements by commercial entities were propelled with new life with the award of the crew and cargo transport contracts to the ISS. SpaceX and Boeing are working with NASA in their developments of crew transport capsules and launch methods while SNC works on cargo transport using their Dream Chaser spacecraft shown in Figure 3.6. All systems launch vertically, but each spacecraft returns to Earth in unique ways. Dream Chaser’s HL is reminiscent of the U.S. Space Shuttle Orbiter and will be landing at Kennedy Space Center (KSC) Shuttle Landing Facility, while SpaceX and Boeing are landing vertically either by sea or land, respectively. China is also building a reusable orbital space plane under the code name of Tengyun Project. The HTOL space plane will be capable of carrying cargo and passengers into orbit, and with the parallel design and development effort of a new Chinese space station, the development of the space plane makes logistical sense. Further, the Long March 8 is under development with plans for partial reusability (Nowakowski 2018; Space daily 2018).

3.2 Expendable Launch Vehicles Mainstay ELVs, such as Russia’s Soyuz rocket series, the European Space Agency’s (ESA) Ariane rockets, China’s Long March series, and the U.S.’s Delta and Atlas rockets have been the staple for transportation of crew, cargo, and other payloads, such as satellites, into space. In order to advance into new space markets, commercial manufacturers and launch providers will play a larger role as the industry continues to advance. Table 3.5 provides a list of current ELVs worldwide, including civil/military commercial ventures. Entities are advancing the design of some of the ELVs toward partial reusability of components. In all, 26 ELVs and variants are from the U.S.; 16 from China; 11 from Russia; 4 from Japan; 3 from India; 3 from France; 2 from Spain; and 1 each from Iran, Israel, North Korea, and the United Kingdom (U.K.). The majority of these are for orbital missions, however, some have suborbital variants. Figures 3.7 through 3.15, illustrate rockets from France (Ariane 5 and Vega), India (Polar Satellite Launch Vehicle – PSLV), Japan (H-IIA), Russia (Soyuz), and the U.S. (Antares, Atlas V, Delta, Falcon 9), respectively.

Figure 3.6 SNC’s Dream Chaser in California for Testing. Source: NASA/Ken Ulbrich 2017

Table 3.5 List of ELVs Worldwide Country

Vehicle

Manufacturer

Launch Service Provider

Notes

China

Kuaizhou 1/1A, 2, 11

EXPACE/PLA

Orbital

China

Long March 2C

Long March 2F

China China China China China China

Long March 3A, 3B Long March 3 Long March 4B, 4C Long March 5 Long March 6 Long March 7

PLA/China Great Wall Industry Corporation (CGWIC) PLA/China National Space Administration (CNSA) PLA/CGWIC PLA/CNSA PLA/CGWIC PLA/CNSA/CGWIC PLA/CGWIC PLA/CGWIC

Orbital

China

China Aerospace Science and Industry Corporation (CASIC) Shanghai Academy of Spaceflight Technology (SAST) China Academy of Launch Vehicle Technology (CALT) CALT/SAST CALT/SAST SAST CALT SAST/CALT CALT

Orbital

Orbital Orbital Orbital Orbital Orbital Orbital (Continued )

Table 3.5 Continued Country

Vehicle

Manufacturer

Launch Service Provider

Notes

China China China

Long March 11 New Line 1 OS-M1

CALT Link Space OneSpace

PLA Link Space OneSpace

France France India Iran

Ariane 5, Ariane 6 Vega GSLV, LVM3, PSLV Safir

Israel

Shavit 2

ArianeGroup ELV SpA ISRO Iranian Space Agency Israel Aerospace Industries (IAI)

Japan

Epsilon

IHI

Japan

H-IIA/B, H3

Japan

SS-520-5

Mitsubishi Heavy Industries (MHI) Canon/JAXA

Arianespace Arianespace ISRO/Antrix Iranian Space Agency Israel Space Agency/Israel Defense Forces (IDF) Japan Aerospace Exploration Agency (JAXA) MHI Launch Services Canon/JAXA

Orbital Orbital OS-M1 (orbital); OS-XI (suborbital) Orbital Orbital Orbital Orbital

North Korea Russia

Unha

NADA

NADA

Angara 1.2, Angara A3, Angara A5

Khrunichev

Russia Russia

Dnepr Proton Medium

PA Yuzhmash Khrunichev

Russia Russia Russia

Rockot Soyuz-FG Soyuz-2.1a/b

Khrunichev JSC SRC Progress JSC SRC Progress

Russia

Soyuz-2.1v, Soyuz-5 JSC SRC Progress

Russia

Zenit

VKS (refers to Russian Space Forces/ Russian Federal Space Agency (Roscosmos)/ILS ISC Kosmotras VKS/Roscosmos/ ILS VKS/Eurockot VKS/Glavkosmos VKS/Arianespace/ KS/GK Launch Services VKS/GK Launch Services VKS/Sea Launch AG

PA Yuzhmash

Orbital

Orbital

Orbital SS-520-5 (orbital); SS-520-4 (suborbital) Orbital Orbital

Orbital Orbital Orbital Orbital Orbital

Orbital Orbital (Continued )

Table 3.5 Continued Country

Vehicle

Manufacturer

Launch Service Provider

Notes

Spain

Arion 2

PLD Space

PLD Space

Spain U.K.

Bloostar Black Arrow 2

U.S.

Alpha 1.0

U.S.

Antares, Minotaur I, IV, V, VI, -C, NGL, Pegasus XL

Zero 2 Infinity Horizon Space Technologies Firefly Aerospace, Inc. Orbital ATK

Zero 2 Infinity Horizon Space Technologies Firefly Aerospace, Inc. Orbital ATK

Orbital; Arion 1 suborbital Orbital Orbital

U.S.

Atlas V

United Launch Alliance (ULA)

U.S. U.S.

CubeCab ULA Rocket Lab SpaceX

Rocket Lab SpaceX

U.S.

Cab-3A Delta II, Delta IV, Vulcan Electron Falcon 9, Falcon Heavy, BFR (partial reusability) GOLauncher 2

ULA/Lockheed Martin Commercial Launch Services (LMCLS) CubeCab ULA

Generation Orbit

Generation Orbit

U.S.

Haas 2C

U.S. U.S. U.S.

Intrepid 1 LauncherOne New Glenn (partial reusability)

U.S.

Space Launch System Vector-R, Vector-H (Rapid)

U.S. U.S.

U.S.

Orbital All orbital; however Minotaur IV-Lite suborbital Orbital

Orbital Orbital Orbital Orbital

Orbital. See notes under reusable launchers ARCA Space ARCA Space Haas 2C Corporation Corporation (orbital); Haas 2B (suborbital) Rocket Crafters, Inc. Rocket Crafters, Inc. Orbital Virgin Orbit Virgin Orbit Orbital Blue Origin Blue Origin Orbital; first state is reusable Boeing/ULA/Orbital NASA Orbital ATK Vector Vector Orbital

Sources: Space Foundation 2017; United States Federal Aviation Administration Office of Commercial Space Transportation 2018.

Launch Vehicles, Propulsion, and Payloads 47

Figure 3.7 Ariane 5, Carrying Galileo Satellites, during Transfer to Launch Zone, French Guiana. Source: ESA/Stephanie Corvaja 2016

These traditional ELVs launch vertically from spaceports around the world, largely for government missions. However, commercial companies, such as SpaceX, Rocket Lab, CubeCab, and the like, are now launching commercial missions and commercial payloads, i.e., satellites. Regardless, the current line of ELVs require launchpads and, in the case of SpaceX, landing pads of sufficient size and capability to support the operations. Further, as discussed earlier, both SpaceX and Blue Origin are continuously moving toward increased reusability of stages and components.

48 Launch Vehicles, Propulsion, and Payloads

Figure 3.8 ESA’s Aeolus Satellite on Vega Rocket, Kourou, French Guiana. Source: ESA/Stephanie Corvaja 2018

3.3 Propulsion Systems and Propellants Besides launch and return configurations (HTO, VTO, HL VL), the type of propulsion system, including the fuel/propellant/oxidizers, plays a role in the spaceport infrastructure, as well as land and air safety considerations. With this in mind, we turn our attention to propulsion. Airports are familiar with handling and storage of aviation fuels used by aircraft, particularly aviation gas (Avgas) for general aviation aircraft, jet fuels (JP-4, JP-5, JP-7, JP-8), unleaded kerosene Jet A-1 used by most turbinepowered aircraft, and, perhaps, rocket propellant (RP) RP-1 (highly purified form of kerosene). These fuels are hydrocarbons/petroleum distillates (gasoline, naphtha, kerosene, and fuel oil/gas oil). Other typical fuels are motor gasoline (mogas) and auto diesel. Note that Avgas falls into the gasoline category, but jet fuel and liquid hydrocarbons are of the kerosene category (Edwards 2003). Most rocket propulsion systems burn liquid or solid propellants. While a rocket engine burns liquid propellant, a rocket motor burns solid propellant. These propellants are typically comprised of a fuel and an oxidizer, the latter being new to most airports. It is noted that many launch systems use multiple propellant combinations for different rocket stages. For example, the U.S. Space Shuttle used a liquid hydrogen (LH2)/liquid oxygen (LOX) main engine with detachable external propellant tank and SRBs to reach orbit.

Figure 3.9 ISRO’s Polar Satellite Launch Vehicle (PSLV) Rocket Launch, Satish Dhawan Space Centre, India. Source: NASA 2008

50 Launch Vehicles, Propulsion, and Payloads

Figure 3.10 Japanese H-IIA Rocket on Launchpad 1, Tanegashima Space Center, Japan. Credit: NASA/Bill Ingalls 2014

However, the shuttle Orbiter used storable propellants of hydrazine/nitrogen tetroxide and the Orbiter auxiliary power unit (APU) used hydrazine monopropellant. There are also examples of hybrid engines that feature both solid and liquid propellants. 3.3.1 Engines, Motors, and Propellants Liquid rocket engines are complex for a variety of reasons, but the focus herein is the safety aspects of the engines and the propellants. There are two types of liquid rocket engines: bipropellant and monopropellant. Bipropellant engines burn

Launch Vehicles, Propulsion, and Payloads 51

Figure 3.11 Soyuz VS01 on Launchpad French Guiana. Source: ESA/Stephanie Corvaja 2011

a mixture of liquid fuel and LOX using an igniter to start burn. In the case of a hypergolic engine, the propellants spontaneously ignite when they come into contact with each other. The former is used for most LVs, while the latter is preferred for on-orbit maneuvering because it requires a lesser number of components (less weight and more reliable) and combustion is nearly guaranteed. Monopropellant engines use a liquid fuel that does not require an oxidizer and is ignited using a catalyst, such as a silver mesh. Often, the propellants used are cryogenic, meaning that the liquid is several hundred degrees below 0 degrees Celsius. Liquid propellant rockets can be throttled back and shut off when necessary which plays into safety considerations at a spaceport. Table 3.6 identifies the top liquid propellant families: cryogenics, kerosenes, toxic and nontoxic storable propellants, and monopropellants. A rocket engine that burns liquid propellants is significantly more complex and expensive than a solid rocket motor which is simpler in construction, relatively inexpensive, and can be stored for longer periods of time. Solid rocket motors were developed to a high degree of perfection in the U.S. in the 1950s and 1960s with similar parallel efforts by the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics (U.S.S.R.) at that time. Advantages of solid rocket motors important to a spaceport include their high density, and low volume and long storage life,

52 Launch Vehicles, Propulsion, and Payloads

Figure 3.12 Orbital ATK Antares Launch at NASA Wallops Flight Facility. Source: NASA/Bill Ingalls 2017

but they have instant ignition that cannot be throttled back or stopped hence safety is a significant concern (www.astronautix.com). Solid propellants have the fuel and oxidizer embedded in a rubbery mix, have a slightly lower performance than storable liquid propellants, and must be cast into the motor at the factory. Therefore, and due to transportation issues, their size may need to be limited (i.e., Delta and Ariane strap-on motors) unless they are 1.) cast in segments and assembled at the launch site (i.e., the U.S. Space Shuttle) or 2.) cast in a factory near the launch site where transport

Figure 3.13 ULA Atlas V, CCAFS Space Launch Complex 41. Source: NASA/Tony Gray and Sandra Joseph 2017

Figure 3.14 Delta ULA Launch. Source: NASA 2017

Figure 3.15 SpaceX Falcon 9 Launch from SLC- 40. Source: NASA 2012

Launch Vehicles, Propulsion, and Payloads 55 Table 3.6 Major Liquid Propellant Families (Modified from Edwards 2003) Family

Example

Attributes

Cryogenic Kerosene (cryogenic) Storable toxic

LH2/LOX RP-1/LOX

High performance High density; cheaper handling

Nitrogen tetroxide/hydrazine Storable Kerosene/ nontoxic peroxide Monopropellant Hydrazine

Storable, hypergolic (ignite on contact) Storable, relatively nontoxic Requires catalyst for combustion, but eliminates need for separate fuel plus oxidizer

distance is limited (www.astronautix.com). Popular solid propellants include polybutadiene acrylonite (PBAN)-based ammonium perchlorate as the oxidizer, aluminum powder as the fuel and hydroxl-terminated polybutadiene (HTPB). 3.3.2 Common Propellants, Fuels, and Oxidizers Table 3.7 lists the common propellants, fuels, and oxidizers used worldwide in today’s rockets, including both liquid and solid. LOX is the most common liquid oxidizer used; the most common propellant for satellites is hydrazine.

Table 3.7 Common Fuels, Oxidizers, and Propellants Compound

Purpose

Hydroxyl-terminated Fuel polybutadiene (HTBP) Fuel or monoHydrazine (N2H4; also noted as N2H4) propellant

Kerosene

Fuel

Liquid methane (LCH4 or LCH4)

Fuel or monopropellant

Note •

Used in solid rocket motors

•

Used as a monopropellant for satellite station-keeping motors. Storable in explosion-proof tanks Quick to evaporate Toxic Most popular for orbiting spacecraft Variants include standard U.S. kerosene RP (RP-1), Russian kerosene T-1 and RG-1, as well as “Sintin”, or synthetic kerosene

• • • • •

(Continued )

Table 3.7 Continued Compound

Purpose

Note

Liquid hydrogen (LH2 or LH2)

Fuel

•

Liquefied natural gas Fuel (LNG) MonomethylhydraFuel zine (MMH) Fuel Unsymmetrical dimethylhydrazine (UDMH) (CH3)2NNH2)

•

Highly cryogenic, and it has a very low density, making for large tanks Explosive hazard

•

Storable

•

Storable liquid fuel of choice by the mid-1950s Used in majority of all storable liquid rocket engines except for some orbital maneuvering engines in the U.S., where monomethylhydrazine (MMH) has been preferred due to a slightly higher density and performance Relatively high density and nontoxic Abandoned early on, but revived in recent history by U.S. Air Force Earliest, cheapest, safest, and preferred oxidizer for large space launchers Moderately cryogenic Not suitable for launching at a moment’s notice due to storage requirements Oxidizer of choice for hybrid rocket motors Benign, storable, and self-pressurizing to 48 atmospheres at 17 degrees C. Storable N2O4 better oxidizer and storable, but HNO3 still in use today

•

H2O2 or H2O2

Oxidizer or monopropellant

• •

Liquid oxygen (LOX)

Oxidizer

•

Liquid nitrous oxide “laughing gas” (N2O or N2O)

Oxidizer

Nitric Acid (HNO3 or HNO3) (also known as White Fuming Nitric Acid (WFNA)) Nitrogen tetroxide (N2O4 or N2O4) Air/Kerosene

Oxidizer

• •

Oxidizer

•

Storable

Propellant

•

Propellant

•

Air (oxidizer) is used to burn aviationgrade kerosene and commercial-grade JP-4 or JP-5, among others Proposed for use in environmentally friendly or high-speed jet engines; mixed propulsion reusable single-stage -to-orbit Liquid hydrogen (LH2) (fuel) highly cryogenic and very low density, making for large tanks

Air/Liquid hydrogen (LH2)

• • • •

•

(Continued )

Table 3.7 Continued Compound

Purpose

Note

Air/LOX/LH2

Tripropellant

•

H2O2/Kerosene

Propellant

• • • • •

LOX/Kerosene LOX/Kerosene/LH2

LOX/LCH4

Propellant Propellant

• •

Propellant

• • • •

LOX/LH2

Propellant

• •

• • • LOX/LNG

Propellant

•

LOX/Solid

Propellant

•

•

In single-stage-to-orbit variants the air may be liquefied prior to use, and later the motor converts to pure rocket propulsion, using onboard LOX (oxidizer) for the final push to orbit High-density propellant combination Storable Nontoxic Care needed in storage and handling since could react with trace element H2O2 can act as an oxidizer or monopropellant Cryogenic Tripropellant motors use high-density kerosene for the boost phase, then low-density LH2 for the later stages of ascent Propellants are stored in separate tanks Cryogenic Liquid methane (LCH4) provides longer and easier storage and higher density than hydrogen Proposed to use by Russia. In use in U.K.’s Black Arrow and U.S. SpaceX’s Raptor; U.S. Blue Origin’s New Glenn; U.S. ULA Vulcan Popular propellant with long history Used by U.S. Centaur and Saturn upper stages; U.S. Space Shuttle; European Ariane 5; Chinese CZ-5 launch vehicles Cryogenic Used in upper stages flown on American, European, Indian, and Chinese boosters Not used for any Russian space launchers Cleaner propellant combination than the LOX/kerosene Mixed liquid/solid propulsion systems offer storability of a solid rocket, the safety and the ability to throttle back a liquid rocket, and lower cost Solid fuel for hybrids are in the form of a rubbery matrix. HTPB (hydroxl(Continued )

Table 3.7 Continued Compound

Liquid nitrous oxide (N2O) and propane (C3H8) N2O/Solid

Purpose

Note

Propellant

•

Propellant

•

•

N2O4/Aerozine-50

Propellant

•

N2O4/Monomethylhydrazine (MMH)

Propellant

•

N2O4/Unsymmetrical dimethylhydrazine (UDMH)

Propellant

•

• Propellant

•

Nitric acid/ Unsym- Propellant metrical dimethylhydrazine (UDMH)

•

Nitrous oxide/ Alcohol

•

Nitric acid (HNO3)/ Solid

Propellant

terminated polybutadiene) is most commonly used Proposed as a possible propellant combination for manned spacecraft Liquid N2O is the oxidizer of choice for hybrid rocket motors because it is storable and self-pressurizing to 48 atmospheres at 17 degrees C The combination of hydroxlterminated polybutadiene (HTPB) or solid fuel and N2O is benign, nontoxic, and nonexplosive Aerozine is a 50/50 mixture of hydrazine and UDMH developed for use in the U.S. Titan missile and variants; also used in Russia MMH sometimes preferred in the U.S. as a replacement to UDMH, due to a slightly higher density and performance. Common in large satellites Popular in U.S. and Russia rockets. MMH sometimes preferred in U.S., as a replacement to UDMH (Fuel), due to a slightly higher density and performance. MMH sometimes used to replace Aerozine-50 Potential hybrid rocket combination, but less corrosive oxidizers (LOX, nitrous oxide) have been preferred for safety reasons. Red fuming nitric acid (RFNA) has found limited use today as an oxidizer, and is often combined with fuel, UDMH Used in early rocket designs

Note: Formula chemical names and commonly used chemical terms are often used interchangeably, such as N2O and N2O, in the space sector. Sources: Astronautix 2018; Edwards 2003; United States Federal Aviation Administration Office of Commercial Space Transportation 2018.

Launch Vehicles, Propulsion, and Payloads 59 3.3.3 Propellant Use by Nation Based on research to date, nation-states use a variety of propellants. Table 3.8 compares countries with their most prevalent propellant type, while Figures 3.16, 3.17, and 3.18 highlight the propellant of choice used by the U.S., Russia, and China, respectively. Most LVs in the U.S. today use solid propellant and LOX/kerosene. Russian rockets largely use N2O4/Unsymmetrical dimethylhydrazine (UDMH) and LOX/kerosene, while China favors N2O4/UDMH, followed by solid. This, of course, depends on the number of rocket stages and boosters needed for the mission at hand. Finally, once LV manufacturers lock into a reliable design that meets their requirements, they typically create scalable versions of the same design. Hence, SpaceX uses LOX/kerosene with its Merlin-1D rocket engines. It builds larger rockets and fulfills increased propulsion needs by adding more Merlin-1D engines. This standardization leads to increased savings in time and money. 3.3.4 Advancements in Propellants Lowering launch costs is at the forefront of the thinking of many operators. Improvements in propellants are being sought to increase performance for use in single-stage-to-orbit and two-stage-to-orbit applications, and certainly the use of carrier aircraft reduces launch costs, partially due to the use of standard fuels prevalent at today’s airports. Further research and development into green fuels is making headway, particularly for satellites. AF-M315E is a hydroxyl ammonium nitrate propellant blend being developed at Ball Aerospace, Inc. as a replacement for hydrazine (Button 2017). Sweden is developing the green propellant, ammonium dinitramide, considered more hazardous than AF-M315E, but less expensive than hydrazine (Whitmore and Bulcher 2017). Finally, electric propulsion systems are being developed for satellite use while in orbit. As these systems become more prevalent, satellite propellant storage needs at spaceports will decrease as a result. Regardless of advancements in propellants, they clearly vary, not only in storability, but how they need to be stored. The air and space port of today and tomorrow will need to adjust and modify their infrastructure to store not only traditional aviation and jet fuels, but also propellants with unique requirements.

3.4 Payload As defined earlier, the payload is that which is carried by the LV and is part of its mission but not part of its operating structure, that is, it is the “paying” part of the cargo. It can be living (people, plants, animals, insects, etc.) or nonliving (supplies, satellites, spacecraft, etc.). Nearly all launches today are for satellite deployment in various Earth orbits for communications and remote sensing/imagery, and scientific

X

X X

X

India

Iran Israel

Japan

X X

X

X

X

X

LOX/ Kerosene Hybrid CH4

U.S.

X

X

RFNA/ UDMA

U.K.

Spain X

X

X

X

X

X

X

Russia

X

X

X

X

X

X

LOX/ LOX/ LOX/ UDMH LH3 LH2 Kerosene

North Korea

X

X

France

X

X

China

X

Solid N2O4/ N2O4/ HNO3 UDMH

Country

Table 3.8 Type of Propellant Commonly Used by Country

X

LOX/ Propylene X

X

X

H2O2/ Hydrazine Kerosene

X

N2O4/ Aerozine-50

U.S. 7%

3% 1%

Solid N2O4 /HNO3

3% 1%

N2O4/UDMH LOX/LH3

6%

LOX/LH2

48%

LOX/Kerosene UDMH

23%

RFNA/UDMH LOX/CH4

8%

Kerosene (JP-4)

Figure 3.16 Common Propellants Used by the U.S.

3%

Russia Solid N2O4 /HNO3 N2O4/UDMH LOX/LH3

45% 52%

LOX/LH2 LOX/Kerosene UDMH RFNA/UDMH LOX/CH4

Figure 3.17 Common Propellants Used by Russia.

62 Launch Vehicles, Propulsion, and Payloads

China 3% Solid N2O4 /HNO3

14%

N2O4/UDMH

26%

LOX/LH3 LOX/LH2

12%

LOX/Kerosene UDMH RFNA/UDMH

LOX/CH4

45%

Kerosene (JP-4)

Figure 3.18 Common Propellants Used by China.

experiments such as those associated with sounding rockets and other larger launch systems and spacecraft. Additionally, launches designated for cargo delivery and astronaut transport to and from the ISS are reasonably frequent. More and more countries are expanding their space efforts with launches and payloads supporting these efforts (i.e., Chinese space station components; tests, such as anti-satellite missile tests (India); spacecraft landings on the Moon (Israel), etc.). Commercially, there are a small number of unusual payloads that are meant to be expendable should there be an anomaly in launch or deployment of payload. The most notable is that of the first SpaceX Falcon Heavy launch carrying the Tesla payload (See Figure 3.19), successfully deployed into space after the inaugural flight of the Falcon Heavy. LVs are designed to carry payloads of various masses. By adding more and higher thrust-capable rocket stages and boosters, launchers can grow launch capacity and increase the amount of weight they carry. For example, Figure 3.20 illustrates a United Launch Alliance (ULA) Delta II rocket ready to launch from U.S. Vandenberg Air Force Base Space Launch Complex 2. As is typical, the payload (satellite) is encased in the fairing at the top of the main-stage rocket. The smaller boosters encircle the bottom of the main stage. The Delta II is a capable of carrying 13,000 lbs to LEO (Delta II,

Figure 3.19 SpaceX Falcon Heavy Carried the Tesla Payload. Source: NASA 2017

Figure 3.20 United Launch Alliance Delta II Rocket. Source: NASA 2017

64 Launch Vehicles, Propulsion, and Payloads

Figure 3.21 United Launch Alliance Delta IV Rocket. Source: NASA 2018

United Launch Alliance, LLC 2019a). In comparison, the much larger Delta IV, shown in Figure 3.21, can carry 62,548 lbs to LEO (Delta IV, United Launch Alliance, LLC 2019b). Again, the payload is encased in the fairing at the top of the main-stage rocket. As costs and performance are highly dependent on weight, many launch providers offer additional space in the fairing for secondary payloads, thereby increasing their revenue stream with each launch. Even for governmentsponsored launches, “piggyback” configurations allow for secondary payloads. Figure 3.22 illustrates the concept behind secondary payloads using a basic illustration for the NASA Space Launch System (SLS). The primary payload, the Orion crew spacecraft, sits above the core rocket stage, while the secondary payload area for cube satellites (CubeSats) is located above the crew capsule. Note that CubeSats, a popular payload at present, are a class of research spacecraft called nanosatellites. CubeSats are built to standard dimensions (Units or ‘U’) of 10 cm x 10 cm x 10 cm. They can be 1U, 2U, 3U, or 6U in size, and typically weigh less than 1.33 kg (3 lbs) per cube (NASA 2018).

Launch Vehicles, Propulsion, and Payloads 65

Figure 3.22 Space Launch System with Secondary Payload Locations. Source: NASA

Figures 3.23 and 3.24 display CubeSats being deployed into space either as 1U or as part of nanoracks. For the spaceport, clearly considerations must be given to the type of payload which is carried (living and nonliving) with infrastructure and operational considerations given for both. In the next chapter, we delve more fully into how the payload, and more importantly, the LVs and their propulsions systems, drive these considerations.

Figure 3.23 CubeSats Deployed as Single Units. Source: NASA 2018

Figure 3.24 CubeSats Deployed on a Nanorack. Source: NASA 2017

Launch Vehicles, Propulsion, and Payloads 67

References Aero-News Network. (2018). Generation Orbit Closer To Launch from Cecil Field in Florida. Available at: www.aero-news.net/index.cfm?do=main.textpost&id=74caf57c-17a84606-8664-d5457719431a (Accessed: 2 May 2018). Airbus. (2014). Tests Completed for Airbus Defence and Space’s SpacePlane Demonstrator in South China Sea, Airbus. Available at: www.airbus.com/newsroom/press-releases/en/ 2014/06/tests-completed-for-airbus-defence-and-spaces-spaceplane-demonstrator-insouth-china-sea.html (Accessed: 2 May 2018). Astronautix. (2018). Encyclopedia Astronautica, Propellants. Available at: www.astronau tix.com/s/solid.html (Accessed: 14 June 2018). Blue Origin. (2018). ‘New Shepard’. Available at: www.dev.blueorigin.com/new-shepard (Accessed: 22 June 2018). Boeing. (2018). ‘Going beyond earth.’ Available at: https://watchusfly.com/innovation/ Accessed: 22 June 2018). Button, K. (2017). ‘Green propellant.’ Aerospace America. Available at: https://aerospacea merica.aiaa.org/features/green-propellant/ (Accessed: 2 August 2018). Clark, S. (2017). ‘Boeing, DARPA to base XS-1 spaceplane at Cape Canaveral: Spaceflight Now’. Available at: https://spaceflightnow.com/2017/06/13/boeing-darpa-to-base-xs1-spaceplane-at-cape-canaveral/ (Accessed: 2 May 2018). DARPA. (2017). ‘DARPA Picks Design for Next-Generation Spaceplane.’ Available at: www.darpa.mil/news-events/2017-05-24 (Accessed: 2 June 2018). Dietlein, I., Schwanekamp, T., and Kopp, A. (2013). ‘Trim requirements and impact on wing design for the high-speed passenger transport concept SpaceLiner,’ Proceedings of the Institution of Mechanical Engineers, Part G: Journal of Aerospace Engineering, Vol. 227, No. 11, pp. 1811–1826. DLR. Institute of Space Systems: SpaceLiner. Available at: www.dlr.de/irs/en/desktopde fault.aspx/tabid-11303/ (Accessed: 21 May 2018). Edwards, T. (2003). ‘Liquid fuels and propellants for aerospace propulsion: 1903–2003,’ Journal of Propulsion Power, Vol. 19, No. 6, pp. 1089–1107. Gent, E. (2018). ‘World’s biggest plane, stratolaunch, marks another key milestone.’ www. nbcnews.com/Web site. Available at: www.nbcnews.com/mach/science/world-s-biggestplane-stratolaunch-marks-another-key-milestone-ncna851556. Gulliver, B. and Finger, G.W. (2010). ‘Can your airport become a spaceport? the benefits of a spaceport development plan.’ In: 48th AIAA aerospace sciences meeting including the new horizons forum and aerospace exposition. American Institute of Aeronautics and Astronautics. Harvard-Smithsonian Center for Astrophysics. (2008). Chandra X-Ray Observatory: Q&A: General Astronomy and Space Science. Available at: http://chandra.harvard.edu/ resources/faq/astrophysics/astrophysics-19.html (Accessed: 6 June 2018). Howell, E. (2014). ‘Spaceplane: Suborbital Vehicle for Space Tourism & Science.’ [Online] Available at: www.space.com/32373-spaceplane.html (Accessed: 22 May 2018). Jenner, L. (2015) ‘Sounding Rockets Overview,’ NASA. Available at: www.nasa.gov/mis sion_pages/sounding-rockets/missions/index.html (Accessed: 22 May 2018). Luchkova, T., Kaltenhäuser, S., and Morlang, F. (2016). ‘Air traffic impact analysis design for a suborbital point-to-point passenger transport concept.’ Embry-Riddle Aeronautical University 3rd Annual Space Traffic Management Conference, Daytona Beach, FL.

68 Launch Vehicles, Propulsion, and Payloads Marconi, E.M. (2004). ‘What is a sounding rocket?’ For NASA’s John F. Kennedy Space Center and Wallops Flight Facility. Available at: www.nasa.gov/missions/research/ f_sounding.html (Accessed 21 May 2018). McCoy, J.F. ed. (2012). Space Sciences (2nd ed.). Detroit, MI: Macmillan Reference U.S. Merriam-Webster Dictionary. (2019). Available at: www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/. NASA. (1978). A New Dimension: Wallops Island Flight Test Range: The First Fifteen Years. Reference Publication 1028. Washington, DC: Joseph A. Shortal (author). NASA. (2018). ‘CubeSats Overview.’ Available at: www.nasa.gov/mission_pages/cube sats/overview (Accessed 3 September 2019). NASA. (2018). ‘What Is a Space Probe?.’ Available at: www.nasa.gov/centers/jpl/educa tion/spaceprobe-20100225.html (Accessed: 2 May 2018). Nowakowski, T. (2018). ‘China developing a reusable launch vehicle,’ SpaceFlight Insider, 6 May. Available at: www.spaceflightinsider.com/organizations/china-national-spaceadministration/china-developing-a-reusable-launch-vehicle/ (Accessed: 2 June 2018). Ogawa, H. et al. (2016). ‘Reusable Sounding Rocket,’ International Journal of Microgravity Scientific Application, Vol. 33, No. 3, pp. 1–5. PLD Space. (2018). Available at: http://pldspace.com/new/ (Accessed: 2 May 2018). Ros, M. (2016). ‘Space tech meets aviation: The hypersonic revolution,’ CNN Travel [Online]. Available at: www.cnn.com/travel/article/spaceliner-mach-25/index.html (Accessed 22 May 2018). Sippel, M., Klevanski, J., and Steelant, J. (2005) ‘Comparative Study on Options for High-Speed Intercontinental Passenger Transports: Air-Breathing- vs. Rocket-Propelled,’ In: 56th International Astronautical Congress of the International Astronautical Federation, the International Academy of Astronautics, and the International Institute of Space Law. Fukuoka, Japan: American Institute of Aeronautics and Astronautics. doi: 10.2514/6.IAC-05D2.4.09. Sippel, M., Trivailo, O., Bussler, L., Lipp, S., Valluchi, C., Kaltenhäuser, S., and Molina, R. (2016). ‘Evolution of the SpaceLiner towards a Reusable TSTO-Launcher, IAC-16-D2.4.03,’ In: 67th International Astronautical Congress, Guadalajara, Mexico, September 2016. Space Foundation. (2017). The Space Report: The Authoritative Guide to Global Space Activity. Colorado Springs, CO: Space Foundation. Space Foundation. (2018). The Space Report: The Authoritative Guide to Global Space Activity. Colorado Springs, CO: Space Foundation. Space Daily. (2018). ‘China plans to develop a multipurpose, reusable space plane,’ Space Daily. Available at: www.spacedaily.com/reports/China_plans_to_develop_a_multipurpo se_reusable_space_plane_999.html (Accessed: 2 May 2018). SpaceNews. (2017). ‘XCOR Aerospace files for bankruptcy,’ SpaceNews.com. Available at: https://spacenews.com/xcor-aerospace-files-for-bankruptcy/ (Accessed: 2 May 2019). Thisdell, D. (2014). ‘Airbus spaceplane concept aces 3,000ft drop test.’ Available at: Flight global.com. Tian, B., Fan, W., Su, R., and Zong, Q. (2015). ‘Real-time trajectory and attitude coordination control for reusable launch vehicle in reentry phase,’ IEEE Transactions on Industrial Electronics, Vol. 62, No. 3, pp. 1639–1650. doi: 10.1109/TIE.2014.2341553. United Launch Alliance LLC. (2019a). Delta II. Available at: www.ulalaunch.com/rockets/ delta-ii (Accessed: 7 June 2019). United Launch Alliance LLC. (2019b). Delta IV. Available at: www.ulalaunch.com/ rockets/delta-iv (Accessed: 7 June 2019).

Launch Vehicles, Propulsion, and Payloads 69 United States. Code of Federal Regulations, Title 14 Aeronautics and Space; Volume 4, Chapter III, Part 405.1, Definitions. Available at: www.ecfr.gov/cgi-bin/text-idx? SID=68fecdc5c85d713c638cf58bed2a31d8&mc=true&node=pt14.4.401&rgn=div5 (Accessed: 24 May 2019). United States Federal Aviation Administration. (2005). Final programmatic environmental impact statement for horizontal launch and reentry of reentry vehicles. Department of Transportation Federal Aviation Administration, Office of Commercial Space Transportation. United States Federal Aviation Administration Office of Commercial Space Transportation. (2005). ‘Final Programmatic Environmental Impact Statement for Horizontal Launch and Reentry of Reentry Vehicles’. Available at: www.faa.gov/about/office_org/headquarters_of fices/ast/licenses_permits/media/Final_FAA_PEIS_Dec_05.pdf (Accessed: 8 July 2018). United States Federal Aviation Administration Office of Commercial Space Transportation. (2018). The Annual Compendium of Commercial Space Transportation: 2018. Washington, DC: United States Federal Aviation Administration. United States NASA Jet Propulsion Laboratory. (2018). ‘Voyager: Mission Overview.’ Voyager.jpl.nasa.gov. Available at: voyager.jpl.nasa.gov/mission/ .www.nasa.gov/centers/jpl/education/spaceprobe-20100225.html. Wall, M. (2015). ‘World View’s Balloon-Based Space Tourism to Lift Off in 2017,’ Space. com. Available at: www.space.com/30750-world-view-space-tourism-balloon-flights. html (Accessed: 7 June 2018). Whitfield, B. (2014). ‘Dream Chaser Teams with Stratolaunch to Carry People into Space in Flying.’ Available at: www.flyingmag.com/aircraft/dream-chaser-teams-stratolaunchcarry-people-space (Accessed: 2 June 2018). Whitmore, S.A. and Bulcher, A.M. (2017). ‘Vacuum Test of a Novel Green-Propellant Thruster for Small Spacecraft,’ In: 53rd AIAA/SAE/ASEE Joint Propulsion Conference. 53rd AIAA/SAE/ASEE Joint Propulsion Conference, Atlanta, GA: American Institute of Aeronautics and Astronautics. doi: 10.2514/6.2017-5044.

4

Spaceport Infrastructure and Operations

When considering the implications of commercial space activities on spaceport infrastructure and operations, one must take into consideration the main drivers: the launch vehicle, propellant, and payload, and all that is needed to support these elements. The previous chapter described these top drivers and provided an introduction into infrastructure requirements. This chapter delves more deeply into the details of spaceport infrastructure and operational needs and and the rationale and analyses that define them. The infrastructure must provide for the launch of suborbital and orbital vehicles with expendable and reusable components and systems; the processing and integration of a variety of payloads; the return of vehicles and return of reusable components, such as solid rocket booster (SRB) capsules; the on-site cleaning and refurbishment of various components and subsystems; and all associated operations thereof, including launch and mission control. Further, the human element must be considered in the form of the pilot and crew, and spaceport employees, as well as passengers and astronauts. Additional safety, security, and comfort must be accommodated. Space systems and corresponding activities come with a plethora of differing requirements, including both physical and operational characteristics that are not always common across platforms, such as diverse fuel and propellant needs, different launch and landing procedures and processes, etc., depending on their designs. To add further complication, launches are procured for a variety of missions, most notably satellite deployment, International Space Station (ISS) cargo transportation, and scientific research, but also, in the not-so-distant future, for space travel and tourism, space mining, and destination flights to the Moon, Mars, and other celestial bodies. Whether due to design or due to mission and destination, the implications for the spaceport include multimodal transportation access, where rail, water, road, air, and space transportation infrastructures are key to the success of the spaceport. With regard to this, the chapter will outline requirements for a multimodal transportation spaceport by first reviewing the flow of elements at a spaceport, followed by a review of the United States (U.S.) Space Shuttle and its infrastructure requirements and implications, and then closing with an airport–spaceport terminology comparison and an overview perspective of air and space port requirements with selective details.

Spaceport Infrastructure and Operations

71

4.1 Key Elements of a Spaceport As mentioned, launch facility infrastructure needs change based on the type of launch vehicle, propulsion systems, payload, and mission. Ideally, a multiuser, multipurpose spaceport would be able to accommodate a wide variety of suborbital and orbital vehicles, reusable and expendable; different launch configurations; different technologies and support systems, etc. However, this may not be practical or necessary, particularly as the network of spaceports grows domestically and internationally. In the past, and still often today, launch complexes are typically designed and built to accommodate a particular launch vehicle or series of vehicles and are not easily modified. For example, Figure 4.1 illustrates “missile row” at Cape Canaveral Air Force Station (CCAFS) in Florida. While the photo is from 1964, the launchpads shown were developed for particular programs of the time. Although there is some flexibility today with the use of mobile launcher platforms (MLP), many launchpads are still designed/modified to accommodate a certain class of launch vehicle. Airport infrastructure, i.e., runways, taxiways, etc., varies in accordance with the type of aircraft it can safely accommodate. Similarly, spaceports will likely focus their business models on the types of vehicles, spacecraft, and payload to

Figure 4.1 CCAFS Aerial View of Missile Row in 1964. Credit: NASA/Kennedy Space Center 1964

72 Spaceport Infrastructure and Operations be accommodated. Thus, there is a diverse set of spaceports in existence or in development, each spaceport catering to a particular segment of the industry. Figure 4.2 highlights the basic flow of key elements and processing at a spaceport to ultimately arrive at a launch-ready vehicle and payload. Regardless of whether the launch vehicle is designed for horizontal takeoff or vertical takeoff, the elements and the process flows are conceptually the same. (Note that this basic diagram does not take into account all air/space port activities, such as those associated with returning vehicles. More comprehensive coverage is available later in the chapter.) Stages or components arrive by road, rail, air, or water depending on their complexity, size, and combustibility, with safety as the top priority. Pressurized gases, such as helium and nitrogen, may be piped in and piped throughout the port or transported in for use and storage in environmentally controlled containers. Propellants, fuels, and oxidizers will need to be handled with care during storage and fueling. Security facilities are required for processing of components and people. Storage and preprocessing facilities are necessary for parts, equipment, etc. and processing facilities for vehicles and payloads must be in place to ensure ready integration of the full-up system, i.e., the launch vehicle with/without SRBs and the fairing (with integrated payload such as satellites or other spacecraft). Just-in-time inventory schemes will need to be implemented for large component items or those associated with safety risks.

4.2 U.S. Space Shuttle: A Case Study In order to understand the elements of Figure 4.2 and provide a richer illustration, a review of the infrastructure and operational needs of the U.S. Space Shuttle will be performed as a case study. In doing so, clarification and insight is provided into spaceport elements, key operations, and the reasons behind their necessity. Commercial entities are using repurposed U.S. Space Shuttle and older launch facilities at the National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA) and air force complexes around the U.S. They are also building new private launch complexes based, in part, on lessons learned from legacy spaceports around the world. In regard to this, the U.S. Space Shuttle system is an excellent example by which we can explore infrastructure requirements for spaceports of today and in the future. The Space Shuttle, as defined by NASA, was a system of three major components: the reusable Orbiter which housed the crew and payload, the expendable external fuel tank that held the liquid oxygen (LOX) and the liquid hydrogen (LH2) for the main engines, and the two reusable SRBs as shown in Figure 4.3. Thus, the shuttle was a combination of both reusable and expendable components that allowed for a vertical rocket-ignited takeoff, a horizontal glide landing for the Orbiter, and a water landing of SRB casements. More specifically, following liftoff, the expendable external fuel tank burned during reentry, and the reusable Orbiter returned as a glider for a horizontal landing on the runway at NASA’s Shuttle Landing Facility (SLF) at Kennedy Space Center (KSC)

PIPELINE

Security

Figure 4.2 General Flow of Key Spaceport Elements.

Employees, participants, astronauts, crew

Gases

Propellant

SRBs

Payload

Fairings

Launch vehicle stages

Parts, equipment, etc.

Storage/ preprocessing

Payload Processing Facilities

Launch vehicle processing facilities

Participant, crew, or astronaut processing

System integration of vehicle, payload, and SRBs as applicable

System integration to launchpad; final loading of propellant and people

External fuel tank

SRBs

Orbiter

Figure 4.3 U.S. Space Shuttle. Source: NASA 2011, modified

Spaceport Infrastructure and Operations

75

(NASA 2012). The reusable SRBs, which provided the majority of liftoff thrust during the first two minutes of flight, returned to Earth via a parachute water landing in the Atlantic Ocean (NASA 2006). The complexity of the Space Shuttle system required different operations; different processing and storage facilities for payloads, fuels, and propellants; unique integration of shuttle parts and subsystems; different transportation modes for these systems, mechanisms, and people to, within, and from the spaceport, etc. Although the shuttle system is retired, as noted earlier, many vehicles and spacecraft of today are based on its design. Hence, it gives us an understanding of the complexity behind the infrastructure and operation needs from integration to launch to return to relaunch. 4.2.1 U.S. Space Shuttle Government Responsibilities and Prime Contractors The Space Shuttle responsibilities were divided between NASA entities in the U.S., specifically in Florida, Texas, Alabama, Mississippi, and Maryland. Prime contractors were likewise spread across the country. As a result of this dispersion, facilities and infrastructure requirements varied across entities. Because of this, a breakdown of responsibilities between NASA and those of the prime contractors is worthy of a brief discussion and summarized in Table 4.1. With regard to prime contractors, the Orbiter was designed and manufactured by Rockwell International, Downey, California, U.S. The SRBs were built by several U.S. contractors in Utah (Morton Thiokol Chemical Corp) and Alabama (United Space Boosters, Inc.). The shuttle’s external fuel tank was built at NASA Michoud Assembly Facility near New Orleans, Louisiana U.S. by the then Martin Marietta Corporation (now Lockheed Martin Corporation). The shuttle’s main engines were produced by Rockwell International, also in California. All of these needed to be transported in part or as an integrated whole to KSC for final assembly and integration into the full shuttle system. The importance of understanding the above is twofold: 1) Manufacturing of components, test, integration, processing of payload, launch and return of vehicles, astronaut training and astronaut preflight and postflight processing, mission control, etc. were not all located at one facility. This is analogous to what happens in aviation but it is worthy of comment. The transition of space transportation and travel from a military and government domain to the private sector requires us to step back and look at even basic requirements for a thorough understanding of their implications. 2) A full-up spaceport which encompasses integration of components and payloads, launch and mission control, launch vehicle and spacecraft return, maintenance and repair, and test requires all of these different facilities. But, as is clear with the Space Shuttle, these facilities do not need to be co-located. There are many reasons why some activities are kept separate, including security and safety with respect to launch and mission control, and many reasons why they should be kept together, for instance, for cost, logistics, and operations control.

Table 4.1 U.S. Space Shuttle NASA Organizational Responsibilities (NASA 2000) NASA Entity and Responsibility

Infrastructure and Facilities

John F. Kennedy Space Center, Cape Canaveral, Florida: Space Shuttle Integration, Payload Integration, Launch, Landing, Processing

• • • • • • • • •

• • • • • • • • • • • • •

Lyndon B. Johnson Space Center, Houston, Texas: Mission control, training, test George C. Marshal Space Flight Center, Huntsville, Alabama: Payload operations control center, Spacelab training National Space Technology Laboratories, Hancock County, Mississippi: Testing Goddard Space Flight Center, Greenbelt, Maryland: Space flight and tracking

• • • • • • •

Orbiter Processing Facility (OPF) and Modification and Refurbishment Facility Logistics Facility Vehicle Assembly Building (VAB) External tank processing facilities and engine workshop Solid rocket booster processing facilities Hypergolic Maintenance and Checkout Facility (HMCF) Orbiter mating and space shuttle vehicle testing systems Mobile Launcher Platform (MLP) Launch Complexes (LC) 39A and 39B with fixed service structure (FSS), rotating service structure (RSS), sound suppression water system, hydrogen burn-off system, flame deflector system, propellant storage tanks and distribution system Payload processing facilities Processing facilities at Cape Canaveral Air Force Station (CCAFS) Radioisotope thermoelectric generator storage building Vertical processing facility Payload hazardous servicing facility Vertical processing/integration operations systems Horizontal cargo processing facilities Small, self-contained payload processing Processing facilities for special payloads Launch Control Center (LCC) Launch processing system Prelaunch propellant load systems Solid rocket booster retrieval, disassembly and refurbishment, as well as parachute refurbishment facility Shuttle Landing Facility Towing tractors Mission Control Center (MCC) which included flight control and multipurpose support rooms. Payload operations control centers Training and test facilities Payload operations control center Spacelab training facilities.

•

Facilities for testing the main propulsion systems and space shuttle main engine firings

•

Facilities for operating, maintaining and controlling the space flight tracking and data network.

Spaceport Infrastructure and Operations

77

3) For NASA and other similar entities around the world, a spaceport that accommodated multimodal transportation avenues to, from, and within was critical to success. Of course, this included roads for transportation of people and components. But, all hardware components for the complex system were transported either by or in combination with truck, train, ship, or air to KSC and CCAFS (cf., NASA 2000). Whatsmore, returning components and, possibly, astronauts from water landings needed access to postlaunch processing and cleaning facilities or medical facilities, respectively, via water ports, air, roads, and rail. The 2015 map shown in Figure 4.4 illustrates in detail the boundaries of KSC and CCAFS (southeast of KSC), along with Port Canaveral to the south that connects the river to the Atlantic Ocean and which allows water transport of components. It also highlights Launch Pad 39A and B previously used for the Space Shuttle, and the crawlerway connecting the assembly building and the launchpads. More specifically, Launch Pad 39B, identified in the upper righthand section of the map by a small bolded black circle, is the planned pad for the NASA Space Launch System (SLS) Program. Launch Pad 39A, leased by SpaceX, lies just southeast of Launch Pad 39B. Launch Complex 39 Area, identified by a larger bolded black circle, includes the Vehicle Assembly Building (VAB). The crawlerway connects all three: Complex 39 Area, Pad 39A, and Pad 39B. The SLF and tow-way is shown, bounded by the rectangular box to the upper left of the map, as well as rail lines, roads, and the vendor source for gaseous nitrogen, piped into KSC and CCAFS. Additionally, the map includes the wildlife refuge and National Seashore Park. These points of interest should be kept in mind as we progress through the details of the space center. With this background, the following discussion will break down Figure 4.2 into three basic sections: 1.) processing, logistics, and storage facilities; 2.) integration facilities; and 3.) launch complex, followed by a section on postlaunch and return. 4.2.2 U.S. Space Shuttle Processing, Logistics, and Storage Facilities As shown in Figure 4.2, a spaceport requires processing facilities for the vehicle and the payload, including human cargo. For the shuttle, processing facilities were needed for the Orbiter, SRBs, payload, vertically loaded cargo, and external fuel tank, as well as the astronauts. Each facility included critical systems, such as fire protection systems; heating, ventilation; and air-conditioning (HVAC); exhaust systems; information technology; communication; power; and office space. While this may seem obvious, other infrastructure requirements were very specific to the task. Additionally, although not mentioned below, processing facilities often required strict temperature and humidity control, along with clean rooms. Table 4.2 summarizes the unique requirements of each of the processing facilities. Details are provided to the reader to illustrate the size and weight of the shuttle components, along with handling complexities.

Figure 4.4 2015 Map of Kennedy Space Center and Cape Canaveral Air Force Station. Source: NASA 2015

Spaceport Infrastructure and Operations

79

Table 4.2 KSC Processing Facilities Overview Facility

Purpose

Orbiter Processing Facility (OPF)

Orbiter payloads that had to be processed in the horizontal attitude were loaded in the OPF. Others were loaded at the launchpad.

Unique Characteristics Comments

Two identical high bays connected by a low bay. Each high bay size was 197 foot long, 150 foot wide and 95 foot high and had two 30-ton bridge-type cranes. The low bay size was 233 foot long, 95 foot wide and 25 foot high. High bays also had electrical, electronic, and communications instrumentation; and outlets for gaseous nitrogen, oxygen, and helium. Solid Rocket Used to integrate initial Facilities included SRB Booster (SRB) SRB parts; new and processing; assembly Facilities reloaded. SRB compo- and refurbishment; and nents were refurbished rotation processing and and tested; storage of surge facilities (RPSF). SRB segments. Logistics Housed over 190,000 324,640 square-foot Facility hardware parts. building located south of the Vehicle Assembly Building (VAB). Orbiter Modifi- Used to perform exten- 50,000 square-foot cation and sive modification, facility. Refurbishment rehabilitation, and Consisted of a single Facility overhaul of Orbiters. high bay, 95 feet in (OMRF) height; two-story low bay area; special work platforms; a 30-ton crane.

Resembled modern aircraft maintenance hangar. Bay areas allowed for work access at all heights through a series of platforms.

Permitted extensive work on Orbiters without impacting routine processing of Orbiters through the OPF.

Note: Table derived from information from (NASA 2000).

With respect to payloads, processing occurred in different locations based on mission and loading requirements. Payloads for vertical integration were transported to the launchpad in environmentally controlled containers (shuttle/technology, NASA 2000).

80 Spaceport Infrastructure and Operations 4.2.3 U.S. Space Shuttle Integration Facility Figure 4.2 also illustrates the need for a final integration facility. For the shuttle system, this was the VAB, shown in Figure 4.5, at KSC where the final assembly of the full-up shuttle system, that is, the Orbiter, SRBs, and external fuel tank, occurred prior to the full system transport to the launchpad. However, liquid propellants, vertically loaded payload, and, finally, the crew, occurred at the launchpad.

Figure 4.5 Vehicle Assembly Building. Source: NASA 2017

Spaceport Infrastructure and Operations

81

Specific infrastructure requirements of the VAB will enlighten the reader as to the complexity of the system as well as the needed support. The VAB, one of the largest buildings in the U.S., stands at 525 feet with a volume of 129,428,000 cubic feet. In comparison, the Statue of Liberty in New York City, stands at 305 feet. In size, the VAB equals 3.75 Empire State Buildings (Vehicle Assembly Building, NASA 1999). Due to the location, intricacies, and weight of the launch vehicle and spacecraft, the VAB was designed to withstand 125 miles per hour (mph) winds. The foundation of the building was supported by 4,200 steel pipe pilings that were 16 inches in diameter, and driven to a depth of 160 feet. Internally, the VAB was constructed with a series of vertical bay areas – low bay and high bays – for maintenance activities, as well as integration of system components. Further, the building included 60–70 lifting devices and two bridge cranes capable of lifting 250 tons (shuttle/technology, NASA 2000). The high bay door openings were 456 feet in height. The lower door opening (192 feet wide x 114 feet high) had four door “leaves” that moved horizontally. The upper door opening (342 feet high x 76 feet wide) had seven vertically moving doors, shown in Figure 4.6. The VAB also included separate areas for testing and servicing of the major components and movable work platforms (shuttle/technology, NASA 2000). The VAB held the MLP where the SRBs, the external fuel tank, and the Orbiter, in that order, were attached and integrated. The shuttle MLP (25 feet high x 160 feet long x 135 feet wide) weighed 8.23 million lb and was largely comprised of steel. It included exhaust openings and umbilical connections for LOX, LH2, helium, and nitrogen gases; a hydrogen burn-off system; and electrical power and connections for vehicle data and communications (NASA 2000). In order to put the MLP in perspective, Figure 4.7 illustrates NASA’s mobile launcher for the SLS and Orion spacecraft inside the VAB High Bay 3 area (top). Just as with the shuttle, work platforms will surround the mobile launcher during component stacking, processing, and integration. This new mobile launcher is 380 feet high and includes, similar to that of the shuttle MLP, a crew access arm and umbilical cables and connections that provide electrical power, environmental control, pneumatics, and communication to the SLS and Orion. Once integrated, the MLP with the fully loaded system was attached to the crawler-transporter (20 feet high x 131 feet long x 114 feet wide). The crawler-transporter weighed 6 million lb unloaded and moved on four double-tracked crawlers, each of which was 10 feet high and 41 feet long. They travelled at 2 mph unloaded; 1 mph loaded. The vehicles included a leveling system to keep the shuttle vertical during the trip to the launchpad. The move from the VAB to the launchpad took approximately six hours. Time is noted as the movement of large systems, such as these, needs to be factored into the spaceport operations. The distances between the VAB and Launch Pad 39A and 39B were 3.5 miles and 4.2 miles, respectively, and the road was a double-path 100 feet wide crawlerway constructed of 7 feet of stones, covered with asphalt and river rock. It was capable of handling more than 18 million lb of load (Bergin 2013;

Figure 4.6 Vertical Lift Doors on the East Side of the VAB. Source: NASA/Dimitri Gerondidakis 2014

Figure 4.7 NASA SLS and Orion Mobile Launcher Inside VAB High Bay. Source: NASA/Frank Michaux 2018

84 Spaceport Infrastructure and Operations

Figure 4.8 Refurbished Crawler-Transporter 2 (CT-2) Moves along the Crawlerway back to the VAB. Note: Water sprayed by a truck to reduce the dust created a faint rainbow. Source: NASA/Leif Heimbold 2017

Mansfield 2011; NASA 2000). As the transporter moved over the road, the road was sprayed with water to reduce dust levels (Tegler 2018) as noted in Figure 4.8. Once it arrived at the complex, the MLP was attached to the pad complex (Siceloff 2011). Refer again to Figure 4.4 for its location in relation to the VAB and the launchpads. 4.2.4 U.S. Space Shuttle Launch Complexes Finally, Figure 4.2 also shows the need to integrate the launch vehicle system to the launchpad. With respect to the Space Shuttle, it launched vertically from NASA’s KSC on Launch Pad 39A, with Launch Pad 39B as a backup, for each of the 135 missions flown (shuttle launch, NASA 2000). The shuttle spent approximately one month on the pad prior to launch for final checkouts and loading (Space Shuttle: Before the Countdown, NASA 2008). Bounded by a circle with a circumference of more than 1.5 miles, the pad area included a multitude of complex components and systems, many of which could be operated remotely. The number of missions flown, combined with the salt air location near the Atlantic Ocean and brutal launch conditions, highlights the need for enduring infrastructure.

Spaceport Infrastructure and Operations

85

The key launchpad components are summarized as follows. Points of interest are noted on Figure 4.9, Launch Pad 39B. • • •

• •

Pad was a truncated pyramid of concrete that sloped up 40 feet. Integrated MLP with connection masts to run propellant to the rockets. Propellant tanks for LH2 and LOX. The propellants were stored in two vacuum Dewar bottles on opposite sides of the pad perimeter. One storage tank could hold 900,000 gallons of LOX at -297 degrees Fahrenheit and the other could hold a similar amount of LH2 at -423 degrees Fahrenheit. LH2 and LOX were used by the Orbiter’s for electricity while in space. More than 500,000 gallons of the same propellants were pumped into the orange external fuel tank on launch day to power the shuttle’s three main engines. Note that these tanks are considered antiquated by today’s standards. This is discussed further in this chapter. Figure 4.10 further illustrates LOX tanks at Launch Pad 39B. Fuel lines led from various propellant storage facilities to the pad structure and umbilical connections. Storage for toxic fluids such as monomethyl hydrazine as fuel and nitrogen tetroxide as the oxidizer. These fluids can be stored at ambient temperature.

Figure 4.9 Launch Complex 39B. Source: NASA, arrows and descriptors overlayed

86 Spaceport Infrastructure and Operations

Figure 4.10 Cryogenic LOX Tank Fill at Pad 39B. Source: NASA/Kim Shiflett 2017)

• • • • • •

Because they were hypergolics, they were stored in well-separated locations, at the southwest and southeast corners of the pads. Propellant loading system to load hypergolics. Due to toxicity, working with them required careful processes and special equipment, including protective suits. Gaseous vent areas for gaseous oxygen (GOX). Gaseous hydrogen venting system carried the propellant out to a tower away from the shuttle where a propane-based fire burns the excess hydrogen. Banks of high-speed and television cameras. Protective bunker. Sound suppression water system with 290 feet high water tower that held 300,000 gallons of water and cut the acoustical level to 142 dB. Fire suppression and deflector systems: a flame trench, lined with flame-resistant bricks and concrete, directed the smoke and exhaust of the main engines back and away from the shuttle on one side and funneled the SRB exhaust toward the ocean. It was 490 feet long x 58 feet wide x 40 feet high. The system included the main engine or Orbiter flame deflector which was 38 feet high x 57.6 feet wide and weighed l.3 million lb. The SRB flame deflector was 42.5 feet high x 42 feet long and weighed l.l million lb. Both deflectors were made of steel and were covered with a temperature-resistant concrete surface about 5 inches thick. Refer to Figure 4.11.

Spaceport Infrastructure and Operations

87

Figure 4.11 Flame Trench at Launchpad. Source: NASA/Kim Sheflitt 2018

• •

• • • • • •

Pools that held contaminated water as it came from the flame trench so as not to pollute nearby swamp areas. Fixed service structure (FSS) to service the launch vehicle while it was on the launchpad The FSS was 247 feet high, and the crane was 265 feet above the surface of the launchpad. Mounted on top of the FSS was an 80-foot tall lightning mast made of fiberglass and grounded by a cable anchored in the ground. Refer to Figure 4.12. In this photo, the lightning mast from the FSS has been removed. Protection from lightning is accommodated via the three lightning towers shown in the photo. Rotating service structure to service payloads included a clean room. It rotated 120 degrees (one-third of a circle) and was 102 feet long x 50 feet wide x 130 feet high. Clean air purge ability was required. Lightning tower. Refer to Figure 4.12. Fence. Electric, water, power, air-conditioning communications systems. System to wash down the area postlaunch from hydrochloric acid. Emergency exit system. For the shuttle, this included seven slide wires and a basket, surrounded by netting, to hold and evacuate astronauts in an emergency.

Figure 4.12 Three out of Four Lightning Masts, KSC Launch Pad 39B. Source: NASA/Amanda Diller 2009

Spaceport Infrastructure and Operations

89

It is important to note that the launch complex included explosive-proof components, such as switches for lights and for the fire system. Further, designs for items such as signs, etc. were functional in extremely hazardous or dangerous environments, such as large buttons on the elevator which can be felt versus seen or large stickers instead of metal signs (Siceloff 2011). Additionally, due to safety considerations, the shuttle spent a relatively short time on the launchpad. This is true of vehicles today as well. Liquid propellants were typically loaded within 24 hours prior to loading payload, largely for safety considerations. (Today, propellant loading can occur anywhere from 30 minutes to 1.5 hours prior to launch, depending on amount of propellant needed.) 4.2.5 U.S. Space Shuttle Launch and Mission Control Centers The Launch Control Center (LCC) was a four-story building adjacent to and connected to the VAB by an enclosed bridge (refer to the block near the Employee Launch Viewing Site of Figure 4.4 for the general location.). It housed, among other space, the control room, firing rooms, and the Launch Processing System (LPS). The LPS controlled and monitored shuttle processing from the beginning of component arrival to integration to the launchpad, and at launch. It consisted of three subsystems: the Central Data Subsystem (CDS); the Checkout, Control and Monitor Subsystem (CCMS) which resided in the firing rooms; and finally the Record and Playback Subsystem (RPS). The CDS stored vital test and vehicle processing data, among others. Processing and launch of the Space Shuttle was controlled by the CCMS which monitored the health of the launch systems. The RPS recorded shuttle instrumentation data during test and launch countdowns for analysis. The current LCC is show in Figure 4.13. While the LCC was responsible for launch, the mission control center (MCC) was responsible for postlaunch operations, taking over when the shuttle cleared the launch complex service tower at KSC. Located at NASA Johnson Space Center, more than 1,000 miles away from KSC, MCC had two identical Flight Control Rooms (FCRs) for shuttle missions, allowing for redundancy should once system fail. Shuttle systems data, voice communications, and television were relayed through the NASA Ground and Space Networks. The MCC kept mission control until the end of a mission once the Orbiter had landed on Earth. For a Space Shuttle mission, MCC used 16 prime flight control consoles (shuttle technology, NASA 2000). Figure 4.14 illustrates the MCC in the postshuttle era. 4.2.6 U.S. Space Shuttle Postlaunch Operations and Recovery Recovery of reusable components of the Space Shuttle launch system began immediately with the SRBs’ casings, followed by the Orbiter itself. The equipment and facilities necessary for the SRB recovery ranged from boats to diving equipment. SRBs were jettisoned between two to three minutes after launch at

Figure 4.13 Launch Control Center at KSC. Source: NASA/Kim Shiflett, 2018

Figure 4.14 Mission Control Center Post-Shuttle. Source: NASA 2013

Spaceport Infrastructure and Operations

91

an altitude of approximately 30 miles. They reached apogee, then splashed into the Atlantic Ocean approximately 158 miles downrange from the launchpad. Note that the SRB splash footprint was 7 miles wide and 10 miles long (shuttle technology, NASA 2000). The approximate time used for retrieval was 5.5 hours. Again, time is noted for spaceport operations. The fall of the SRBs was broken by a system of parachutes. SRB recovery sea vessels were 176 feet in length and equipped with four 5.5 feet diameter reels to wind the parachute and a 10-ton capacity crane to lift the parachutes out of the water (shuttle technology, NASA 2000). Following recovery of the parachutes, the SRB casings were retrieved using the Diver Operated Plug (DOP). Underwater divers attached the DOP into the nozzle of the casing and a 2,000 feet long air tube was attached. Pressurized air flowing (120 pounds per square inch) through the tube from the boat forced water out of the casing and allowed retrieval to continue. The recovery ships with the SRBs traveled to CCAFS via Port Canaveral as shown in Figure 4.15 (solid rocket boosters, NASA 2000). The SRBs eventually went to another facility to be cleaned and disassembled; separated casing segments were shipped by rail to the manufacturer’s plant where they underwent final refurbishment and were again loaded with propellant before being shipped back to KSC. The nose cone and parachutes also returned to NASA KSC for refurbishment and storage (solid rocket boosters, NASA 2000).

Figure 4.15 Retrieved SRB, Arriving Back at Cape Canaveral, FL Source: NASA 2011

92 Spaceport Infrastructure and Operations

Figure 4.16 Orbiter Landing at KSC Shuttle Landing Facility Runway. Source: NASA 2009

As for the return of the Orbiter, the design of the craft was such that it glided, then skidded to a stop with the assist of a parachute system. Refer to Figure 4.16. The returning reusable Orbiter landed horizontally on a dry lake bed at Edwards Air Force Base in California for a total of 54 times and just once at White Sands Space Harbor in New Mexico in early shuttle missions. For these missions, the Orbiter was returned to KSC mated on top of a Boeing 747 airplane (shuttle launch and landing, NASA 2000). The importance of this information for the reader is that there were backup plans for landing the Orbiter. Similar to today, where airlines can land at alternate airports when necessary, contingency plans should be in place for launch providers for when landing at alternate locations is necessary for safety reasons. Seventy-eight missions were completed with a KSC landing at the SLF. (Refer also to Figure 4.4 for KSC location.) The SLF contained the following specific components (shuttle, shuttle technology, NASA 2000):

Spaceport Infrastructure and Operations •

•

• • • • • • • •

93

Runways. Note that the runways are still in operation. Runway 15 is used for landings from the northwest to the southeast; Runway 33 is used for landings from the southeast to the northwest. Microwave scan beam landing system ground stations were duplicated to permit an approach from either direction. The runways are approximately twice as long and twice as wide as average commercial runways at 15,000 feet long and 300 feet wide with 1,000-foot paved safety overruns on each end (Clark 2015; shuttle launch, NASA 2000). Note that Edwards Air Force Base has a paved runway that matches that at the SLF in length and width but has an overrun of 5 miles that extends into the dry lake bed. Further, many reusable suborbital vehicle manufacturers today suggest a 10,000 feet by 200 feet runway is sufficient to land their vehicles (Futron 2005). Likely this does not take into account extremely large aircraft such as the Stratolaunch. The runways are 16 inches thick in the center with the thickness decreasing to 15 inches on the sides. They have a slope of 24 inches from the centerline to the edge; underneath the concrete pavement is a 6-inch-thick base of soil cement. The runways are grooved to reduce the possibility of hydroplaning and are sloped from the centerline to the edge for water drainage. Corduroy ridges ran the length of the runway to reduce Orbiter tire wear during landing. High intensity lighting similar to commercial airports. It included white runway edge lights except for the last 2,000 feet at each end of the runway, marked by amber lights. Red and green lights indicated landing threshold to pilots. Precision approach path indicator system. This was a visual reference for determining the Orbiter’s glide slope approach angle. Approach lighting systems. Both ends of the runway utilized these systems with sequenced flashing lights, particularly useful in low visibility conditions. The systems extended 3,000 feet beyond the runway ends. Landing aid control building near the aircraft parking apron. The building supported control operations and housed the personnel who performed SLF operations. Portable, high-intensity xenon lights. These light aids were used to support Orbiter landings in the dark. Aircraft parking apron, or ramp. Mate/demate device (MDD) to raise and lower shuttle during ferry operations when the shuttle was mated to the Boeing 747 airplane. Lightning protection. Tow-way or road to the Orbiter Processing Facility (OPF). Specialized equipment and transportation vehicles included:

• •

Vehicle which included equipment necessary to support Orbiter recovery along with the recovery personnel. Mobile fan able to produce a directed 45 mph wind to blow away toxic or explosive gases in and around the Orbiter, moving 200,000 cubic feet of air a minute.

94 Spaceport Infrastructure and Operations • • • • • • •

Stair and platform units mounted on truck beds for service access. Tractor-trailer with air-conditioning that blows cool or dehumidified air into the payload bay to remove explosive or toxic gases. White room affixed to stairway and platform. It interfaced to the Orbiter and was pressurized to keep toxic and explosive gases away during astronaut crew egress. Astronaut transporter van. It should be noted that the astronauts spent some time after landing being evaluated by medical personnel. Trailer with specialized equipment to purge hydrogen from the Orbiter’s main engines and lines. Orbiter tow vehicle similar to large aircraft tow vehicles. Mobile Ground Power Unit (shuttle, shuttle technology, NASA 2000).

4.2.7 U.S. Space Shuttle Turnaround Times and Launch Frequency Timelines were added in the previous discussions to provide the reader with a glimpse into required times that impact operations, such as those associated with SRB recovery. Further, it was planned that each Orbiter flew three times per year (Interview with Mike Leinbach, NASA 2007) leaving a turnaround time of approximately 121 days. However, based on the flight schedules of the Orbiters show in Table 4.3 below, the quickest turnaround for any one shuttle, between 1982 and 1998, was slightly less than 60 days. Although the last shuttle to fly was Atlantis in 2011 and presumably turnaround times were reduced, the information provided elucidates the reader on approximate turnaround times for the system. As stated earlier, the shuttle remained on the launchpad for approximately one month for final checkout and loading. This would indicate that it would take a minimum of 30 days to ready the Orbiter for another flight. The external tank was expendable. The SRBs would have been already in the process of refurbishment or replenishment. Likely, the Orbiter was the “long pole in the tent” when it came to turnaround times and scheduling. Although each subsystem of the shuttle was safety-critical, the Orbiter was the spacecraft that carried the astronauts, requiring additional assessment, safety checks, diligent repair, test, and final checkout. With new advancements in technology and the reusability of more launch components, additional and/or modified infrastructure is necessary to support landing of SRBs, rockets, capsules, and unmanned aerial vehicles (UAVs) and their supporting equipment and systems. Plus, as space travel becomes more popular and affordable, paying customers (passengers/participants) will desire accommodation similar to that seen at airport’s today (restaurants, shops, lodging). With the continued search for cost reductions, reusable components, increasing demand, and improved turnaround times for launch, reentry and relaunch will also play into a spaceport’s operations and logistics flows. New launch systems in flight today are planning for much reduced turnaround times than the shuttle 30-day range. Multiple usable and reusable systems, along with more

Table 4.3 Flight Schedule of U.S. Shuttle from 1982 to 1998 Orbiter

Mission Dates and Flight Duration from Launch to Landing

Columbia

April 12–14, 1981 November 12–14, 1981 March 22–30, 1982 June 27–July 4, 1982 November 11–16, 1982 November 28–December 8, 1983 January 12–18, 1986 August 8–13, 1989 January 9–20, 1990 December 2–10, 1990 June 5–14, 1991 June 25–July 9, 1992 October 22–November 1, 1992 April 26–May 6, 1993 October 18–November 1, 1993 March 4–18, 1994 July 8–23, 1994 October 20–November 5, 1995 February 22–March 9, 1996 June 20–July 7, 1996 April 4–8, 1997 July 1–17, 1997 November 19–December 5, 1997 (Columbia accident) April 4–9, 1983 June 18–24, 1983 August 30–September 5, 1983 February 3–11, 1984 April 6–13, 1984 October 5–13, 1984 April 29–May 6, 1985 July 29–August 6, 1985 October 30–November 6, 1985 January 28, 1986 (Challenger accident) August 30–September 5, 1984 November 8–16, 1984 January 24–27, 1985 April 12–19, 1985 June 17–24, 1985 August 27–September 3, 1985 September 29–October 3, 1988 March 13–18, 1989 November 22–27, 1989 April 24–29, 1990 October 6–10, 1990 April 28–May 6, 1991 September 12–18, 1991 January 22–30, 1992

Challenger

Discovery

(Continued )

Table 4.3 Continued Orbiter

Atlantis

Endeavor

Mission Dates and Flight Duration from Launch to Landing December 2–9, 1992 April 8–17, 1993 September 12–22, 1993 February 3–11, 1994 September 9–20, 1994 February 3–11, 1995 July 13–22, 1995 February 11–21, 1997 August 7–19, 1997 October 3–7, 1985 November 26–December 3, 1985 December 2–6, 1988 May 4–8, 1989 October 18–23, 1989 February 28–March 4, 1990 November 15–20, 1990 April 5–11, 1991 August 2–11, 1991 November 24–December 1, 1991 March 24–April 2, 1992 July 31–August 8, 1992 November 3–14, 1994 June 27–July 7, 1995 November 12–20, 1995 March 22–31, 1996 September 16–26, 1996 November 19–December 7, 1996: the record for the longest shuttle flight; lasting slightly more than 17.5 days January 12–22, 1997 May 15–24, 1997 September 25–October 6, 1997 May 7–16, 1992 September 12–20, 1992 January 13–19, 1993 June 21–July 1, 1993 December 2–13, 1993 April 9–20, 1994 September 30–October 11, 1994 March 2–18, 1995 September 7–18, 1995 January 11–20, 1996 May 19–29, 1996 January 22–31, 1998

Source: compiled from Rumerman (1998)

Spaceport Infrastructure and Operations

97

advanced technologies since the shuttle program, will propel the need for infrastructure and operations to support the anticipated increased launch cadence. Most notably, SpaceX’s goal for 2019 is to use the Falcon 9 booster for two launches in a 24-hour period (Henry 2018). Although this does not represent a system that yet carries humans, it is a glimpse of the future as commercial contractors increase reusability of components and look to decrease costs. Spaceports must respond with capabilities to meet these new advancements. To that end, CCAFS in Cape Canaveral, Florida is gearing up for 48 launches in a one-year period, averaging one per week with two periods of two-week maintenance activities, by 2023. Recently, the station supported two launches in a 48-hour period (Joy 2019). Redundant launch and landing infrastructures, flexible infrastructures that can accommodate more than one type of launch vehicle system, and/or more hardened structures will be required such that safety is not compromised. Personnel and equipment must be added to address the increased launch schedules. The next section will review the basic requirements of an air and space port. However, the reader shall bear in mind the need for the port to support the expected increase in launch frequency as part of its requirements. Further, we are beginning to learn that each spaceport is unique. The old adage of “When you’ve seen one airport, you’ve seen one airport” appears to apply to spaceports.

4.3 Air and Space Ports: Infrastructure and Operations Requirements The information provided in Section 4.2 can serve as a checklist for infrastructure needs, as well as operational requirements. Based on the above case study and considering the needs of today’s spaceports, basic air and space port facility and operational requirements can be summarized. To begin, a comparison of airport versus spaceport key components, operations, and terminology is shown in Table 4.4. Note the differences in terminology with respect to airport passengers versus spaceport participants. Civilian “participants” will be passengers on space adventures and space travel. At some point in the future, there may not be a need to provide distinctions once rules and regulations change to accommodate civilian space traffic at an integrated air and space port. However, likely we will see distinctions between civilian astronauts and government astronauts continue. Participants and crew will require specialized training and the spaceport must account for the associated training personnel and facilities needed to support this effort. Clearly, travel to space brings different environmental conditions on the human mind and body. Additional training on what to expect and how to behave in both emergency and nonemergency circumstances is necessary to reduce risk to life and limb. Figure 4.17 Supplements Table 4.4 and reviews the air and space port of tomorrow in graphical form where both air traffic and space traffic are integrated into one. With this integrated port, what else will be needed?

Table 4.4 A Comparison of Air and Space Port Components and Terminology Airport

Spaceport

Passengers – require minimal onboard safety reviews

Participants require extensive training and possibly medical checks. At this time, the term, participants, is used, not passengers for noncrew members of the flight Flight crew (pilot, attendants) Flight crew (astronauts or cosmonauts; pilots) and passenger trainers. In the future, there will be a distinction between government astronauts and civilian astronauts Multimodal transportation access – road, Multimodal transportation access – road, rail, rail water, air, space, pipeline Runways for aircraft (general aviation, pri- Runways for aircraft, reusable launch vate jets, commercial airlines, cargo vehicles (RLVs) and suborbital reusable planes) vehicles (SRVs) Runway maintenance Runway maintenance, launch and landing pad maintenance, launch range surveillance and support Taxiways Taxiways and transportation to launch facilities; ground systems restoration/turnaround Fuel farm – jet fuel, gasoline, diesel Fuel farm – jet fuel, gasoline, diesel, solid and liquid propellants, oxidizers, as well as pressurized gases such as helium and nitrogen Operations support Operations support Ground vehicle management Ground vehicle management Air traffic control (ATC) tower ATC; launch control center Air traffic outside the control of the airport Mission operations center, ground operations, ATC vehicle telemetry, flight operations Aircraft ground operations Spacecraft preflight and postflight operation; launch operations Aircraft maintenance facility Aircraft maintenance facility; launch vehicle and spacecraft assembly and integration; spacecraft checkout; maintenance of RLVs and reusable components, i.e., rocket stages Cargo and baggage handling Payload handling and assembly Cargo and baggage loading and unloading Payload integration; astronaut and participant cargo integration Airport logistics Spaceport logistics, including storage areas for payload and propulsion components, such as SRBs Passenger drop-off, care Participant processing, training, medical screening, and support Emergency medical services Emergency medical services; emergency search and rescue; launch range safety and medical services Communications and IT infrastructure Communications and IT infrastructure (Continued )

Spaceport Infrastructure and Operations

99

Table 4.4 Continued Airport

Spaceport

Security – federal, port authority

Security – corporate, federal, local, port authority depending on location of spaceport and authority Office space, crew/astronaut/participant holding facilities Customer services for commercial astronauts, families, tourists, commercial space entrepreneurs, space participants

Office space, restaurants, hotels Passenger services

Modified from Adams and Petrov (2006) with additional research by the authors.

• • • • • • • • • • • • • •

Payload acceptance, processing, and storage areas; and, possibly, payload operations area if on-site; rocket engine and motor handling; cargo/payload loading and unloading areas; safe propellant/fuel/oxidizer storage and handling; hangars and refurbishment/maintenance facilities; ground vehicle management and maintenance; runways, ramps, aprons, and taxiways for horizontal takeoff and landing (HTOL); launch and landing pads and designated areas for vertical takeoff and landing (VTOL) and transportation to/from the launch sites; multimodal transportation access and supporting infrastructure, including parking; passenger/participant/astronaut processing areas; hazmat (hazardous material) storage and fire/rescue; air traffic control (ATC); launch control and MCCs; flight tracking networks and the associate equipment; test facilities; office space, restaurants, shops, etc.

Support vehicles for transportation of people, components, and vehicles around the air and spaceport; vehicles, tugs, and equipment for retrieving reusable returning spacecraft; and equipment, such as fans, platform units, movable stairs, and servicing structures, are also critical. With this backdrop, the more complicated areas of the spaceport are delved into more deeply in the following subsections. 4.3.1 Payload Processing and Storage As evident in our KSC case study, diligent preparation and handling once the payload arrives at the spaceport until it leaves the spaceport are critical. Payload

Mission and Launch Control Centers

Test and Training Facilities

PIPELINE

Figure 4.17 Main Components of an Air and Space Port.

Maintenance and Storage Hangars

Office Space

Air and Space Port Components

Security Perimeter

SRB Storage

Passenger/ Participant/ Astronaut/ Crew and Baggage Processing

Terminal

Hazmat Storage

Payload Processing and Storage with Clean Rooms

Shipping and Receiving

Parking Facilities, Port Facilities, Rail Terminals, Taxi Areas, Loading Areas

Vehicle and Payload Telemetry

Passenger/ Participant/ Astronaut/ Crew Waiting and Loading

Gate

Fiber Optic Communications Network

LOX Storage

R a m p s

&

T a x i w a y s

Pressurized Gas/Pipeline

Launch Vehicle Integration and Processing with Clean Rooms

S E C U R I T Y

Liquid Propellant Storage

Fire and Rescue

Liquid Fuel Storage

Runways

Landing Pads

Launch Pads

Fuel and Propellant Loading

Spaceport Infrastructure and Operations

101

processing, which includes acceptance, test, and integration into the spacecraft, is a time-consuming operation and begins prior to payload arrival with the spaceport administration working with the supplier on spaceport policies and procedures on shipping and handling. If necessary, accommodations for international cargo or payload will need to be in place. Spaceports may also need to accommodate unique craft in support of payload transport whether it arrives by air, water, road, rail, or even space. For example, Figure 4.18 illustrates NASA’s Super Guppy aircraft, unique in size, shape, and capabilities, which transports cargo, such as rocket sections, to their next destination. When a payload arrives at the spaceport, it will likely need to be kept in an environmentally controlled storage or preprocessing area; it may arrive fully assembled or in sections. Satellites and other spacecraft necessitate strictly controlled temperature, humidity, and cleanliness levels. According to SpaceX, their payload environments are supported with HVAC that keeps the temperature at 21±3 degrees C with humidity levels of 50% ± 15%. Cleanliness levels are between FED-STD-209E Class 7 (10,000) and Class 8 (100,000) depending on the facility and purpose (Space Exploration Technologies Corporation 2015). These are equivalent to International Organization for Standardization (ISO) 14,644–1 ISO 7 and ISO 8, respectively, which are industry standard for similar

Figure 4.18 NASA’s Super Guppy Cargo Transport Aircraft. Source: NASA/Ken Ulbrich 2019

102 Spaceport Infrastructure and Operations tasks. For more information on environments, the reader is referred to launch vehicle and operator environment manuals, for instance Arianespace, Service & Solutions (2016). Early in the processing phase, the spaceport must be able to support payload nondestructive testing and evaluations, including chemical analysis and sampling, to ensure no damage was incurred during transport (Seedhouse 2017). Other tests, such as leak tests, electromagnetic capability, prelaunch readiness, and integration tests need to be performed by well-trained spaceport personnel if not done by the manufacturers themselves. With the lack of standardization across payloads, impacts on ground operations, spaceport personnel, and ground support and integration equipment necessities and facilities must be addressed. By-products of operations, such as hazardous waste, must be accounted for and mitigated. Once the payload passes the initial test and checkout phase, it is prepared for integration into the launch vehicle. Following successful checkout, the payload is integrated within the fairing and the fairing is then attached to the rocket. Spaceport infrastructure will need to provide for fairing attachment to the rocket in vertical orientation (U.S., France, China, for example) and/or horizontal (Russia) (McCoy 2012). Once nonliving payloads are integrated within the launch vehicle or spacecraft, further interaction with humans is minimal. Therefore, carefully planned and executed payload processing and prelaunching preparation at the spaceport are vital to successful payload deployment once in space (McCoy 2012). Figure 4.19 illustrates an integrated payload, the Atmospheric Laboratory for Applications and Science (ATLAS-3), in the cargo bay of the Orbiter Atlantis. In this case, ATLAS-3 remained with the Orbiter and was not deployed. Regardless, due to the criticality of the payload and the safety of all involved, once successful integration is complete, a simulated launch test may need to be done in order to gain confidence in a successful launch. 4.3.2 Propellant and Oxidizer Storage and Handling As stated in Chapter 3, infrastructures must be able to accommodate a range of fuels and oxidizers and other propellants. Typical fuels at airports include hydrocarbons/petroleum distillates (gasoline, naphtha, kerosene, and fuel oil/gas oil) with specific products to include Avgas, motor gasoline (mogas), auto diesel, and jet fuel. As regards this aspect, airports are familiar with the handling and storage of aviation fuels used by aircraft, particularly the aforementioned aviation gas (Avgas) for general aviation aircraft and jet fuels (JP-4, JP5, JP-7, JP-8 (note: unleaded kerosene Jet A-1 used by most turbine-powered aircraft)) and, perhaps, RP-1, at selected airports (Edwards 2003). Avgas falls into the gasoline category, but jet fuel and liquid hydrocarbons are also known as different forms of kerosene (Edwards 2003). In addition to fuels and propellants, highly pressurized gases, particularly helium and nitrogen, distributed via pipeline, will be in high demand. (Note:

Spaceport Infrastructure and Operations

103

Figure 4.19 Atmospheric Laboratory for Applications and Science ATLAS-3 Payload in Orbiter Atlantis Cargo Bay. Source: NASA 2009

gaseous nitrogen is used to purge equipment of impurities and unwanted matter; helium is used to pressurize subsystems.) Due to current concerns regarding scarcity of helium, considerations should be given to unnecessary use and loss of helium through leaks and scrubbed launches. Spaceports must also consider the location of the sources of the fuels, propellants, and gases needed, the quantity required, the reliability of distribution, and the backup source supplies available on demand. The previous chapter also reviewed the storability of propellants, fuels, and oxidizers. Clearly, not all propellants are alike and for a spaceport, storage, loading, and disposal requirements widely differ based on toxicity, storage

104 Spaceport Infrastructure and Operations temperature, combustibility, burn rate, and mass, etc. Spaceports must be developed and maintained to handle a variety of propellant and fuel combinations and there are environmental concerns that must be dealt with. While the cost of propellants is a relatively small portion of the launch cost, the operations’ cost and ease of handling propellants is a significant cost driver and safety concern, particularly for cryogenic and toxic storable (on Earth) propellants. The cryogenic nature of LH2 and LOX requires storage at very low temperatures and near their point of their use (i.e., the launchpad). Furthermore, their mass is low, requiring large tanks to separately hold the LOX and LH2 (NASA 2011). For example, the spherical storage tanks at Launch Pad 39A and 39B, are approximately 1,500 feet from the launchpad and hold 850,000 gallons of liquid (Granath 2018). They are located at opposite ends of the launch complex, providing sufficient distance between the fuel and oxidizer. These cryogenics require storage temperatures to -420 degrees Fahrenheit or colder. Technologies are changing and the storage tanks of old are inefficient, unable to control boil-off evaporation. For example, approximately half of the LH2 purchased to fuel the Space Shuttle evaporated before it could be used (Granath 2018). Due to such, spaceports of today should consider new storage systems. With respect to distance between fuel and oxidizer storage areas, some spaceport developers recommend a separation distance of 500 feet minimum (Gulliver and Finger 2010). Last, it is noted that some air and spaceports in the U.S. lease concrete bunkers on format military bases to manufacturers to store propellants and other explosive components. 4.3.3 Propellant Loading and Preflight Operations Much work has to be done prior to launch. Spaceport operators will need to follow clear policies and procedures in order to maintain safe operations. Propellant loading operations are labor-intensive and time-consuming and, therefore, expensive operations. Although largely automated, a significant workforce is still needed to monitor propellant-loading operations and ensure safety is maintained (Seedhouse 2017). For vertical launch, lessons learned from previous programs will be followed based on well-honed procedures. Liquid propellants (fuel and oxidizers) are loaded at the launchpad, typically 24 hours prior to loading payload. However, solid rocket propellants are typically loaded into SRBs at the manufacturer’s facility. For horizontal operations at an air and space port, the launch vehicle may be loaded with propellant off-site and tugged to the oxidizer loading area. Other aircraft near the airfield would be required to maintain an approved distance from the horizontal launch vehicle, particularly while the vehicle is being loaded with oxidizer following propellant loading. In the case of launch cancellation, ground crew and equipment must be available to drain propellant and oxidizer and move the launch vehicle away from the runway (e.g., Space Florida 2018). Postflight ground operations would include safety checks and transportation of the vehicle from the runway to the hangar processing facility.

Spaceport Infrastructure and Operations

105

Deplaning of crew and participants, along with vehicle post-flight checkouts and inspections, similar to that seen at an airport, would follow. Vertical launch operations would track similar logistics with the exception of being towed to the launchpad. Since the full launch vehicle system does not return, reusable portions currently follow the transportation trek of the shuttle system with landings in water, but also with controlled landings of reusable components on launchpads and drone ships. Cancelled launches require drainage of propellant from the rocket, as necessary, while the rocket is integrated in the launchpad area. 4.3.4 Runways, Launchpads, and landing pads In the U.S., particularly, former military bases and current general aviation airports are being repurposed or modified for HTOL operations. Additionally, a small number of commercial airports are adding spaceport to their name, following HTOL license approval. There are several benefits in using former military bases, least of which is infrastructure and cost. Former military airports often boast runways of 10,000 feet to 12,000 feet in length and 200 feet in width, sufficient for smaller the reusable launch vehicle (RLV) design concepts of today (Futron 2005). (Note, however, some Concept Z crafts, such as Stratolaunch, have wingspans of 385 feet, which require greater runway-to-taxiway distances (cf., Rogers et al. 2015), as well as greater “gate-to-gate” distances as one would see at traditional airports.) Regardless of exceptions, site operators can reduce the cost of license application, infrastructure build, and operations with current runways, hangars, bunkers, and communications and weather observation equipment already in place. They are not “reinventing the wheel” when processes and procedures, along with infrastructure elements, already exist for the base or airport. Greenfield spaceports, such as Spaceport America, include runways and launchpads. Flat, square concrete launchpads that are 50 feet in width and length are noted to be sufficient for most launch vehicle operators (Futron 2005). Landing pads are a new phenomenon, propelled by reusability of rockets. These pads, being built today in Cape Canaveral, Florida, are composed of concrete, surrounded by gravel and earthworks, and vary between 150 and 282 feet in diameter (Space Florida 2017). SpaceX has had incredible success with the reusable stages of its rockets, retrieved from successful landings on pads, as well as on their drone ships. 4.3.5 Air Traffic Control, Launch Control, and Airspace Considerations Today’s rockets are highly successful in terms of launch with an approximate 1% failure rate (McCoy 2012). Yet, safety is paramount. With regard to such, air and space ports will require large areas of land and water in order to meet infrastructure needs and to have suitable safety buffer zones beyond those of airports. As the industry is still emerging, the U.S. Federal Aviation

106 Spaceport Infrastructure and Operations Administration (FAA) recommends that spaceports be located within or near restricted airspace areas/prohibited airspace areas and controlled airspace (Murray and Ellis 2009). They also will require launch azimuths of airspace over unpopulated areas and/or areas that can be temporarily cleared (Futron 2005); operators need flexibility in terms of testing and launches with respect to schedule and one can expect the launch frequency to increase. Once launched, rockets cannot be commanded to change course in airspace. Therefore, aircraft need to remain clear of the area as determined by temporary flight restrictions (TFRs) and special use airspace (SUAs). Any space vehicle, just as with any aircraft, can inflict damage on the ground or in the air, following a midair explosion. After the Columbia accident, debris fell for up to 90 minutes after the first explosion; 85,000 pieces of debris were ultimately recovered, spread across several states. Amazingly there were no additional major accidents or deaths as a result of the Columbia breakup – either in the air or on the ground. Yet, hard lessons were learned. A piece of debris, made of steel with a weight of 1lb and falling at a terminal velocity can pierce the cabin or wing of an aircraft mid-flight (Range Commanders Council 2002), causing catastrophic results. To aid spaceport developers and potential operators, the FAA has structured the following basic 5-step process to examine the prospect of becoming a spaceport: 1.) perform a survey of maps; 2.) analyze and design the potential spacecraft trajectory; 3.) conduct an analysis of air traffic; 4.) perform an analysis of risk mitigation efforts for safety and other impacts; and 5.) obtain an agreement between the potential spaceport operator and the FAA (Murray and Ellis 2009). Each step in the process is critical and ultimately culminates, not only in the Letter of Agreement with the FAA with a plan on how to successfully launch into airspace, but also has an immediate direct effect on the launch site operator license application and the ultimate license obtainment. Performing a survey of available maps and aeronautical charts would allow the potential spaceport operator to identify prevailing winds, uneven terrain, obstacle locations, population location and density, sensitive environmental areas, other airports, spaceports, heliports, and navigation aids. Just as when developing an airport, direction, location, and orientation of runways, as well as launchpads and landing pads, etc. must be taken into account. The site operator should evaluate locating the spaceport within or near military operations areas (MOAs), SUA, or restricted airspace to reduce potential negative implications to air traffic and also to maximize known closure areas already in the system (Murray and Ellis 2009). Next, the site operator would need to develop the launch vehicle’s trajectory or trajectories and create a debris catalog (Murray and Ellis 2009). This may be complicated by many factors, including the lack of experience and history with new developed or developing launch vehicles. As with Concept Z, there are two launches: the primary launch from the spaceport and the secondary launch of the spacecraft once a safe altitude is reached. The “multiple launch” concept is similar for vertical launch scenarios where the initial launch from ground occurs, following a series of rocket firings.

Spaceport Infrastructure and Operations

107

Thus, launch vehicles, spacecraft characteristics, and mission must be addressed to determine potential trajectories and anomaly scenarios reviewed. Cross-range considerations and locations of abort landing sites also need to be addressed. The FAA recommends that trajectories and anomaly paths be overlaid on the maps and charts referred to in Step 1 of the process to determine best case and worst case scenarios and impacts to air, land, and water. Launch corridors will need to be created that are large enough to contain debris should anomalies happen. To reduce impacts to other airspace users, launch corridors may be placed between Jetways and airways. In Step 3, analysis of air traffic ensues. Impacts to airline, general aviation, and helicopter traffic, etc. need to be addressed. To a lesser extent, traffic created by unmanned aerial systems (UAS) should be examined as well. Due to the lack of reroute ability of rockets, other airspace users will need to be rerouted if there is a possible impact by the launch trajectory or landing. Reroutes and/or increases in separation distances will need to be evaluated (Murray and Ellis 2009). Step 4 outlines the need to examine mitigating factors that reduce negative impacts and address safety concerns. Timing of flights to take advantage of different time zones as well as days of the week when traffic is lightest are two ways in which impacts may be reduced. For the continental U.S., commercial air traffic is lower on Sundays as compared to other days of the week (Murray and Ellis 2009). Identifying several launch corridors and TFR areas when weather or winds dictate a different option is needed. Finally, in Step 5, a Letter of Agreement with the FAA parties and site operator is required to document not only the physical location of the airspace closure, but also the times of closure, the day(s) of the week allowed, and the notification procedures prelaunch, during, and postlaunch (Murray and Ellis 2009). To provide the reader with an example the Letter of Agreement for Cecil Air and Space Port in Jacksonville, Florida, was chosen. The flight path of the launching carrier aircraft with rocket is within temporarily restricted airspace, heading in a southeast direction from the spaceport (Federal Aviation Authority 2009). There is a secondary launch expected within the temporary restricted area over the Atlantic Ocean where the spacecraft will be released from the carrier aircraft and rocket motors ignited to propel the spacecraft on its suborbital trajectory. This launch is planned to occur between altitudes of 40,000 feet and 60,000 feet. The carrier aircraft will return for a jet-powered horizontal landing with a projected path from the southeast through the same corridor, while the spacecraft will return at a later time to the spaceport, also from the southeast via the same corridor, likely functioning as a glider with no rocket or as a jetpowered aircraft for a horizontal landing. (The approach corridor would also be in place for other Concept Z landing spacecraft, for instance, for one that had launched from elsewhere in the world). As both crafts are currently considered experimental, there is minimal history or experience from which to dra,w with the exception of Virgin Galactic’s White Knight test flights with SpaceShip 2 or Northrop Grumman’s use of Lockheed L1011 with Pegasus. As for airspace

108 Spaceport Infrastructure and Operations closure times, the Letter of Agreement for operations cites that all launches should occur prior to 9 am on Wednesdays and Saturdays (Federal Aviation Administration 2009). Further worth noting is the presence of an MOA that adjoins the western edge of the RLV airspace closure zone outlined in the Cecil/FAA Letter of Agreement. This section of airspace marks areas where military aircraft carry out training or operational activities (it can also include the utilization of other military systems). To the east of this airspace is a high-military-traffic zone wherein military aircraft can be expected to frequent for training purposes. These areas do not extend in altitude to a height which would be disruptive to launch or commercial aviation (Federal Aviation Administration 2009). It should go without saying that all spaceports require an ATC tower and carefully honed procedures and policies. Whether the anticipated launch is horizontal or vertical, ground crew for activities would be required to coordinate all operations with the airspace scheduling agencies and ATC. Recall that launch control centers and MCCs have not been traditionally co-located. This may be for a multitude of reasons, but safety likely plays a major role. Once launch occurs, information on the rocket and payload are typically tracked by mission control which may or may not be co-located at the launch spaceport. Spaceport facilities must include the appropriate communications network, infrastructure, and trained personnel for these tasks. Today’s spaceports need to provide high-speed broadband and fiber optic networks for stronger, faster, and safer communications. For example, SpaceX provides fiber-optic connections between launch control and the launch site with fast, safe communication between the control facility, pad, and the range with external users and agencies (Space Exploration Technologies Corporation 2015). 4.3.6 Environmental Considerations In order to become a spaceport, environmental assessments, including those involving noise, air quality, water quality, etc., must be performed and appropriate mitigation efforts undertaken. These risk mitigation efforts may not only impact the operations of the spaceport, but also the infrastructure requirements in terms of construction and location. 4.3.6.1 Noise As with airports, acceptable levels of noise have been developed for spaceports to protect communities and the natural environment from damage. This can include just human irritation over noise, as well as short- and long-term damage to human and animal hearing and damage to construction and structures. Damage can occur from a single event or can be cumulative over repeated exposure. Structural damage stemming from rocket launch noise is most problematic with windows, plastered walls, and plastered ceilings. The majority of

Spaceport Infrastructure and Operations

109

nations have established their own noise safety criteria. In the U.S., multiple organizations are responsible for mandating noise control efforts at spaceports, not only the FAA, but also occupational health and safety organizations who have also established noise exposure requirements based on level and duration during a normal work day of eight hours. Sonic booms, also a by-product of rocket landings and supersonic aircraft, are the result of shock waves created by any vehicle travelling faster than the speed of sound through air. Most sensitive to sonic booms are more brittle and breakable objects, such as windows, and plastered walls and ceilings. Sonic booms can come in two waves: one shock wave associated with the forward portion of the craft and the other with the rear of the craft. Spaceports can lessen the impacts by location of pads for vertical launch/landings and location and orientation of runways for horizontal launch/landings (e.g., Front Range Airport 2018; Midland International Air and Space Port 2014; Space Florida 2018). 4.3.6.2 Air Quality Air quality is defined by ambient air concentrations of specific pollutants that are a concern to the health and welfare of the general public and the environment. In the U.S., the primary pollutants of concern are carbon monoxide, sulfur dioxide, nitrogen dioxide, ozone, and certain particulate matter of a specific size and kind. Many countries have national ambient air quality standards and criteria for pollutants and air quality. Hazardous pollutants and greenhouse gas emissions with subsequent negative impacts require measuring, monitoring, and reduction efforts if acceptable levels are exceeded (e.g., Midland International Air and Space Port 2014). 4.3.6.3 Water, Ground, and Other Environmental Concerns Other concerns include pollution and harmful impacts to water resources (oceans, rivers, lakes, streams, aquifers, etc.), as well as to soil (farmland, parks, undeveloped land, etc.) and the surrounding ecosystems. Ground and drinking water cannot be contaminated, nor can other water sources and natural materials (rock, sand, soil, etc.) be impacted. Further, light pollution and light emissions from launch conditions and testing should be reduced to an acceptable level. Other biological resources such as fish, wildlife, and plants, must be protected from solid waste, pollution, and hazmat. In the U.S., preservation of a resource that is historical, architectural, archaeological, and/or cultural is expected. Socioeconomic environmental justice and children’s health and safety must also be considered (e.g., Front Range Airport 2018; Midland International Air and Space Port 2014; Space Florida 2018). Finally, it is noted that environmental assessment guidance and documentation is readily available from the U.S. FAA at www.faa.gov/about/office_org/ headquarters_offices/ast/environmental/nepa_docs/review/operator/ and will aid the reader in spaceport environmental considerations.

110

Spaceport Infrastructure and Operations

4.3.7 Aging Infrastructures and Other Considerations Old military bases and general aviation airports do not have all the facilities in place and, indeed, may need to modernize what they have. This brings into discussion the aging infrastructures of legacy spaceports. The creation of space infrastructure began with the beginnings of the space race. Massive investments were made in technological development, engineering efforts, and skilled manpower. These investments would lead to rapid evolution through the U.S. and Russian space programs and, for the U.S., would eventually lead to the Space Shuttle. While the investments made during the Apollo era were tailored specifically to the programs of that time, they have repeatedly been repurposed (along with the construction of new facilities) to match the needs of the current time. As technology has progressed, the systems previously used to support spaceflight remain operational as they continue to fulfill their functions. As a result of that same technological progression, these systems (and the supporting infrastructure around them) have aged, outpaced by other advances (especially in computers). As technological innovations have aged, so too have the physical structures supporting them. While refurbished and maintained, they show their age. As stated by NASA’s Inspector General’s Office, “More than 80 percent of the Agency’s facilities are 40 or more years old and are beyond their design life” (Martin 2017, p. 19). The age of these facilities means that NASA faces a need to either modernize their facilities or continue paying increased maintenance and repair costs. Further, these facilities do not necessarily match the exact needs of NASA’s current objectives. Thus, the government and NASA have moved to consolidate large property investments by signing agreements with commercial companies, such as the leasing of Launch Complex 39A to SpaceX, or with Space Florida, the space economic arm of the state, which have served to defray the costs incurred in maintaining unused infrastructure. These partnerships can serve other aging spaceports around the world, as well as the repurposing of aging airports to include spaceport infrastructure modernization. Finally, additional considerations for air and space ports that were not addressed in-depth include ancillary equipment needs such as hazmat suits, etc. as well as human resources, among others. Further, while outside the context of this book, satellites serve as crucial communications infrastructure, provide invaluable weather data, and allow for precision navigation around the globe. Initially these technologies were primarily utilized by the military, but infrastructure advancement has enabled commercial companies to leverage advancements in computing (and space launch capability) to broaden space-based infrastructure utilization. Thus, as with airports, spaceport considerations stretch beyond the ground, into the air, and into space.

Spaceport Infrastructure and Operations

111

References Adams, C. and Petrov, G. (2006). ‘Spaceport Master Planning: Principles and Precedents,’ In: Space 2006, San Jose, CA: American Institute of Aeronautics and Astronautics. Arianespace, Service & Solutions. (2016). Ariane 5 User Manual. (5). Available at: www. arianespace.com/wp-content/uploads/2011/07/Ariane5_Users-Manual_October2016.pdf. Bergin, C. (2013). ‘KSC Crawlerway,’ NASA. Available at: www.nasaspaceflight.com/ 2013/01/ksc-crawlerway-facelift-preparation-sls/ (Accessed: 2 August 2018). Clark, S. (2015). ‘Space Florida to take over KSC’s shuttle runway – Spaceflight Now,’ 15 June. Available at: https://spaceflightnow.com/2015/06/15/space-florida-to-take-overkscs-shuttle-runway/ (Accessed: 8 August 2018). Edwards, T. (2003). ‘Liquid fuels and propellants for aerospace propulsion: 1903–2003,’ Journal of Propulsion Power, Vol. 19, No. 6, pp. 1089–1107. Federal Aviation Administration. (2009). Letter of Agreement, Operations at the Cecil Spaceport at Cecil Field, Jacksonville, Florida. With signatories, Jacksonville Center, Miami Center, Jacksonville Approach Control, Cecil ATC Tower, Fleet Area Control and Surveillance Facility Jacksonville, and Jacksonville Aviation Authority/Cecil Spaceport Operations Office. (October 1, 2009). Front Range Airport. (2018). Front Range Airport Programmatic Environmental Assessment. Available at: www.faa.gov/about/office_org/headquarters_offices/ast/environmen tal/nepa_docs/review/operator/front_range/media/Spaceport_Colorado_Final_PEA.pdf (Accessed 31 October 2019). Futron. (2005). Feasibility Study of a Florida Commercial Spaceport for the Florida Space Authority. Available at: https://www.rymdturism.se/images/pdf/Futron-Feasibility-Studyof-a-Florida-Commercial-Spaceport-Sept-2005.pdf (Accessed: 6 June 2018). Granath, B. (2018). Innovative Liquid Hydrogen Storage to Support Space Launch System, NASA. Available at: www.nasa.gov/feature/innovative-liquid-hydrogen-stor age-to-support-space-launch-system (Accessed: 3 March 2019). Gulliver, B. and Finger, G.W. (2010). Can your airport become a spaceport? The benefits of a spaceport development plan. In: 48th AIAA aerospace sciences meeting including the new horizons forum and aerospace exposition. American Institute of Aeronautics and Astronautics. Henry, C. (2018). ‘SpaceX targeting 24-hour turnaround in 2019, full reusability still in the works,’ Space News, May 11. Available at: https://spacenews.com/spacex-targeting-24hour-turnaround-in-2019-full-reusability-still-in-the-works/ Accessed: 6 September 2019). Joy, R. (2019). ‘Air Force pumped for two launches less than 48 hours apart,’ Florida Today, August. 5. Available at: www.floridatoday.com/story/tech/science/space/2019/08/ 05/air-force-pumped-two-launches-cape-canaveral-week/1926346001/. (Accessed: 6 September 2019). Mansfield, C. (2011). NASA: Slow-motion Giants Carry Shuttles to the Pad. Available at: www.nasa.gov/mission_pages/shuttle/flyout/crawler.html (Accessed: 3 August 2018). Martin, P.K. (2017). NASA’s 2017 Top Management and Performance Challenges. Washington, DC: United States, National Aeronautics and Space Administration, Office of the Inspector General. McCoy, J.F. ed. (2012). Space Sciences (2nd ed., vol. 1, pp. 269–275). Detroit, MI: Macmillan Reference U.S. Midland International Air and Space Port. (2014). FAA’s Final Environmental Assessment and Finding of No Significant Impact for the Midland International Air and Space Port,

112

Spaceport Infrastructure and Operations

September 2014. Available at: www.faa.gov/about/office_org/headquarters_offices/ast/ media/Midland_Final_EA_and_FONSI.pdf (Accessed: 31 October 2019). Murray, D.P. and Ellis, R.E. (2009). ‘Air Traffic Considerations for Future Spaceports,’ Federal Aviation Administration (FAA). Available at: www.faa.gov/about/office_org/ headquarters_offices/ast/reports_studies/media/DMurray_ATCSpaceports_IAASS07_ FINAL.pdf (Accessed: 21 October 2019). NASA. (1999). ‘Vehicle Assembly Building.’ Available at: https://science.ksc.nasa.gov/ facilities/vab.html (Accessed: 5 September 2019). NASA. (2000). NSTS 1988 News Reference Manual. Available at: https://science.ksc.nasa. gov/shuttle/technology/sts-newsref/stsref-toc.html (Accessed: 8 August 2018). NASA. (2006). ‘Shuttle Basics.’ Available at: www.nasa.gov/returntoflight/system/ system_STS.html (Accessed: 3 May 2019). NASA. (2007). ‘Interview with Mike Leinbach.’ Available at: www.nasa.gov/mission_pages/ shuttle/shuttlemissions/sts121/launch/qa-leinbach.html (Accessed: 6 September 2019). NASA. (2008). ‘Space Shuttle: Before the Countdown.’ Available at: www.nasa.gov/cen ters/kennedy/missions/shuttle_process.html (Accessed: 6 September 2019). NASA. (2011). ‘How Rockets Work.’ Educator’s Guide EG-2011-11-223-KSC. NASA. Available at: www.nasa.gov/pdf/153415main_Rockets_How_Rockets_Work.pdf. NASA. (2012). ‘Space Shuttle Launch and Landing.’ Available at: www.nasa.gov/mission_ pages/shuttle/launch/index.html (Accessed: 3 August 2018). Range Commanders’ Council. (2002). Range Commanders Council Standard 321-02: Common Risk Criteria for National Test Range, Secretariat of the RCC US Army White Sands Missile Range, NM 88002-5110, June. Rogers, R.M., Ibold, K.R., and Finger, G.W. (2015) ‘Spaceports & Airports: Integrating the Similarities/Reconciling the Differences,’ In: AIAA SPACE 2015 Conference and Exposition. AIAA SPACE 2015 Conference and Exposition, Pasadena, CA: American Institute of Aeronautics and Astronautics. Rumerman, J.A. (1998). ‘Human Space Flight: A Record of Achievement, 1961-1998,’ In: Monographs in Aerospace History, Number 9, August 1998. Available at https://history.nasa. gov/SP-4225/documentation/hsf-record/hsf.htm#shuttle (Accessed 5 September 2019). Seedhouse, E. (2017). Spaceports around the World, a Global Growth Industry. Cham: Springer. Available at: ProQuest Ebook Central. [17 November 2019]. Siceloff, S. (2011). NASA: Shuttle Liftoffs Require Precision Launch Pad. Available at: www. nasa.gov/mission_pages/shuttle/flyout/launchpadflyout.html (Accessed: 3 August 2018). Space Exploration Technologies Corporation. (2015). Falcon 9 Launch Vehicle Payload User’s Guide Rev 2, s.l.: Space Exploration Technologies Corporation. Space Florida. (2017). CCS Master Plan Update. Space Florida. Available at: https://space florida.gov/wp-content/uploads/2018/12/sf-bod-approved-ccs-master-plan-02-01-17.pdf (Accessed: 20 May 2019). Space Florida. (2018). Draft Environmental Assessment for the Shuttle Landing Facility Launch Site Operator License. Available at: www.faa.gov/about/office_org/headquarter s_offices/ast/environmental/nepa_docs/review/documents_progress/space_florida/media/ SLF_Draft_EA_508_Compliant.pdf (Accessed: 14 October 2019. Tegler, E. (2018). ‘This Machine Makes Rocket Launches Possible,’ Popular Mechanics. Available at: www.popularmechanics.com/space/rockets/a15777930/launching-to-spaceat-a-crawl/ (Accessed: 3 August 2018).

5

Spaceport Business and Financial Management

Clearly, national space centers for government and military needs have dominated the space environment for decades. As we usher in a new era of commercial activity, pure military and government national space centers shall remain, but the need and desire for commercial spaceports that accommodate commercial providers is growing. As several spaceports in the United States (U.S.) have shown, a hybrid of activity is now occurring where former military and government space centers, such as Cape Canaveral Air Force Station (CCAFS) and the National Aeronautics and Space Administration’s (NASA) Kennedy Space Center (KSC), respectively, are now multiuser spaceports, allowing government, military, and commercial space activities to simultaneously occur at the same space center. Yet, the need for more space infrastructure and support industries, as well as commercial space products and services, is gaining the attention of many other entities beyond nation-states and national space centers. State, regional, and local district authorities, and aviation authorities, among others, are scanning for possible new revenue streams and the economic benefits that may come with the ever-expanding commercial space market. As this chapter will reveal, current commercial spaceports came into operation through various avenues. In the U.S., for example, Spaceport America, built by the State of New Mexico as a greenfield facility, is operated by the New Mexico Spaceport Authority, an entity created solely for the purpose of managing and operating the spaceport. Cecil Spaceport in Florida transitioned from a general aviation (GA) airport and is operated by the Jacksonville Aviation Authority (JAA) which also operates Jacksonville International Airport and two other GA airports. The Mid-Atlantic Regional Spaceport (MARS) was established through the Reimbursable Space Act Agreement with NASA providing for permitted use of land on NASA Wallops Island for two launch facilities, as well as access to support infrastructure facilities. MARS is operated by Virginia Commercial Space Flight Authority (VCSFA), created by the Commonwealth of Virginia. These spaceports need to be innovative in how to manage the spaceports and to generate revenues until additional commercial space launch activity and space transportation and tourism make the spaceports viable. To understand challenges and opportunities associated with the business of spaceports, this chapter will review the current practices of spaceports,

114

Spaceport business

including their main customers and revenue sources, business models, and various institutional and governance forms, as well as partnerships and main sources of financing.

5.1 Customers and Tenants 5.1.1 Key Commercial Customers There are two types of commercial customers that we focus on in this section: first, those spaceport customers that are seeking out launch facilities for their own launches; and, second, those customers that provide other key services in need of spaceport infrastructures, i.e., test and manufacturing. Both find themselves either users of the facilities or tenants of the spaceports, or both. Where commercial launch activities are desired, companies seek out infrastructures where they can optimize their activities based on mission while balancing operational costs and revenues. As shown in Table 5.1, as of 2018, nearly all of the operational spaceports listed are government owned and operated and very few operational spaceports around the world offer their launch facilities to commercial launch providers, save for the U.S. Due to regulatory limitations, costs, and opportunity, private companies, such as Blue Origin, look to develop private spaceports while simultaneously creating lease or use agreements with government entities for available infrastructures in other areas of the U.S. Rocket Lab turned to New Zealand for private facilities and SpaceX continues development of their South Texas spaceport as they launch elsewhere. Nation-states regulate space activities and often limit where these commercial space companies can operate. This is changing, however. For example, recognizing the need to buoy the commercial space industry, in 2019 the U.S. signed a technology safeguard agreement that would allow U.S. rocket companies to operate from Brazil. Boeing, SpaceX, Microcosm, Lockheed Martin, and Vector are among those U.S. companies that are looking to vertically launch from Centro De Lançamento de Alcântara (Sheetz 2019), taking advantage of the Earth’s spin and equatorial velocity and other cost saving opportunities for less expensive launches. Other countries are looking to allow commercial launches as well. A consortium of private companies in India plans to launch in 2020 (Krishnan and Perrmohamed 2016), presumably from Satish Dhwan Space Centre. For horizontal takeoff and landing (HTOL), the United Arab Emirates (U.A. E.), Italy, Spain, the United Kingdom (U.K.), and many others are set to welcome such providers as Virgin Galactic in the not-so-distance future. Later in this chapter we examine common business models and the evolution and implementation of partnerships between public–private and public– public entities that aid in space sector growth that benefits multiple stakeholders.

Table 5.1 Operational Spaceports and Commercial Customers/Tenants as of 2018 Country

Spaceport Name

Australia Brazil

Woomera Test Range Centro De Lançamento de Alcântara Centro de Lançamento da Barreira do Inferno China Jiuquan Satellite Launch Center Taiyuan Satellite Launch Center Wenchang Satellite Launch Center Xichang Satellite Launch Center Europe ( European Space Centre Spatial Guyanais Agency (ESA)) (Guiana Space Centre), French Guiana India Satish Dhwan Space Centre Iran Semnan Launch Site Israel Palmachim Air Force Base Japan Tanegashima Space Center Uchinoura Space Center Kazakhstan Baikonur Cosmodrome Multinational (South of Sea Launch Odyssey – Hawaii) Kiritimati Launch Area North Korea Sohae Satellite Launching Station Tonghae Satellite Launching Ground New Zealand Launch Complex 1 (LC1), Mahia Peninsula Russia

South Korea Sweden U.S.

Dombarovsky Missile Base Kapustin Yar Plesetsk Cosmodrome Vostochny Cosmodrome Naro Space Center Esrange Space Center

Ownership

Commercial Customer/ Tenant

Public Public

None None

Public

None

Public

None

Public

None

Public

None

Public

None

Public

Arianespace; Azercosmos

Public

None

Public Public

None None

Public

None

Public Public Public

None None None

Public

None

Public

None

Private

Public

Rocket Lab, Ltd. U.S. – launch (vertical takeoff(VTO)) None

Public Public Public Public Public Private

None None None None None N/A (Continued )

Table 5.1 Continued Country

Spaceport Name

Ownership

Blue Origin Launch Site, Texas Cape Canaveral Air Public Force Station (CCAFS), Florida (Cape Canaveral Spaceport (CCS))

Commercial Customer/ Tenant

Cecil Spaceport, Florida

Public

Colorado Air and Space Port, Colorado Edwards Air Force Base, California Ellington Airport, Texas (Ellington Spaceport/ Houston Spaceport) Kennedy Space Center (KSC), Florida (Cape Canaveral Spaceport (CCS))

Public

Space Florida (use/ tenant/manage) for Cape Canaveral Spaceport (CCS); SpaceX –vertical takeoff and landing (VTOL) launch/land; United Launch Alliance (ULA) – VTO; Northrop Grumman (Orbital ATK1) – VTO launch; Firefly Aerospace – launch Generation Orbit – launch/land (horizontal) None

Public

None

Public

None

Public

Space Florida (use/ tenant/manage) for Cape Canaveral Spaceport (CCS); SpaceX – VTO launch; Blue Origin – manufacturing; OneWeb Satellite (manufacturing); Moon Express; Firefly Aerospace – manufacturing AST & Science

Midland International Air Public and Space Port, Texas Mojave Air and Space Public Port, California

Oklahoma Air and Space Public Port, Oklahoma Public

Virgin Galactic (HTOL (horizontal takeoff and landing)); The Spaceship Company (manufacturing); Stratolaunch Systems (manufacturing/ HTOL); among others None None (Continued )

Spaceport business

117

Table 5.1 Continued Country

Spaceport Name

Ownership

Pacific Missile Range Facility, Barking Sands, Hawaii Pacific Spaceport ComPublic plex, Alaska Poker Flat Research Public Range, Alaska Spaceport America, New Public Mexico

Spaceport Tucson, Public Arizona U.S. Army Kwajalein Public Atoll (Reagan Test Site), Marshall Islands Vandenberg Air Force Public Base, California (California Spaceport)

Wallops Flight Facility, Public Virginia (WFF) (MidAtlantic Regional Spaceport (MARS))

White Sands Missile Range, New Mexico

Public

Commercial Customer/ Tenant

Astra Space, Inc. None Virgin Galactic (HTOL); SpaceX (test); EXOS Aerospace; UP Aerospace, SpinLaunch (test); among others World View Enterprises (launch) Northrop Grumman (Orbital ATK) (VTO) Harris Corporation for California Spaceport2; SpaceX (VTO); Lockheed Martin Commercial Launch Services; Northrop Grumman (Orbital ATK) Virginia Commercial Space Flight Authority (VCSFA) for MARS; Northrop Grumman (Orbital ATK) (VTO); Rocket Lab (VTO) None

Note: The designation of public as the operator includes any nonprivate entity (government, military, civil, local authority, etc.).

5.1.2 Government Customers There is a shift in the manner in which the government in the U.S conducts business in order to achieve national space objectives. Presumably other governments elsewhere in the world may follow suit as government budgets are stretched. Contracting with commercial entities to launch and carry astronauts to the International Space Station (ISS) on commercially owned technology is a significant shift from

118

Spaceport business

how business was conducted in the past. Formerly, NASA contracted companies to design and build launch vehicles, spacecraft, etc., then ultimately owned and operated these systems. With awards of commercial crew and cargo contracts, NASA is now going to launch and send astronauts and cargo on commercially owned and operated launch vehicles and spacecraft; this has already begun with cargo missions to the ISS. This fundamental shift in thinking required new contractual terms, new processes and procedures, changes in culture, and different interorganizational relationships. It also propelled a new type of government customer for commercial providers and, conversely, a new type of commercial provider for the government, i.e., SpaceX. As NASA moves forward with new Moon initiatives for 2024, this philosophical shift to contract commercial services for services, and not for products, will remain. With this shift in contractual methods, as well as the transforming relationship between government and military customer and commercial supplier, problems and tensions erupt even as all parties recognize positive outcomes. Commercial providers now need access to processing, integration, and launch facilities at spaceports, often on government property, while also offering services to the government. Some of these new arrangements have prohibited government employees from entering government property that is now leased to new providers, causing dissonance between government and contractor. Conversely, new commercial providers are often restricted from activities on government property during military or government operations that require security clearances, slowing their operations and raising costs even while the government or military entity may be the ultimate customer. Further, new providers do business in entrepreneurial ways while legacy companies, such as Boeing, ULA (United Launch Alliance), and Lockheed, are institutionalized and steeped in processes, procedures, and cultures, etc. that are less flexible and more costly than for newer firms. Yet legacy companies know how to “do business” with the government and the reliability and quality of their products and services are high. While this phenomenon is occurring now in the U.S., it will likely also occur in other parts of the world where government/military and legacy providers have long-standing working and contractual relationships. Finally, while the discussion above centered on the nonmilitary government, commercial providers offer launch services to the military, often in terms of satellite launches and have been doing so for a number of years. 5.1.3 Business and Commercial Partners Just as with airports, spaceports have business and industrial parks or areas zoned and planned for business/industrial development. Planning now for the future is key to being positioned to take advantage of commercial space as more avenues open for increased economic benefits and market opportunities. Until space tourism becomes a reality, spaceports can offer lease-and-use permit space for research and development (R&D) and satellite offices, etc. until launch revenues start flowing in.

Spaceport business

119

Spaceports also provide space for manufacturing operations, as well as supporting companies for test activities. Table 5.1 highlights companies such as Stratolaunch Systems at Mojave Air and Space Port for test and manufacturing and SpaceX for testing at Spaceport America as two prime examples. Further, those spaceports that operate as airports (GA and/or commercial) have the advantage of offering lease-and-use space to aviation interests as deemed appropriate by the aviation authority, such as that which is available to customers at the commercial airport, Midland International Air and Space Port, and GA airport, Cecil Spaceport. Outside the U.S., Russia’s Vostochny Cosmodrome will eventually become its own city, supported by an airport, hotels, schools, business centers, industrial parks, etc. (Zak 2014), providing infrastructure for other businesses and commercial partners. As aforementioned, many entities are examining ways in which they can capture some of the market opportunities that commercial space brings. However, the industry is still in an embryonic state, hence it is inherently filled with risk and generation of return on investment (ROI) has been slow. Air and spaceports must alter their business model approach in order to remain in the industry until more lucrative returns begin – the subject of our next section.

5.2 Business Models “The definition of a business model is murky at best. Most often, it seems to refer to a loose conception of how a company does business and generates revenue” (Porter 2001). For an industry still in its infancy, the definition of business models for spaceports becomes even “murkier”. Therefore, this section addresses the business models of the commercial spaceports in a broader context, including both how the commercial spaceports have been established and how they are operated. 5.2.1 Becoming a Commercial Spaceport In general, the current commercial spaceports have come into existence through three paths: (1.) national space and military bases; (2.) existing airports becoming air and space ports; and (3.) greenfield spaceports. While Table 5.1 presents an overview of today’s spaceports and those that allow commercial operations, this section provides an in-depth discussion of some of these spaceports on how they came to be and their business models. In particular, the following were chosen for further examination: • • •

Stemmed from national space centers and military bases: California Spaceport, Mid-Atlantic Regional Spaceport (MARS), and Cape Canaveral Spaceport (CCS). Developed from existing airports: Mojave Air and Space Port, Oklahoma Air and Space Port, Cecil Spaceport, Midland International Air and Space Port, and Ellington Airport (Houston Spaceport).3 Built as greenfield projects: Pacific Spaceport Complex – Alaska and Spaceport America.

120 Spaceport business 5.2.1.1 National Space Centers and Military Bases Prior to the 1980s, spaceports were federal or national facilities for the purpose of military or space exploration funded almost exclusively by national agencies, such as NASA in the U.S. By the 1980s, space vehicles developed by national governments started to carry commercial loads (satellites), and commercial companies started to develop and build commercial space vehicles. Not surprisingly, these commercial companies wanted to operate from commercial launch sites (spaceports). Spaceports that provide commercial services to the general public are regulated as commercial spaceports regardless of their ownership. Outside the U.S., most of these spaceports continue to be operated by military or other national government agencies, such as Jiuquan Satellite Launch Center in China, Satish Dhawan Space Centre in India, and Guiana Space Centre in French Guiana. In the United States, when government facilities undertake commercial activities, they are subject to licensing and regulation as commercial spaceports. At present, there are three commercial spaceports which are co-located on federal facilities in the U.S. In all three, the commercial Spaceport Authority operates on leased or licensed land or launch facilities within the government or military facilities. 5.2.1.1.1 CALIFORNIA SPACEPORT

California Spaceport is co-located at Vandenberg Air Force Base (AFB), about 150 miles northwest of Los Angeles on the central coast of California. It consists of a satellite processing facility and a space launch complex, and is currently operated by Harris Spaceport Systems (see note 2). Launches from Vandenberg AFB fly south or southwest, and can place satellites in polar orbit and sun-synchronous orbits without flying over populated areas, allowing full global coverage on a regular basis. Thus, it is often used for Earth observation, weather, and reconnaissance satellites. Vandenberg AFB was selected as the West Coast Space Shuttle launch and landing site, and the Air Force spent over $5 billion at the facility between 1965 and 1986 (Seastrand 1995). However, the Space Shuttle never launched or landed at Vandenberg. Vandenberg’s shuttle program was officially terminated in December 1989 after a joint decision by the Air Force and NASA to consolidate shuttle operations at Cape Canaveral following the Challenger tragedy in 1986. Nevertheless, Space Launch Complex 6 (SLC-6) has all the required infrastructure and facilities for shuttle operation, including liquid hydrogen (LH2) and liquid oxygen (LOX) storage tanks, payload preparation room, shuttle assembly building, etc. It also has a 15,000 foot runway for the Orbiter landing. In late 1991, the Air Force made a recommendation to Motorola that Vandenberg be used as the launch site for their Iridium satellites. Motorola initially rejected the proposal, but eventually signed $1.1 billion in satellite and booster contracts with Lockheed and McDonnell Douglas. As stated by Andrea Seastrand, former U.S. Congresswoman and former executive director of the California Space Authority, the decision by Motorola was a critical step to turn

Spaceport business

121

Vandenberg AFB into a commercial space launch facility (Congressional Record 1995). The first five Iridium satellites were launched from the North Vandenberg launch complex to a polar orbit by a Delta II rocket in May 1997. By February 2002, a total of 60 Iridium satellites over 12 missions were launched from Vandenberg, all by Delta II rockets. The Western Commercial Space Center, Incorporated (WCSC), was formed on May 8, 1992 as a California Nonprofit Corporation (Martin and Smith 1996). The California State Assembly passed legislation to designate WCSC as the California Spaceport Authority in 1993 to oversee the development of the California Spaceport on land leased from the Air Force. The State of California also offered a sales and use tax exemption for commercial launches from Vandenberg AFB. The tax exemption was expanded to include ground support facilities for spaceflight operation in 2005. The Air Force approved WCSC’s proposal to reactivate a portion of SLC-6 as a processing facility and begin environmental analysis for construction of a spaceport facility south of SLC-6. The total project budget was $3.66 million, and the Air Force would contribute the lesser of the project cost or $2.35 million. One of the conditions of the Air Force’s funding contribution was that WCSC must receive 10% of the project cost in matching funds from a U.S. taxpaying company primarily engaged in launch services. WCSC decided to form a separate for-profit company, California Commercial Spaceport, Incorporated (CCSI). CCSI would be responsible for securing the additional funding for constructing and operating the spaceport facilities (Martin and Smith 1996). In November, 1994, Spaceport Systems International (SSI), a limited partnership between ITT Industries, Inc.4 and CCSI, announced a $33 million plan for a commercial spaceport at Vandenberg AFB (Peltz 1994). The spaceport was intended to specialize in launching small-to-medium size payloads (commercial satellite) of up to 5,000 lb. In March 1995, the Air Force and WCSC signed a 25-year exclusive use lease of more than 100 acres of land for commercial launch facility construction just south of SLC-6, including a payload processing facility. WCSC in turn signed a sublease with SSI. The Air Force also signed a Commercial Space Operations Support Agreement with WCSC. All commercial launch activities from the spaceport would use the Department of Defense launch range for telemetry tracking, optics, and command destruct (Raymond 1997). SSI was to provide “an affordable, efficient (launch) package for Motorola, the Orbital Science and those other companies planning these satellite constellations” (Peltz 1994). SSI received the first commercial spaceport license in the U.S. from the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) to operate the commercial launch facilities at Vandenberg as California Spaceport in 1996. Their SLC-8 became operational in 1999 and is capable of supporting both polar and ballistic launch trajectories using smaller Minotaur-class boosters. An Air Force Orbital Suborbital Space vehicle, Minotaur (a converted Minuteman II), carrying Joint Air Force Academy-Weber State University Satellite (JAWSAT) payload was launched from

122 Spaceport business California Spaceport on January 26, 2000 (Space Daily 2000), marking the first successful space launch at a privately operated commercial spaceport in the U.S. “Through a competitive process, the Air Force chose SSI’s Commercial Spaceport because it represented the best value to the government when considering mission requirements and cost”, said Lt. Luis Marina, Air Force Mission Manager for JAWSAT. This also marks the first use of surplus Minuteman boosters in a space launch. Between January 26, 2000 and August 11, 2011, six Minotaur I and three Minotaur IV were launched from SLC-8. In February 2010, SSI was awarded an indefinite delivery, indefinite quantity (IDIQ) contract to provide spaceport launch services for the U.S. Air Force Space and Missile Systems Center Launch Test Squadron. The five-year contract has a maximum value of $48 million (ITT 2010). In addition to the SSIoperated SLC-8, SLC-4 (two pads) and SLC-6 at Vandenberg AFB have also been used to launch rockets and space vehicles. SLC-4 was used by Atlas and Titan rockets between 1963 and 2005. In June 2010, Iridium Communications, Inc. announced a $492 million contract with SpaceX that would launch 70 Iridium NEXT satellites on seven Falcon 9 rockets from Vandenberg between 2015 and 2017 (Moskowitz 2010). SpaceX signed a lease with the Air Force in 2011 to use SLC-4E as a launching pad for Falcon 9. Following a two-year reconfiguration and reconstruction, SpaceX used the launch complex for the first time to launch Canada’s experimental CASSIOPE Satellite in September 2013. The first ten Iridium NEXT satellites were launched from SLC-4E on January 14, 2017. In total, eight Iridium NEXT missions carrying 75 satellites were launched from Vandenberg by Falcon 9, the last one on January 11, 2019. Figure 5.1 shows SpaceX’s Falcon 9 rocket for an Iridium mission sitting on its launchpad at Vandenberg AFB. In addition to Iridium NEXT, SpaceX also successfully launched seven other missions from SLC-4E by June 2019. SpaceX then took over the neighboring SLC-4W in February 2015 through a five-year lease. The company later renamed SLC-4W as Landing Zone 4, and successfully landed, for the first time, in October 2018, its first-stage booster of Falcon 9 on the landing zone on the California coast. SLC-6 was initially developed for Titan III and the Manned Orbiting Laboratory (MOL), and was later rebuilt to serve as the west coast launch site for the Space Shuttle but was never used by it. SLC-6 was used for four Athena launches between 1995 and 1999, two successfully. The Boeing Company reached a lease agreement with the Air Force on September 1, 1999 to launch its newly developed Delta IV from SLC-6. The pad was modified to meet the needs of Delta IV, and the first successful Delta IV launch lifted off from SLC6 on June 27, 2006. As of January, 2019, there have been a total of eight successful launches of Delta IV from SLC-6, including seven missions for the U.S. National Reconnaissance Office (NRO) and one mission for the Defense Meteorological Satellite Program. SLC-2W was used for Delta, Thor-Agena and Delta II launches between 1966 and 2018. The last Delta II launch lifted off from SLC-2W on September 15, 2018,

Spaceport business

123

Figure 5.1 California Commercial Spaceport at Vandenberg. Source: SpaceX 2019a

carrying NASA’s ICESat-2, which marked the 100th successful flights of Delta II (Pearlman 2018). SLC-2W is being repurposed to launch Firefly Alpha for Firefly Aerospace who received approval from the U.S. Air Force to take over the launchpad in May 2018. Firefly Alpha is a two-stage orbital expendable launch vehicle for small satellites for both full vehicle and ride-share customers. The first Firefly Alpha was initially expected in the third quarter of 2019 (Clark 2018), but has been put off to 2020 due to supplier delays (Brinkmann 2019). 5.2.1.1.2 MID-ATLANTIC REGIONAL SPACEPORT (MARS)

MARS is co-located at NASA Wallops Flight Facility (WFF), about 100 miles northeast of Norfolk on the eastern shore of Virginia, and is a portion of the larger NASA campus at Wallops. The Wallops Island rocket launch site was established in 1945 by the National Advisory Committee for Aeronautics (NACA), NASA’s predecessor, as an aerodynamics test bed and orbital launch facility. The first payload launched into orbit from Wallops Island was Explorer IX, atop a Scout rocket, on February 15, 1961. WFF has launched more than 16,000 rockets carrying aircraft models, science experiments, and technology development payloads and satellites (NASA 2017). Figure 5.2 shows the aerial view of MARS from Google Maps.

124 Spaceport business

Figure 5.2 Mid-Atlantic Regional Spaceport (MARS). Source: Google 2019a

WFF has six launchpads, three blockhouses for launch control, and assembly buildings to support the preparation and launching of suborbital and orbital launch vehicles. NASA’s rocket launch range at WFF supports missions for suborbital and orbital rocket vehicles by providing range safety, surveillance, vehicle tracking and communications, command systems, meteorological services, optical systems, a range control center, payload processing, and launch vehicle integration facilities. WFF also has three aircraft runways. The Virginia Commercial Space Flight Authority (VCSFA), also known as “Virginia Space”, was created by the General Assembly of the Commonwealth of Virginia in 1995. Virginia Space entered into a Reimbursable Space Act Agreement with NASA in 1997 for the use of land on NASA Wallops Island for launchpads, and also applied for and was granted a license to launch to orbit by the FAA, which led to the establishment of MARS. MARS is located in the southern part of Wallops Island, at a higher latitude than both Vandenberg and Cape Canaveral, and is in an ideal location to launch to the ISS. The launch complex at MARS was constructed in 1998, and it includes two launchpads. Pad 0A is a Medium Class Launch Facility (MCLF), and includes a cryogenic liquid fuel facility with a computer controlled commodities systems, a fortified launch mount, electrical and environmental control systems, and a gravity-fed freshwater deluge system. Pad 0A currently hosts the Northrop Grumman (formerly Orbital ATK) Antares launch vehicle. The company is under contract through to 2024 to send cargo to the ISS. Pad 0B is a Small Class Launch Facility (SCLF), and includes a launch stool, a movable service structure, and an environmental control

Spaceport business

125

system. Pad 0B hosts primarily Northrop Grumman Minotaur class launch vehicles but it can be reconfigured to host almost any existing small class launch vehicle. In fact, modifications and upgrades were made on MARS Pad 0B to launch the NASA Lunar Atmosphere and Dust Environment Explorer (LADEE) mission to the Moon on the then new Orbital Sciences Minotaur V launch vehicle in September 2013. The complex also includes vehicle and payload processing facilities, support instrumentation, and emergency facilities. The first rocket, Minotaur I, carrying satellites for the Air Force (TacSat-2) and NASA (GeneSat-1) was launched from MARS Pad 0B in December 2006. The Air Force reportedly paid $621,000 to MARS for the launch. The first ISS resupply mission, Cygnus CRS Orb-1 on an Antares vehicle, was launched in January 2014. On November 2, 2019, a 139 foot tall Northrop Grumman Antares rocket was launched from Pad 0A, carrying more than 3,700 kg of cargo heading to the ISS (Clark 2019), which marked the sixteenth successful launches from MARS, including eight ISS resupply missions. In May 2017, Virginia Space opened a 3,000 foot long x 75 foot wide runway dedicated to drones and unmanned aerial vehicles (UAV) in the north end of WFF. The $5.8 million state-funded facility is known as MARS Unmanned Aircraft Systems (MARS UAS) Airfield and is owned and operated by Virginia Space. The Virginia Governor, Ralph Northam, officially opened a $31 million new payload processing facility at the north end of Wallops Island in July 2019. The new facility includes several cargo bays, and allows for secure processing for classified and sensitive science missions (Vaughn 2019). It is to be used for preparing satellites and other payloads that will be carried on a drone or rocket, and to serve multiple customers at the same time. Virginia Space believes that the new facility will help them to compete with the spaceports in Florida, California, and Alaska. Rocket Lab, headquartered in California, announced in October 2018 that it would build its Launch Complex 2 (LC-2) at MARS. The LC-2 is built with $20 million investment by Rocket Lab, a $5 million grant approved by the Virginia Governor, as well as undisclosed additional funding from the Commonwealth of Virginia. The launchpad is referred to as Pad 0C by Virginia Space. Rocket Lab stated on September 18, 2019 that their launch platform at Pad 0C should be ready for launch in early 2020 (Foust 2019b). An Integration and Control Facility (ICF) is to be constructed in 2020 in the Wallops research park to support the simultaneous integration of up to four Electron vehicles. ICF will include a control room with connectivity to Pad 0C. Pad 0C is designed to be capable of supporting 12–18 orbital launches per year. Rocket Lab provides launches for SmallSats and CubeSats, and was awarded a $6.95 million Venture Class Launch Services contract by NASA to launch NASA payload to low earth orbit (LEO) (Foust 2018a). A Rocket Lab Electron rocket was launched successfully In December 2018 from LC-1 in New Zealand with 13 CubeSats funded by NASA’s CubeSat Launch Initiative program (Foust 2018c).

126 Spaceport business 5.2.1.1.3 CAPE CANAVERAL SPACEPORT (CCS)

CCS is located on Merritt Island on the central Florida east coast, and, as defined by Space Florida, consists of NASA’s KSC and CCAFS. However, it is noted that: CCS does not presently function as a unified entity or operate under any integrated management structure or authority. Its status as a multi-sector space transportation complex is defined only in Florida Statute designating it as a Spaceport territory for purposes of Space Florida’s statutory roles and responsibilities in implementing the intent of the Florida Legislature. (Space Florida 2017, p. 4) Accordingly, the CCS consists of the KSC and CCAFS in name only for the purposes of the State of Florida and its legislature; KSC and CCAFS are separately owned and operated by the U.S. Federal Government. However, the arrangement is similar to, but not the same as, that of MARS in Virginia and the California Spaceport at Vandenberg AFB, whereby a separate legal authority, Space Florida, manages and operates some portions of the spaceport designated for commercial operations as further explained below. KSC, formerly NASA Launch Operations Center, was officially activated on July 1, 1962. The first launch from KSC was an unmanned Saturn V on November 29, 1963. The first manned launch blasted from Launch Pad 39A on the Apollo 8 mission on December 21, 1998. Thereafter, KSC has been NASA’s primary launch sites for human spaceflights, managing and completing launch operations for the Apollo, Skylab and Space Shuttle programs from LC-39. CCAFS is south-southeast of KSC on Merritt Island, and is linked to KSC by bridges and causeways. CCAFS is the primary launch head of America’s Eastern Range, that supports missiles and rocket launches from CCAFS and KSC and also provides support for Ariane launches from the Guiana Space Centre, as well as launches from WFF. CCAFS was the launch site of a number of historical American space exploration pioneers, such as the first U.S. Earth satellite (1958), the first U.S. astronaut in orbit (1962), and the first spacecraft to orbit Mercury (2011). CCAFS currently has five orbital space launch complexes and a 10,000 foot runway. The State of Florida passed legislation to create the Spaceport Florida Authority (SFA) in 1989. The SFA started to develop their spaceport concept in 1992 and began to share SLC-46, located at CCAFS, with the U.S. Navy in 1993. SFA does not own SLC-46, instead it has a property agreement with the U.S. Navy and U.S. Air Force to operate SLC-46 as a multiuse commercial launch facility and received the launch site operator’s license for SLC-46 from the FAA. Millions of commercial, federal, and state funds were invested in SLC-46 before it was ready for commercial space operations in 1997. Lockheed Martin’s Athena II was launched from SLC-46 on January 7, 1998,

Spaceport business

127

carrying the Lunar Prospector spacecraft, and Athena I was launched with Taiwan’s first satellite, ROCSAT-1, on January 27, 1999. SLC-46 was the first launch facility in the world that is not specifically limited to only one vehicle configuration and supports a variety of vehicle diameters and heights for stacking, integration, and pre-launch servicing. Florida Legislature enacted the Space Florida Act in May 2006, which established Space Florida, a state aerospace economic development agency that consolidated three existing state space entities (Florida Space Authority, Florida Space Research Institute, and Florida Aerospace Finance Corporation). A Joint Use Agreement (JUA) was signed between the Navy and Space Florida in December 2009, which grants full utilization of the SLC-46 by either party, as needed. Space Florida received real property licenses from the U.S. Air Force in March 2010 to proceed with construction and refurbishment work at SLC-46 and SLC-36. Space Florida signed a 30-year property agreement with NASA and became the new operator of the Shuttle Landing Facility (SLF) at KSC in 2015 (Schmidt 2015). Space Florida has since renamed the SLF as the Launch and Landing Facility (LLF). The LLF has a 15,000 foot high friction concrete runway (15/33) with 1,000 foot paved overruns at both ends, an air traffic control tower, on-site Aircraft Rescue and Firefighting (ARFF) Class D fire and emergency response services, and has access to restricted airspace. The FAA issued the launch site operating license in November 2018 in order for Space Florida to fully operate the LLF, which gives CCS the ability to accommodate horizontal launches and landings. LLF covers 500 acres of land and has been adapted to accommodate different types of vehicles. Tenants and customers of LLF include Starfighters, Lockheed Martin, ULA, and various automotive businesses. According to Space Florida, the LLF is “ideal for horizontal flights, suborbital flight training and research, weightless flights, and aviation and aerodynamic flight testing” (https://www.spaceflorida.gov/facilities/llf/). Space Florida’s LLF area development plan includes multiple hangars with offices and shops, passenger processing/training and operations facility, assembly, processing and manufacturing facility, and propellant and fueling facilities. Space Florida formed a partnership with KSC in December 2011 to develop Exploration Park, a 299-acre property located just outside the gates of KSC. Space Life Sciences Lab (SLSL), located in Exploration Park, is another joint development partnership between Space Florida and NASA. SLSL is a state-ofthe-art facility for ISS biotechnology research. Space Florida’s other facilities at CCS include the Reusable Launch Vehicle Hangar at the south end of the SLF, the Processing Control Center (PCC) in KSC’s LC-39 area, the Operations and Checkout (O&C) facility at KSC, the Horizontal Integration Facility (HIF), and the Commercial Crew and Cargo Processing Facility (C3PF). Blue Origin reached a deal with Space Florida in 2016 to lease SLC-36 and build a 750,000 square-foot rocket factory (more than $200 million) at Exploration Park. The deal includes an $8 million incentive package from Brevard County. Blue Origin entered an agreement in late 2018 to build a $60 million

128 Spaceport business new testing and refurbishment facility in Exploration Park, and this new agreement includes a provision that the state will use tax dollars to reimburse Blue Origin up to $4 million in common infrastructure costs, such as roads and utilities. In March 2019, Blue Origin filed plan with the State of Florida for the development of a 90 acre “South Campus” expansion (Kelly 2019). In addition to the facilities operated or managed by Space Florida, SpaceX leased SLC-40 at CCAFS from the Air Force in 2007, signed a 20-year property agreement with NASA in 2014 for use and operation of LC-39A, and a 5-year leasing agreement with the U.S. Air Force in 2015 to develop CCAFS’ LC-13 into a landing pad for reusable Falcon 9 and Falcon Heavy rocket boosters (Landing Zone 1 and Landing Zone 2). SpaceX launched the first Falcon 9 successfully from SLC-40 in June 2010, and the first successful launch from LC-39A5 took off in February 2017, followed by a successful first-stage landing at Landing Zone 1. As of October 2019, SpaceX has carried out 37 launches from SLC-45 and 18 launches from LC-39A. In addition, SpaceX’s Crew Dragon and its Falcon 9 rocket arrived at Cape Canaveral in October, 2019, getting ready for their in-flight abort test. The Crew Dragon capsule arrived in CCAFS in February 2020, and is undergoing final testing and prelaunch processing, targeting an early May launch liftoff. Figure 5.3 shows SpaceX’s Falcon 9 taking off from Cape Canaveral.

Figure 5.3 Cape Canaveral Spaceport. Source: SpaceX 2019b

Spaceport business

129

SpaceX filed an environmental review document in April 2019, which reveals that SpaceX is planning a 300 foot launch control center, a 133,000 square-foot rocket processing and storage facility, a new security office, and a 280,000 square-foot utility yard, as well as a “rocket garden” (Sheetz 2018). Relativity Space, a developer of 3D printed rockets, received approval from the Air Force in January 2019 to use CCAFS’ LC-16 as its launch site for its 100 foot tall Terran 1 rocket. Relativity Space is granted a 20-year exclusive access to LC-16, and plans to build a payload processing facility, a vehicle integration hangar, a horizontal transporter/erector, propellant storage farms, and other equipment (Foust 2019a). LC-16 is located north of SpaceX’s landing pad (formerly LC-13). Finally, it is noted that ULA provides space launch services for the U.S. Government using two expendable launch vehicles, Delta IV and Atlas V. Delta IV launches take off from SLC-37, and Atlas V launches take off from SLC-41, both at CCAFS. Furthermore, Space Florida plans to convert LC-20, north of LC-16, into a small launch complex. 5.2.1.2 Airports to Air and Space Ports Several of the current commercial spaceports in the U.S. started as airports and completed the licensing process to become air and space ports. These spaceports are able to utilize existing airport infrastructure, thus reducing the initial capital costs, and are generally compatible and/or designed to support horizontal space launches and landings. The licensing requirements for airports becoming spaceports follow the U.S. Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) Title 14 Part 420 (14 CFR Part 420). The process is lengthy, and may take two to four years or longer. According to Gulliver and Finger (2010), the cost of drafting an application and environmental assessment was in the range of $500,000 to $1 million in 2010. This section reviews five licensed spaceports in the U.S. that followed this path. Ƽ.2.1.2.1 MOJAVE AIR AND SPACE PORT

Mojave Air and Space Port (Mojave Spaceport) is located in the California desert at an elevation of 2,801 feet. The spaceport is a little over a two-hour drive from Los Angeles International Airport, and about a 30-minute drive from Edwards AFB. Figure 5.4 shows an aerial view of Mojave Air and Space Port by Google Maps. The airport was a Marine Corps Auxiliary Air Station and gunnery training range during World War II, and became a U.S. Navy Air Station, used for drone operations, after the war. The facility was decommissioned then recommissioned a number of times by different military units before it was transferred to Kern County in 1961. East Kern Airport District (the District) was incorporated on February 24, 1972, under the provisions of the California Airport District Act, California Public Utilities Code – PUC Division 9, Section 22,001.

Figure 5.4 Mojave Air and Space Port. Source: Google Maps 2019

Spaceport business

131

Under the terms of the California Airport District Act, the District owns and operates Mojave Airport. Kern County Airport No. 7 was transferred from the county of Kern to the District, and the Airport name was changed to Mojave Airport on November 15, 1972. The District is governed by an elected fivemember Board of Directors under five-year terms. The Board of Directors voted on November 20, 2012 to adopt the name of the District to the name of the airport it governs. East Kern Airport District officially became Mojave Air and Space Port on January 1, 2013. Because of its location in the sparsely populated desert, and its proximity to Edwards AFB, the airport has been a major center for flight-testing activities. The airspace over and surrounding Edwards AFB is restricted from ground level to an unlimited height, and there is a supersonic corridor. Mojave Air and Space Port was the first inland launch site to obtain a launch site operator’s license on June 17, 2004. It is considered as one of the most successful commercial spaceports. One of the first space companies that chose Mojave as their home base was Rotary Rocket. Rotary Rocket leased a 45,000 square-foot facility at Mojave Air and Space Port, and developed the Roton concept as a reusable single-stage-to-orbit manned spacecraft, and manufactured the test vehicle at their Mojave facility. The fuselage for Rotary Rocket’s test vehicle was made by Scaled Composites, also among the first space companies to be located at Mojave. Rotary Rocket conducted three test flights at Mojave, but was forced to close its doors in early 2001 due to lack of funding. Despite its relative short tenancy at Mojave, Rotary Rocket launched Mojave as a base for small companies to develop new space technologies. Scaled Composites received the FAA’s first license for a suborbital manned rocket flight on April 1, 2004. Mojave Airport was granted the license to operate a space launch site on June 17, 2004. A few days later, SpaceShipOne, developed by Scaled Composites and financed by Microsoft co-founder Paul Allen, was launched for the first time on the White Knight carrier aircraft on June 21, 2004 from Mojave Airport, marking the first privately funded human suborbital flight. Mojave officially became an Air and Space Port. SpaceShipOne won the Ansari XPRIZEon October 4, 2004. Several other teams participating in the XPRIZE also used Mojave Air and Space Port as their test site. Mojave’s launch site operator license allows it to host horizontally launched suborbital rockets as well as host other services for commercial launch vehicle manufacturing and other testing and manufacturing activities. The facility currently covers 2,998 acres of land and has three runways. In addition to Scale Composites,6 Mojave has hosted some of the biggest names in commercial space travel including Masten Space Systems, Virgin Galactic, The Spaceship Company, Stratolaunch Systems, Interorbital Systems, Flight Test Aerospace, and Orbital ATK, now Northrop Grumman. More than 50% of the revenues generated at Mojave Air and Space Port comes from companies engaged in privately funded commercial spaceflight R&D, but also includes related test and manufacturing. Other operating revenues include general aviation (GA) fuel sales and nonoperating revenues include those derived from wind energy projects.

132 Spaceport business Ƽ.2.1.2.2 OKLAHOMA AIR AND SPACE PORT

Formerly known as Clinton-Sherman Industrial Airpark, Oklahoma Air and Space Port is located near Burns Flat, about 100 miles west of Oklahoma City. It is the only FAA licensed spaceport that completely avoids restricted airspace or Military Operation Areas (MOAs). Similar to Mojave Airport, Clinton-Sherman Industrial Airpark started as a Naval Air Station during World War II. The facility was transferred to the city of Clinton in 1949, and was used as a salvaging site for surplus aircraft. The federal government leased the site from the city, extended the runway, constructed new facilities, and reactivated the facility as Clinton-Sherman AFB in 1954. South Western Oklahoma Development Authority gained control of the Clinton-Sherman Industrial Airpark in 1993 (Crowder n.d.). The airpark covers 1,690 acres of land and has two parallel runways: 17L/35R at 5,193 feet x 75 feet, and 17R/35L at 13,502 feet x 200 feet (4,024 meters x 61 meters). The airport has an operational tower, six commercial-size aircraft hangars, crash and rescue services, and a fixed-based operator (FBO) for fuel and aviation service. Designed as a GA airport, as of May 2016, the most recent data available, 88% of the airport operations are military (FAA Form 5010).7 Figure 5.5 shows the layout and surrounding area of Oklahoma Air and Space Port.

Figure 5.5 Oklahoma Air and Space Port. Source: Google 2019b

Spaceport business

133

The Oklahoma Space Industry Development Authority (OSIDA) was created by the State of Oklahoma through the Oklahoma Space Industry Development Act in 1999 with the vision of Oklahoma becoming the national pacesetter in the emerging commercial space industry. OSIDA was tasked to plan spaceport systems and projects in the state, promote development and improvement of space exploration and spaceport facilities to stimulate development of space commerce and education, and promote R&D related to space-related industries. The authority is governed by a seven-member Board of Directors appointed by the Governor with advice and consent from the State Senate. The first paid employee of the authority, its first executive director, was hired in June 2001 at a salary of $85,000 a year (Robinson 2001). The authority started its first fiscal year, the financial year 2001–2002, with $426,000 in budget funding from federal and state sources (Robinson 2001). U.S. Senator Jim Inhoff was instrumental in obtaining $2.5 million in federal earmarked funds to clean up the Clinton-Sherman Industrial Airpark and to transform it into the state’s spaceport. Moreover, Oklahoma State Senate Bill 55 was signed into law in May 2001 to provide millions of dollars in tax credits to companies that invest in the Oklahoma space industry. In 2003, the state offered $18 million in tax credits to Rocketplane Global to build a space tourism company in Western Oklahoma. OSIDA obtained a license from the FAA in June 2006 to operate a space launch site for horizontal takeoffs and landings of suborbital reusable launch vehicles at Clinton Sherman Industrial Airpark, and acquired the airpark, at no cost, in September 2006. OSIDA contracts with the South Western Oklahoma Development Authority to provide facility maintenance at the Oklahoma Spaceport. Unfortunately, Rocketplane Global filed for Chapter 7 bankruptcy in the summer of 2010 and the spaceport lost it main tenant. The U.S. Air Force awarded a $6.95 million five year joint use agreement (JUA) to OSIDA for the use of the airport for flight training operations by U.S. Air Force and transient Department of Defense aircraft. The agreement covers 90% of all maintenance on the airfield, more than 30% of staff salaries, and 100% of air traffic control and crash and rescue personnel costs, equipment, and services. According to the 2019 State of Oklahoma Executive Budget, state appropriation accounts for 13.4% of OSIDA’s revenue in the 2018 financial year. Ƽ.2.1.2.3 CECIL SPACEPORT

Cecil Spaceport is co-located with Cecil Airport, about 15 miles west of downtown Jacksonville, Florida, on the site of the decommissioned Naval Air Station Cecil Field. It is owned and operated by Jacksonville Aviation Authority (JAA) that also operates Jacksonville International Airport and two other GA airports. The JAA was created by the Florida Legislature in 2001 as an independent government agency, and is overseen by a seven-member Board of Directors8. Figure 5.6 provides an aerial view of Cecil Spaceport and its surroundings.

Figure 5.6 Cecil Spaceport. Source: Google 2019c

Spaceport business

135

Naval Air Station Cecil Field was opened in 1941, closed as a naval air station and transferred to the Jacksonville Port Authority9 in 1999, and was later renamed as Cecil Airport. The airport covers 6,000 acres of land and has four runways with the longest one at 12,503 feet (3,811 meters). It provides services to military, corporate, and GA aircraft as well as air cargo. The spaceport occupies 200 acres of the airport (Lindner 2019). In 2004, Space Florida (Florida Space Authority at the time) recommended Cecil Airport to pursue a space launch site operator’s license for horizontal launch of reusable launch vehicles (Lindner 2019). JAA decided to examine the feasibility of developing a commercial spaceport at Cecil in 2006, and began the application process for a launch site operator license in 2007. The FAA granted Cecil Spaceport its launch site operator’s license in 2010, and provided JAA with a $104,805 grant to develop a Spaceport Master Plan. The then Florida governor, Rick Scott, signed legislation in August 2012 designating Cecil Airport as a “space territory” that made Cecil eligible for grants from the Florida Department of Transportation (FDOT) and Space Florida to fund spaceport-related transportation facilities. Cecil Spaceport is funded mainly by federal and state grants. For example, the JAA received a $1.8 million matching grant from Space Florida to fund the design and construction of a space operations center, payload preparation facility, and rocket motor test facility in June 2018. Cecil’s spaceport license allows it to operate 52 horizontal launches of suborbital launch vehicles per year to Concept Z designation. They have also applied for Concept X license approval. According to Jacksonville Business Journal (Burr 2013), Cecil Spaceport signed its first tenant agreement with Generation Orbit in December 2013. Generation Orbit is an Atlanta-based aerospace company, developing launch vehicle technologies for small payloads. Ground tests were conducted in January, 2020, and flight tests were expected later in the year (no specific dates) as of January 2020 (Kindler 2019). In September 2019, the Air Force Space and Missile Systems Center awarded a $4.9 million contract to Alabama-based space start-up Aevum to launch experimental satellites. Aevum selected Cecil Spaceport as its launch site through a competitive request for proposal (RFP) process, and became the second customer to enter into an operating agreement with Cecil Spaceport (Garwood 2019). The initial launch is scheduled for the third quarter of 2021. Ƽ.2.1.2.4 MIDLAND INTERNATIONAL AIR AND SPACE PORT

Midland International Airport is located between Midland and Odessa, Texas. The airport is about 330 miles from Dallas, and 300 miles from El Paso, Texas. It is owned and operated by the City of Midland. Midland Airport started as a privately owned airfield – Sloan Field – in 1927 and was sold to the City of Midland in 1939 for $14,500. It became Midland Army Airfield in 1941 after runway and taxiway improvements under the Works Progress Administration and was home to the Army Air Forces Bombardier School (see Figure 5.7).

Figure 5.7 Midland International Air and Space Port. Source: Google 2019d

Spaceport business

137

The airport returned to civil use after the war. Continental Airlines, TransTexas Airways, and American Airlines were the earliest carriers to serve Midland. The oil boom in the 1970s led to rapid economic growth, and attracted new entrants, including Southwest Airlines, as well as additional flights by the incumbent carriers. Unfortunately, by the 1990s, several carriers had pulled out of the airport. As of March 2019, the Midland airport has seven nonstop destinations served by three carriers (United Airlines, American Airlines, and Southwest Airlines). The airport covers approximately 1,800 acres of land. It has four asphalt runways with the longest one at 9,501 feet; two of the runways are closed to aircraft over 60,000 lbs. Midland Development Corporation (MDC) initiated the process to prepare and submit a commercial space launch site application in 2012. XCOR Aerospace announced plans in July 2012 to establish an R&D headquarters at Midland airport. The City, through MDC, made a $10 million incentive agreement with XCOR for the relocation, on the condition that Midland receiving the spaceport licenses. The Midland City Council approved the $4 million purchase of land (374 acres) by MDC in June 2013 to enhance spaceport application. Furthermore, the City of Midland and Midland County jointly formed the Spaceport Development Corporation that can apply for state grants. The Spaceport Development Corporation received a $2 million grant in 2013 from the Texas Spaceport Trust Fund. The fund was used for Phase I of the Spaceport development including roads, water and sewer lines, and a parking lot. In January 2014, MDC made a $7 million incentive deal with Orbital Outfitters for moving to Midland. Orbital Outfitters would develop and manage an altitude chamber complex and make space suits specialized for XCOR’s vehicles. Midland received its commercial spaceport license from the FAA in September 2014 and was renamed as Midland International Air and Space Port. Midland City Council voted in September 2018 to spend $10,000 to renew its spaceport license. It has remained as the first and only commercial spaceport co-located at a commercial service airport with scheduled airline services. It was reported that a total of $2 million in city dollars has been spent on the spaceport, funded through airport parking lot fees and revenues through minerals on airport land (Doreen 2018). The airport has designated 50 acres of land as the Spaceport Business Park with ground leases available for aerospace development and open areas for flight and energetic testing. XCOR filed for Chapter 7 bankruptcy in November 2017. MDC terminated its agreement with Orbital Outfitters in March 2018, and took ownership of all of Orbital’s assets including intellectual property. On a positive note, Avellan Space Technology (AST) & Science, after an intensive competitive process, selected Midland Spaceport Business Park as its new corporate headquarters and high-volume North American satellite manufacturing facility (AST & Science 2018). AST & Science is a designer and manufacturer of LEO satellites. BlueWalker 1, AST & Science’s first satellite, was launched into orbit from the Satish Dhawan Space Centre in India on April 1, 2019. AST & Science’s new

138 Spaceport business 85,000 square-foot Midland facility opened in March 2019, and the initial production was scheduled to start in early 2020. As of March 2, 2020, the company had raised $128 million in total for its SpaceMobile. It has already started inhouse production of its first satellites at Midland, and has started to to talk with launch providers (Henry, 2020). Ƽ.2.1.2.5 ELLINGTON AIRPORT (HOUSTON SPACEPORT)

Ellington Airport is a public and military-use airport located in Houston, Texas. It is approximately 16 miles southeast of downtown Houston, and approximately 5 miles from NASA’s Johnson Space Center in Houston. The airport was established as Ellington Field Airport on May 21, 1917 by the U.S. Army Air Service. The airfield was annexed by the City of Houston in the 1990s, and is part of the Houston Airport System. Ellington Field was renamed as Ellington Airport in 2009. Figure 5.8 shows the location of Ellington Airport (labeled as Houston Spaceport). Houston Airport System started to explore the feasibility of commercial space operations from the airport in 2011. The feasibility study was completed in 2012, and the results indicated it would cost an estimated $48 to $122 million to develop Ellington into a spaceport that supports horizontal launch of reusable vehicles carrying microsatellites, experiments, tourists, and astronauts (Mulvaney 2014). In July 2013, Houston City Council approved a $718,900 consulting contract to get a spaceport license and conduct an environmental assessment (Ryan 2013). The Sierra Nevada Corporation signed a Letter of Agreement with Houston Airport System in 2014 to explore what it would take to land the manned version of Dream Chaser at Ellington (Mulvaney 2014), and signed another Letter of Agreement in 2015 for using Ellington as a potential landing site for the unmanned cargo version of Dream Chaser. Ellington obtained its commercial space launch site operator’s license for horizontal launches and landings in July 2015 in order to support suborbital launches from the Gulf of Mexico. The spaceport is commonly referred to as Houston Spaceport. The development of Houston Spaceport officially started in August 2017 with a request for proposals. In October 2018, the Houston City Council approved $18.8 million for the first phase of developing a spaceport at Ellington Airport, and the fund includes a $1 million grant from the U.S. Department of Commerce’s Economic Development Administration. Phase I includes construction of basic spaceport infrastructure, including roads, water, sewerage, electrical power supplies, and communication facilities, and 53,000 square feet of lab and office space, covering 154 acres of land. The construction officially broke ground on June 28, 2019. San Jacinto College, in partnership with Houston Airport System, Houston City Council, the FAA, and other partners, will offer aerospace workforce training programs through the San Jacinto College EDGE Center at Houston Spaceport.

Figure 5.8 Ellington Airport (Houston Spaceport). Source: Google Maps 2019

140 Spaceport business Intuitive Machines, Houston Spaceport’s first official space tenant, was awarded a $77 million contract by NASA in May 2019 to develop, launch, and land its lunar lander, Nova-C, on the lunar surface with a NASA payload and private experiments in 2021. The mission will be the first under NASA’s Commercial Lunar Payload Services (CLPS) program (Houston Airports 2019). Intuitive Machines has selected SpaceX to launch Nova-C on a Falcon 9. Houston Spaceport signed a 30-year land lease with New York-based FlightSafety International (FSI) in October 2019, making FSI the third tenant of the spaceport. FSI will build a 90,000 square-foot facility (Fox 2019). As of February 2020, it was stated that construction was to start in spring 2020 but there is no specific date. 5.2.1.3 Greenfield Space Ports Commercial spaceports that are not transitioned from military/defense sites nor airports are referred to as greenfield spaceports. Two of the current licensed commercial spaceports in the U.S. belong to this group. 5.2.1.3.1 PACIFIC SPACEPORT COMPLEX – ALASKA

Pacific Spaceport Complex is located on Kodiak Island in Alaska, 250 miles west of Anchorage. The complex is a dual-use commercial and military spaceport for suborbital and orbital launch vehicles. It is owned and operated by the Alaska Aerospace Corporation (AAC) that is wholly owned by the State of Alaska. Figure 5.9 shows the location of the Spaceport Complex off the coast of the Gulf of Alaska. Alaska Aerospace Development Corporation (AADC) was incorporated by the Alaska State Legislature in 1991 to develop 1.) the Kodiak Launch Complex (KLC); 2.) a satellite ground station industry in Alaska; and 3.) a Challenger Learning Center similar to both the California and Florida Spaceport Authority’s (Raymond 1997). AADC received a dual-use grant of $1.85 million for environmental studies required for the spaceport in 1994, a $25 million appropriation by the State of Alaska in 1995, and an $830,000 NASA grant in 1996. AADC was also authorized to issue bonds to raise funds if necessary (such bonds are not deemed as a debt of the State of Alaska). No bonds have been issued to date. On October 20, 2009, AADC was renamed as Alaska Aerospace Corporation (AAC) under Alaska Senate Bill 125 to reflect the evolving nature of the corporation’s operations. AAC is governed by an 11-member Board of Directors and is organized as an enterprise fund. As of the end of 2018, the State of Alaska had funded $24 million in infrastructure and $37.3 million for operations and sustainment. Federal government had invested $170.8 million in capital funding. The spaceport complex covers 3,700 acres of land granted by the State of Alaska under a land use agreement with the Department of Natural Resources. The construction began in January 1998, and the Spaceport received its

Spaceport business

141

Figure 5.9 Pacific Spaceport Complex – Alaska. Source: Google Maps 2019

commercial launch site operator’s license from the FAA during the same year. It is the first FAA-licensed launch site not co-located on a federally controlled launch site. The spaceport was renamed as Pacific Spaceport Complex on April 14, 2015, and has one launchpad, Launch Pad 1 (LP-1), for launching intermediate-class payloads to (LEO) or polar orbits, and one suborbital launchpad, Launch Pad 2 (LP-2), for missile testing. A third launchpad is under development and is intended to support launches of satellites in under 24 hours. It is currently the only facility in the U.S. that can launch high inclination missions without land overflight. The spaceport complex also has a launch operations control center with 18 customer console positions, a payload processing facility, a rocket motor storage facility, maintenance and support facilities, an integration and processing facility, a spacecraft and assemblies transfer facility, as well as a range control center. The first launch from KLC, an Air Force suborbital rocket (AIT-1), took off on November 5, 1998. The first commercial suborbital launch from Pacific Spaceport was carried out by Astra Space on July 20, 2018 (Foust 2018b). As of the end of 2018, the spaceport had conducted 21 launches, of which only two were commercial. A U.S. Army mission in August 2014 was terminated seconds after launch, resulting in significant damages to the integrated processing facility. The site was closed for two years because of the damage, and reopened in August 2016. AAC

142 Spaceport business continues to make infrastructure improvements and facility upgrades. Their financial year 2018 projects include launch operations center enhanced video display, launch vehicle processing systems upgrades, and command destruct systems and telemetry upgrades, etc. 5.2.1.3.2 SPACEPORT AMERICA

Located in the Jornada del Muerto desert basin of New Mexico, about 20 miles southeast of Truth or Consequences and roughly 45 miles north of Las Cruces, Spaceport America (www.spaceportamerica.com/) claims to be “the world’s first purpose-built commercial spaceport” as it was designed and constructed specifically for commercial space activities. The spaceport can accommodate both vertical and horizontal launch vehicles. It covers 18,000 acres of State Trust Land and is directly west and adjacent to U.S. Army White Sands Missile Range. Spaceport America is owned and operated by New Mexico Spaceport Authority (NMSA), a state agency of the State of New Mexico. Figure 5.10 provides an aerial view of Spaceport America. The discussions on building a landing site for unmanned reentry capsules for NASA were initiated in 1990 by an engineering lecturer at Stanford University working with the Physical Science Laboratory at New Mexico State University.

Figure 5.10 Spaceport America. Source: Google Maps 2019

Spaceport business

143

They were able to secure $1.4 million funding in 1991 via congressional earmarks to conduct safety and environmental studies as well as a feasibility study (Gomez et al. 2007). The Southwest Regional Spaceport Task Force was formed in 1992, and the state established the Office of Space Commercialization in 1994 to advance the commercial space industry in New Mexico. The collective efforts bore fruits when the XPRIZE Foundation decided, in 2003, to locate the XPRIZE Cup in New Mexico; and then, on December 14, 2005, Governor Bill Richardson and Sir Richard Branson jointly announced that Virgin Galactic, the world’s first commercial space tourism business, would locate its world headquarters and mission control in New Mexico. The state established the NMSA under the New Mexico Spaceport Development Act (2005) to develop and operate Spaceport America (2006 New Mexico Statutes – Section 58-31-4). The authority’s Board of Directors includes seven voting and two nonvoting members, six of whom are appointed by the Governor with the consent of the Senate, providing that one of the appointed members should be a resident in Sierra County. The seventh member should be the State’s Secretary of Economic Development or his/her designee. It is further stipulated that no more than three of the appointed board members belong to the same political party. A spaceport authority fund was created in the state treasury (2006 New Mexico Statutes – Section 58-31-17). The authority may issue revenue bonds on its own behalf or on behalf of a regional spaceport district to fund spaceport-related projects; income from those bonds are exempt from taxation by the state. The State Legislature passed a spaceport funding bill in February 2006 that authorizes cities and counties in southern New Mexico to increase taxes, with voter approval, to supplement the state and federal funding of the spaceport (Webb 2006). Spaceport America Regional Spaceport District (the District) was established as the entity to receive and distribute the tax revenue from cities and counties. Voters in Dona Ana County and Sierra County10 voted “yes”, respectively in 2007 and 2008, to a 0.25% increase in gross sales receipt tax toward the spaceport funds. The tax increase was implemented in 2009, and the District made the commitment that 75% of the tax revenues would go to repayment of the bond debts issued by the Spaceport Authority, and 25% to local spaceport-related education. As of November 2015, the Spaceport Authority had received $218.5 million in capital funding: $142.1 million from the state general fund/severance tax capital funds and $76.4 million from gross receipts tax capital funds from Dona Ana and Sierra Counties11 (Anderson 2015). Most of the state funds are from oil and gas tax. The construction of the temporary spaceport facilities began in April 2006, and UP Aerospace became the first tenant at Spaceport America in the same year. The first launch from Spaceport America took off on September 25, 2006 by UP Aerospace’s SpaceLoft XL, albeit not successfully. The first successful launch occurred on April 28, 2007, by a second UP Aerospace SpaceLoft XL. As of September 2018, UP Aerospace had carried out 15 successful suborbital launches from Spaceport America.

144 Spaceport business Spaceport America was granted the commercial launch site operator license for vertical and horizontal space launch in December 2008. A few days later, Virgin Galactic signed a 20-year lease agreement with Spaceport America, at $1 million per year for the first five years, then $3 million per year for the next 15 years. Construction of the spaceport officially began on June 19, 2009. The 12,000 foot runway officially opened on October 23, 2010 with a symbolic flyover and landing of Virgin Galactic’s White Knight Two. Virgin Galactic announced on May 10, 2019 via Twitter that they are moving their spaceship and operations team to Spaceport America. Virgin Galactic’s new headquarters and customer center at Spaceport America was officially opened on August 15, 2019, however, there is no specific date for the first flight yet (Bachman 2019). Spaceport America’s LEED Gold-certified facility covers approximately 670,000 square feet in total and includes a pair of 47,000 square-foot doubleheight hangars as well as an on-site mission control center. Its aerospace customers include ABL Space Systems, Virgin Galactic, UP Aerospace, Exos Aerospace, and SpinLaunch, among others. In March 2018, New Mexico legislature passed a bill that exempts aerospace companies hosted at Spaceport America from public disclosures of companies’ trade secrets, proprietary technical or business information, or information related to possible relocation, expansion, or operations, as well as information that may compromise security, including cybersecurity. 5.2.2 Operating a Commercial Spaceport The spaceports examined in the previous section came to be via three different paths: use of national space centers and military bases; use of existing airport infrastructure; and building the spaceport from the ground up. Each path comes with varying degrees of risk, including economic, political, business, and personal, among others. Development of a spaceport, obtaining the license, and drawing tenants, among other activities, underpin the success of the spaceport and require substantial financial investments. Further, funding sources are also required for operating the spaceport, at least during the early years, as commercial spaceport industry is still in its infancy, and it takes time for the spaceport to achieve self-sufficiency financially. Commercial spaceports in the U.S. still rely on various grants and taxes to cover part of their operating expenses, albeit to different extents. This section reviews the current status of operations of five of the spaceports. 5.2.2.1 Cape Canaveral Spaceport (CCS) At present, CCS is considered as the most successful commercial spaceport in terms of the number of commercial launch activities. As discussed in the previous section, Space Florida is the commercial operator of CCS. According to its most recent published financial statements for the fiscal year ended September 30, 2017 (Space Florida 2018), Space Florida generated $5,445,184 in “fees

Spaceport business

145

and charges for services” and received $21,209,740 in “State appropriated funding” and $25,019,903 in “Grant revenue-operating”. That is, only 10% of its stated total operating revenue of $51,674,827 in the financial year 2017 was truly from its “commercial activities”. The financial statements explain that “fees and charges” are generated from leases and administrative fees. In particular, it is stated that Space Florida received $580,02212 for the lease of (C3PF) and PCC; and $747,570 for the lease of SLSL in the financial year 2017. Despite the operating funding from the state governments, Space Florida still reported an operating deficit. In addition to the operating grant, Space Florida also received $8,912,204 in “Grant Revenue – capital”. Under the 30 year property agreement of the LLF with NASA, Space Florida is permitted to use the LLF for (1.) commercial space activities, including launch and recovery, processing, manufacturing/assembly, and mission support; (2.) aviation, including flight testing, manufacturing/assembly, and unmanned systems,; and (3.) others, such as logistics/intermodal services, vehicle aerodynamic tests, etc. Space Florida expects the LLF to become an important revenue generator in the near future. 5.2.2.2 Mid-Atlantic Regional Spaceport (MARS) MARS provided services to two launches in the 2018 financial year, Antares 230 on November 12, 2017 and May 21, 2018, and reported $3,000,000 in commercial launch fees, and $6,843,220 in launch support revenue (private) in their financial statements for the financial year 2018 (VASPACE 2018), which implies that MARS charged $1,500,000 for each launch. In the previous year, financial year 2017, MARS served one launch, Antares 230 on October 17, 2016, and reported $900,000 in commercial launch fees and $7,216,085 in launch support revenue (private) in their 2017 financial year statements. It is not clear how the commercial launch fee is established. In the financial year 2019, two launches were carried out at MARS, Antares NG-10 on November 17, 2018 and Antares NG-11 on April 17, 2019,13 both from Pad 0A. Virginia Space reports $8,585,124 in launch support revenues and $3,660,000 in commercial launch fees. In addition to the launch-related revenues, Virginia Space also generated $22,050 from its UAS airfield. The U.S. Navy uses the UAS airfield to conduct testing and training of its MQ-8B Fire Scout UAV program, and NASA uses it to conduct its Langley Research Center (LaRC) tests, among other test programs. Overall, Virginia Space generated a total of $12,291,478 in operating revenues, and incurred $28,214,346 in operating expenses, resulting in a $15.9 million operating deficit. The Commonwealth of Virginia provided $15,800,000 in state appropriation to cover their operating expenses. Additionally, Virginia Space received $3,333,333 in state grant in the financial year 2019 for the continuing development of space launch and UAS capabilities at MARS, and also received $5,866,638 and $50,000, respectively, in federal contracts and private agreements for spaceport facility and capability enhancements.

146 Spaceport business 5.2.2.3 Pacific Spaceport Complex – Alaska The State of Alaska terminated all state operating funding for Alaska Aerospace at the end of 2014. In order to cut down the costs, AAC formed a wholly owned subsidiary, Aurora Launch Services, in 2018. Aurora Launch Services uses mostly part-time employees and a small full-time nongovernment management team, which helps them to reduce personnel-related costs. Based in Anchorage (Alaska), Aurora Launch Services is the exclusive launch services provider at the Pacific Spaceport Complex, and also provides launch services to the small lift launch vehicle market worldwide. During the 2018 financial year, that ended June 30, 2018, AAC reported $23,147,552 in operating revenues, mostly through its IDIQ contract with the U.S. Missile Defense Agency and a few commercial launch support contracts. The reported total operating expense was $24,940,779, including $1,367,670 in personnel services, $16,910,590 in contractual services, and $4,494,334 in depreciation. 5.2.2.4 Mojave Air and Space Port Mojave Air and Space Port generated a total of $8,377,612 in operating revenue in the financial year 2018 (ended June 30, 2018), including $5,225,203 in rents and leases, $2,8259,763 in landing area, $283,461 in nonaviation activities, and $9,185 in other buildings and areas, which covered more than 50% of its operating expenses of $16,118,700. The leases of land, buildings, and hangars can be month to month or on fixed terms from one to 40 years. Landing area revenues consist of mostly fuel sales and services. The largest component of its operating expenses is the cost of fuel and lubricants, followed by salaries and benefits. The financial year 2018 appears to be somewhat of an abnormality with the operating revenues covering just over 51% of the operating expenses; in previous years the operating revenues generally covered more than 80% of the operating expenses. Mojave Air and Space Port also reported $606,871 in tax revenues, and $21,170 in grant revenues in the financial year 2018. 5.2.2.5 Spaceport America By the end of the 2018 financial year, Spaceport America had hosted 215 space activities including vertical launches, horizontal launches, balloon launches, rocket motor testing, and the Spaceport America Cup. Most of these activities happened in the financial years 2017 and 2018. The Spaceport America Cup is an annual intercollegiate rocket competition which started in the 2017 financial year, and accounted for 95 vertical rocket launches during the 2017 to 2018 financial years. According to NMSA’s 2018 financial year statements, Spaceport America generated $906,484 in tours and launch revenue, $2,348,260 in rental revenue, $125,041 in interest income, and reported $20,645,112 in expenditures for the year ended on June 30, 2018. In addition to the operating revenues, Spaceport America received

Spaceport business

147

$7,053,257 from gross receipts tax, $688,900 in state general fund appropriation and $9,906,078 in severance tax bond appropriation. That is, Spaceport America’s self-generated revenues covered less than 17% of its expenditure in the 2018 financial year. Spaceport America and Mojave Air and Space Port represent two different business models. The former develops tenant-specific facilities per tenant requirements, then leases out these facilities; whereas the latter rents and/or leases out land, and lets tenants invest and develop their own facilities. Such practices are similar to the practices of airports, where some airports develop facilities and airlines and other users pay for using these facilities, and some other airports lease out land for airlines to build their terminals (such as New York JFK). We can surmise from the discussions above that commercial spaceports have not truly been considered as business entities. They are mostly government entities14 established to generate local, regional, and national economic impacts. Therefore, it is difficult to define “business models” for commercial spaceports. 5.2.3 Lessons from Airports Operating a commercial spaceport shares many similar characteristics to operating an airport, and thus some lessons from the operation and management of airports might help commercial spaceports to navigate through their “infant” years. Since almost all the current commercial spaceports are in the U.S., we focus our discussions on airports in the U.S. Airports in the U.S. are generally classified into two broad categories: commercial service airports and GA airports. Commercial service airports’ core business is to serve airlines, as such they used to be considered as infrastructure and facility providers for airlines, and depend on airlines for the majority of their revenues. Over the last 30 years, however, airports have evolved to become intricate business entities with diversified revenue streams. In addition to the revenues collected from airlines, airports also generate revenues by leasing lands and facilities to nonaviation businesses operating on airport land, such as hotels, foods and beverages, retail stores, business parks, car parking, etc. Revenues from airlines and other aviation users are referred to as aeronautical revenues, whereas revenues from nonaviation businesses are referred to as nonaeronautical or commercial revenues. Today’s airports do not rely entirely on their core businesses to generate revenues, and increasingly derive more revenues from nonaeronautical sources. According to Airports Council International (Airport Council International (ACI) 2019), nonaeronautical revenues accounted for 42% of commercial service airports’ operating revenues worldwide in 2017, an average of $7.75 per airport passenger. For the top 30 U.S. airports in terms of passenger enplanements, nonaeronautical revenues contributed to an average 42.7% of their operating revenues in 2018. For the 247 so-called nonhub airports15 in the U.S., on average 45.6% of their operating revenues were generated from nonaeronautical activities.

148 Spaceport business GA airports do not have scheduled airline services,16 and typically serve private or corporate aircraft, and small charter operations. Moreover, GA airports provide services to emergency medical flights, aerial firefighting flights, law enforcement flights, flight training, and agriculture functions. GA airports vary widely in terms of physical size and number of aircraft operations. For example, Van Nuys Airport in the outskirts of Los Angeles has two runways with 675 based aircraft and served 262,903 operations in 2018. Pike County Airport (EOP),17 on the other hand, has one 4,900 foot runway and nine based aircraft, and served about 2,000 operations during the 12 months ended June 9, 2017. Some of the general aviation airports are financially sufficient, but many are partially funded through various government programs. While most of commercial service airports’ aeronautical revenues are generated through landing fees and terminal or passenger-related charges, GA airports’ aeronautical revenues are generated mostly through fuel sales or flowage fees.18 The following are two examples of GA airports in terms of their revenue sources. Naples Airport is located on Florida’s Gulf coast and owned and operated by Naples Airport Authority. The airport has two paved runways and is home to 287 aircraft. Naples Airport provides services to flight schools, aircraft charter and sales, air ambulance, corporation aviation and civil air patrol, as well as county public services such as MedFlight, Mosquito Control, etc. There were 112,262 airport operations in 2018. Naples Airport derived $10,202,000 revenue in net fuel sales (63%), $2,597,000 in hangar rentals (16%), and $1,385,000 in building and land rents (8%). The airport is financially self-sustaining and does not receive any local tax dollars for operating expenses.19 The Connecticut Airport Authority operates five state-owned GA airports and Bradley International Airport, separated into General Aviation Airports Enterprise Fund and Bradley International Airport Fund. While airline landing fees, airline terminal rents, and car parking are Bradley’s largest revenue sources, the largest revenues for the GA airports are land rents (49.1%) and FBOs (35.9%). The General Aviation Airports Enterprise had an operating loss of $2,991,000 before depreciation, and $6,428,000 after depreciation in the 2018 financial year. The operating loss was covered by an infusion of $7,135,000 from the state aviation fuel tax revenue. There is a popular saying in the airport industry, “you see one airport you see one airport”, that is, there are no two airports the same. The above discussions show that airports follow different business models and derive revenues from a wide range of business activities, with different levels of financial self-sufficiency. Nevertheless, airports do follow certain established common practices. For examples, landing fees are generally based on the weight of the aircraft (and increasingly based on the noise rating and emission levels of the aircraft), whereas passenger or terminal fees are often either on a per passenger basis or a per seat basis. Information for airport fees and charges are publicly available for many airports. As an infant industry, and with limited demand and competition, information about spaceports’

Spaceport business

149

rates and charges is virtually nonexistent in the public domain. Although there is some anecdotal information about the commercial launch fees, there is little-to-no information about how much the launch operators pay the spaceport. For example, SpaceX reportedly charges $62 million for Falcon 9 per launch, and $90 million for Falcon Heavy (Tuttle 2018). However, it is not clear how much SpaceX pays for using the launchpads and the other facilities at KSC, CCAFS, and Vandenberg AFB. As the industry continues to grow, there will be a need to establish national policies and regulations as well as international “standards and recommended practices”20 for operating commercial spaceports. Florida Spaceport System Plan 2018 explores the possibility of classifying spaceports based on the lift-class of the space vehicles licensed to operate at a particular location together with the destinations in space, similar to the classification of Part 139 airports in the U.S. Title 14, CFR, Part 139 (14 CFR Part 139) requires airports to obtain an operating certificate from the FAA in order to serve scheduled and unscheduled air carrier aircraft with more than 30 seats, and to serve scheduled air carrier operations in aircraft with more than nine 9 seats but less than 31 seats. The FAA issues four different classes of operating certificates (Class I, II, III, IV) based on the airport’s capability to serve different types of aircraft. The International Civil Aviation Organization (ICAO) and the FAA also develop their respective Aerodrome Reference Codes (or FAA Airport Reference Codes) to indicate the design standards of the airfields’ capabilities, which could also be incorporated into standards and recommended practices for commercial spaceports. Furthermore, as commercial spaceports become truly commercial, there will be a need for more transparency in the business aspects of the spaceport operations such as fees and charges spaceports impose on their customers.

5.3 Funding and Financial Incentives As repeatedly stated throughout this book, the commercial space industry is a fast-growing industry, and has been attracting the attention of various types of investors. More than $18.4 billion has been invested on start-up space ventures since 2000 (Bryce 2019). Bryce (2019) classifies the investors into six categories: • • • •

Angel investors are wealthy individuals or families investing in ventures in the early stages to seek potentially high returns. Venture capital firms are groups of investors investing in companies with high growth potential, including start-ups and growth companies. Private equity firms manage investment funds on behalf of limited partner investors. Corporations may provide funding for space-related programs, or internal R&D activities, or as a strategic partner.

150 Spaceport business • •

Banks generally provide debt financing for space-related programs of established firms. Public markets may provide additional capital for the later stages of funding needs through public sale of a company’s equity or Initial Public Offering (IPO).

Investments in commercial spaceports, however, have primarily come from government sources. As discussed in the previous section, not only capital investments but also operating expenses are subsidized by various government agencies. Such subsidies are justified by the economic impacts beyond the spaceports, and in anticipation of eventual financial returns. Accordingly, some countries have established agencies or programs to provide regulatory and financial help either directly to spaceports or indirectly to potential spaceport tenants/customers. For example, the U.K Government established a £50 million spaceflight program in 2017 to help develop new satellite launch services and low gravity spaceflights from U.K. spaceports. The program recently granted £2.5 million to Highlands and Island Enterprise21 (HIE) to develop Space Hub Sutherland. HIE will contribute £9.8 million to the project. In addition, Orbex was awarded a £5.5 million grant to develop a new rocket for the site, and Lockheed Martin received two grants totaling £23.5 million to develop launch operations at Sutherland, as well as a new satellite deployment system (Hutton 2019). Many airport construction and safety projects in the U.S. are partially funded by grants from the federal government’s Airport Improvement Program (AIP).22 The AIP grants are available to public-use airports that are included in the National Plan of Integrated Airport Systems (NPIAS). The current NPIAS contains 3,328 airports, including 3,321 existing and seven proposed airports. The AIP is funded by the Airport and Airway Trust Fund (AATF) that is sourced through a variety of excise taxes paid by users of the national airspace system. Airports that receive AIP grants must follow a long list of assurance conditions. Space-related infrastructure and facilities at co-located air and space ports are not eligible for AIP grants. The current government funding for commercial spaceports is somewhat ad hoc. Given the fact that there is a continuous need for infrastructure funding at commercial spaceports, perhaps it is time to explore the possibility of establishing special purpose funds for the planning and development of commercial spaceports that are not paid for by general taxpayers. Many states in the U.S. offer various regulatory and financial incentives to attract commercial space businesses to locate in their states. The most common financial incentives offered by states are tax rebates or tax exemptions. It is not surprising to note that Virginia and Florida are the most “friendly” states in the U.S. to the commercial space industry. The discussions in this section focus on Virginia and Florida. Readers are referred to FAA (2009) for incentive programs in other states. The Virginia Space Flight Liability and Immunity Act, enacted in 2007, and the Zero G Zero Tax Act of 2008 have been credited for helping to attract the

Spaceport business

151

then Orbital Sciences to locate its launch operations at MARS. Under the Zero G Zero Tax Act, businesses are exempted from (Virginia) state income tax for either launch services or resupply services to the ISS. Florida’s Spaceflight Contractor’s Tax Refunds Act of 2008 provides refunds to space businesses based on the number of workers employed and the amount paid. Florida also offers an exemption from sales tax on real estate rents for spaceflight businesses. The Florida Legislature appropriated $14.5 million to Space Florida for launch infrastructure development. Florida designated “space” as an official mode of transportation and “spaceports” as the associated infrastructure for “space” transportation in FDOT (2018). FDOT has established a Spaceport Grant Program that is funded through annual spaceport allocation and the strategic intermodal system (SIS). The annual spaceport allocation is sourced through the State Transportation Trust Fund. Spaceport planning projects, land acquisition projects, and capital improvement projects may be eligible for spaceport grants. The spaceport allocation can cover up to 100% of the costs of spaceport planning, and up to 50% of eligible spaceports’ capital projects (FDOT 2014). The Spaceport Grant Program is limited by Florida Statutes to spaceports located in the so-called Spaceport Territories (FDOT 2014). The SIS funding is also sourced from the State Transportation Trust Fund. Although spaceports have been available for addition to Florida’s SIS since 2005, CCS is the only spaceport officially designated on the SIS, and thus may apply for SIS funding. Only projects that contribute directly to the state’s launch capacity, or projects that link spaceports to other SIS facilities, are eligible for the SIS funding. The SIS funding may cover up to 50% of the costs of the eligible projects. In addition to the federal and state incentive and funding programs, some local governments also provide direct or indirect financial support for spaceports. For example, in 2005, Lockheed Martin was provided with $397,043 a year in property tax abatements over a 10-year period by Brevard County (Florida) for the expansion of a 300-employee facility.

5.4 Public–Private Partnerships and Public–Public Partnerships The commercial space industry is still a relatively small community comprised of individuals, companies, and organizations that are enthusiastic about what they do and are willing to work together as partners to help the industry grow. Clearly, affordable spaceport infrastructure is needed to support the launch and return activities of both public and private sector space interests. Costs associated with the addition of space infrastructure can be staggering and the potential ROI is inherently risk-filled. Time is also critical, as the variables that impact the development and approval of a spaceport are many. Furthermore, the timing and level of demand of such infrastructures are highly unpredictable. Infrastructure requirements themselves are still developing and can be wide-ranging. As noted in earlier chapters, spaceports can support small launch versus large

152 Spaceport business launch operations and vertical operations and/or horizontal operations, all of which may require different propellants, processing facilities, and integration and loading areas, among other requirements. Further, new business models are developing. Because of these considerations, development of spaceport infrastructure is risky, but partnerships between the key entities, if carefully constructed and managed, will go a long way to reduce the costs of time and money in supporting both private and public launch and return activities. While there are many definitions for a public–private partnership (PPP), in the case of spaceport infrastructure, we borrow from Tinoco (2018, p. 3) and define PPP as “a long term contractual, yet cooperative, agreement between a public agency and a private sector entity with agreed to duties, risks, and rewards (often shared) in which both the government and the private party have an interest”. A public–public partnership (PuP) would be similarly defined between public agencies. With this said, PPP definitions and arrangements vary among countries and partnerships are unique to their purpose and to their primary stakeholders. Both PPPs and PuPs have been in existence for decades. PPPs, in particular, are increasing in number and rate, especially in the space sector. While there are many commonalities between other PPPs in transportation, there are some unique issues associated with spaceport PPPs. First, space is innately global. Launch and return activities transverse land, air, water, and space under local, state, national, and international jurisdictions. Yet, no spacefaring nation holds sovereignty in outer space (United Nations 1967). Second, these activities are intensely risk-filled and costly, more so than in any other industry. Thus, the very nature of space and space transportation complicates the development and agreement details of partnerships. Figure 5.11 summarizes at a high level the key variables that need to be addressed when developing spaceport partnerships, whether they be PPPs or PuPs. Each area is intertwined with another. The complexity, intensity, and interdependence of these areas is what drives the unique environment in which these partnerships are developed. They have implications for the types and contents of agreements that are developed and managed. Regardless of the specifics of the partnership agreement, the chief advantage of such partnerships is synergy, that is, creating more for each party while sharing risk and responsibility (Tinoco 2018). The following summarizes the variables presented in the figure, beginning with purpose and moving in a clockwise direction (Tinoco 2018). 1) Purpose: Clearly, a spaceport is the starting point of space exploration and discovery, military development, national security, transportation, and commercial development. All areas are suitable for partnerships as governments focus on each motivation. Historically, spaceports were designed, built, owned, operated, and managed by government space and military agencies. The purpose behind partnerships is their ability to aid government and private entities with construction, expansion, modernization, and operation of

Spaceport business

153

1. Purpose 2. Outer Space Treaty of 1967

6. Risk and liability Spaceport Partnerships

3. Federal and state legislation, rules, regulations

5. Safety is paramount 4. Funding and delayed ROI

Figure 5.11 Key Variables Impacting Spaceport Partnerships. Source: Tinoco 2018

launch and return pads, runways, processing facilities, etc. Partnerships are the means to generating commercial space activity and growing new markets, increasing benefits to the public and the economy at large and changing the nature of space exploration (cf., NASA 2011). 2) Outer Space Treaty of 1967: As the treaty governs nation-state space activities, it includes those that ultimately impact spaceports and partnerships either directly or indirectly. 3) Federal and state legislation, rules, regulations: National policies, influenced by the treaty, flow to additional federal and state legislations, rules and regulations, then to local municipalities. 4) Funding and delayed ROI: As with all partnerships, funding sources, costs, and ROI are at the forefront of concerns and interests. However, with space, funding and costs are several orders of magnitude beyond those in other industries. In our current economic climate, private funding and other sources of public funding are essential to support spaceport infrastructures and launch and return activities as government budgets shrink. Yet, the ROI is inherently risk-filled. In the U.S., 2010 estimates by Gulliver and Finger (2010) for the development of one new launch complex at a traditional established spaceport were between $100 million and $500 million, excluding maintenance and upgrades. In 2019 dollars these figures are $116.6 million and $582.9 million, respectively. For a greenfield operation, Spaceport America was funded with citizen tax dollars at an approximate cost of $219 million at that time (Boyle 2015; New Mexico Spaceport

154 Spaceport business Authority 2012). With the delay in commercial space transportation capabilities of its chief tenant, Virgin Galactic, the expense of upkeep, operations, and maintenance has been significant. It was noted earlier in this chapter that Spaceport America’s self-generated revenues covered less than 17% of its expenditure in the financial year 2018. 5) Safety: Safety is paramount above all and has far-reaching consequences for the spaceport, the surrounding community, and the environment. Space travel and transportation is much riskier than other forms of transportation, stemming from differences in vehicles, launch facilities, and propellants. The required vertical and horizontal infrastructures, airspace boundaries and control, toxic materials and gases, among other variables, must be considered. 6) Risk and liability: Risk and liabilities associated with the safety of people, property, environment, and users impact stakeholder responsibilities at all levels. Financial risks are significant as the market needs and spaceport requirements change with the maturing sector. But, there is also business risk and personal risk for private investors as well as spaceport operators, launch service providers, federal agencies, and other stakeholders. Partnerships involving federally owned and/or operated property come with a unique set of terms revolving around national security and national interests. In a lease or use agreement between the private sector and a federal agency, such as NASA, the government can terminate the lease at no cost when the property is needed. Even without cancellation, the tenant is required to restore the property to its original configuration once the lease has expired (Ketcham and Ball 2014). With its multimodal nature, a spaceport would likely see a number of different types of partnership arrangements, each unique to its purpose. In the transportation sectors design-build-operate-maintain (DBOM), build-own-operatetransfer (BOOT), and divestitures are, in general, the most popular PPPs (Deloitte 2006). However, for airports, build-operate-transfer (BOT) and concessions are common, while landlord ports (management) for water ports; concessions, BOTs, and design-build-operate (DBO) for road; concessions and BOTs for rail; and concessions and franchises for urban transport are the norm (The World Bank 2017). Most spaceports in the U.S. are either greenfield operations or repurposed facilities, such as inactive and/or underutilized airport runways at GA airports, nonprimary commercial airports, or on federal spaceport property. Most of the applicable PPPs have involved private partner lease or lease/build to support spaceport activities, such as those seen at Mojave Air and Space Port in California or MARS in Virginia, respectively. This is important to note, recalling the definition of partnership use for this book. There is a shift in the manner in the way in which the government in the U.S., and presumably elsewhere in the world, conducts its business with the commercial space sector, progressing from a transaction-based one to one that truly partners in a collaborative or cooperative manner. It was noted that in some U.S. Government–private company

Spaceport business

155

contracts, the term, partner, was used in place of “tenant” or “lessee”, based on agreement (Tinoco 2018). This is a significant distinction as the stakeholders in these agreements were clearly searching for a more collaborative relationship than one that was purely of a transaction-based nature. The U.S. Space Act Agreement created the path for these partnerships to occur. Four types of agreements are currently noted for NASA Partnerships (2019): Reimbursable Agreements – Agreements where NASA’s costs associated to the activity are reimbursed by the Agreement Partner (in full or in part). NASA undertakes Reimbursable Agreements when it has unique goods, services, and facilities that are not currently being fully utilized to accomplish mission needs. These may be made available to others on a noninterference basis and consistent with the Agency’s missions and policies. Nonreimbursable Agreements – Agreements that involve NASA and one or more Agreement Partners in a mutually beneficial activity that furthers the Agency’s Missions. Unlike Reimbursable Agreements, each partner bears the cost of its participation and no funds are exchanged between the parties. Funded Agreements – Agreements where appropriated funds are transferred to a domestic Agreement Partner to accomplish an Agency mission. Funded Agreements may be used only when the Agency’s objective cannot be accomplished through the use of a procurement contract, grant, or cooperative agreement. International Agreements – Reimbursable or Nonreimbursable Agreements where the Agreement Partner is a foreign entity. The foreign partner may be a legal entity not established under a state or Federal law of the U.S. and may include a commercial or noncommercial entity or person or governmental entity of a foreign sovereign. (Harbaugh 2015) (Note: The reader is invited to review NASA’s partnership page at www.nasa. gov/partnerships/about.html to receive up-to-date information on the current types of agreements NASA details domestic and international entities and the list of current agreements that are in place.) These agreements were the cornerstone for lease-and use-permits at KSC and other NASA facilities that occurred following the end of the U.S. Space Shuttle program. Currently, at KSC and CCAFS there is a combination of use permit (federal) and license (military) for private partners utilizing existing space-related infrastructures, such as launchpads and support facilities. Both use and license agreements allow for sub-agreements to be put in place as can be seen in Figures 5.12 and 5.13 for KSC and CCAFS, respectively. Space Florida aids in orchestrating partnerships between industry, KSC, and CCAFS and provides a conduit for these agreements to occur, as well as functions

156 Spaceport business

Kennedy Space Center

Shuttle Landing Facility

Launch Pad 39A

Use permit to SpaceX

Exploration Park

Use permit to Space Florida

Starliner Facility

O&C Building

Use permit to Space Florida

Use permit to Space Florida

Use permit to Space Florida

Sub-permit to Boeing

Sub-permit to Lockheed Martin

Figure 5.12 Sample of Partnership Agreements at KSC.

Cape Canaveral Air Force Station Launch Pad 36 License to Space Florida

Launch Pad 40 License to Space X

Launch Pad 46

License to Space Florida - multiuser

Area 57

License to Space Florida

Sublicense to Blue Origin for launch operator activity

BLDG 90326

License to Space Florida

BLDG 90327

License to Space Florida Sublicense to SpaceX for launch control

Figure 5.13 Sample of License Agreements at CCAFS.

as a partner. Recently, it was announced that Firefly Aerospace will gain a launch operations presence at CCAFS and a manufacturing presence at Exploration Park outside the gates of KSC. Space Florida aided in securing $18.9 million from the FDOT Spaceport Improvement Program to match Firefly’s infrastructure investment funds in the area (Shell 2019). Table 5.2 provides a sample of other types of partnerships and spaceports beyond those already discussed above. Principally, for U.S. spaceport infrastructure on government land, the government may cancel agreements at any time if national needs warrant it and lease/ use agreements cannot include exclusive use. For greenfield operations and repurposed civil facilities, a significant danger for the spaceport is the loss of an anchor tenant due to bankruptcy or due to a strategic choice by the tenant firm to transfer activities to another spaceport. Figure 5.14 illustrates common partnership models for a multimodal. Partnership models may change as requirements, technology, risks, demand, competition,

Spaceport business

157

Table 5.2 Additional Selected Spaceports and Partnerships Spaceport/Launch Complex

Partnerships

Glasgow Prestwick Spaceport, Spaceport is partnering with the Prestwick aerospace U.K. industry and international industry players, such as Sierra Nevada Corporation (Glasgow Prestwick Spaceport 2018) Spaceport Sweden Spaceport partnered with Spaceport America (New Mexico Spaceport Authority (NMSA)) and Virgin Galactic to provide a secondary future launch site for commercial space tourism (Spaceport Sweden 2012). Joint actions in PPP, specifically Kiruna Airport, Progressum, Swedish Space Corporation (SSC), and Icehotel U.S. Mojave Air and Lease-or-build PPPs are prominent partnership opportunSpaceport ities. Private sector partners as lease partners include BAE Systems, Interorbital Systems, Stratolaunch Systems, The Spaceship Company U.S. Oklahoma Air and Space Oklahoma Space Industry Development Authority Port (OSIDA) PPP with Rocketplane. Infrastructure funded by taxpayers, but spaceport built on an existing airport. Lost initial anchor tenant, Rocketplane, to bankruptcy and caused subsequent operational issues. Currently offers lease/build U.S. Spaceport America PPP between New Mexico Spaceport Authority (NMSA) and Virgin Galactic for horizontal launch; PPP between NMSA and SpaceX for vertical launch; PPP in the form of facilities lease and ground rent fees U.S. Mid-Atlantic Regional Virginia Commercial Space Flight Authority (VCSFA), Spaceport (MARS) Commonwealth of Virginia, and Orbital Sciences Corporation (now Northrop Grumman). A mix of responsibilities and parties for improvements to launch facilities and to support launches. The VCSFA will own and operate assets not specific to the Antares missions U.S. NASA Michoud Assem- Partnerships have been sought to sustain or enhance the bly Facility (MAF) facility’s capabilities in addition to retaining or growing the skilled labor pool in support of the facility (Michoud Assembly Facility n.d.). Some PuPs range from basic office space leasing to joint research programs Adapted from Tinoco 2018.

legislation, national policy, and security, and international issues, agreements, and treaties change. For now, whether the partnership involves repurposed facilities or greenfield operations or federal versus nonfederal property, spaceport partnership models are most likely to include combinations of lease, use permit, license (military and design-build (DB), and variations of fund, own or operate, and maintain (F, O, and M) based on type of facility, industry requirements, and public sector needs and wants (Tinoco 2018).

158 Spaceport business Spaceport Partnership Models for Real Property

Space

Use permit (federal), license (military), lease, variations of DB with FOM

Air

Lease, DB with FOM

Rail/Road

Variations of DB with FOM, possibly concession

Ports

Concession, variations of DB with FOM

Figure 5.14 Integrated Partnership Models for Multimodal Spaceports. Source: Tinoco 2018

It is unlikely that basic partnership models will be altered as much as the agreement specifics, strengthening the notion that each partnership is unique. These specifics must include risk mitigation clauses to account for the uniqueness of the industry, particularly the broad swath of risk type and intensity associated with space business. Plus, while partnerships clearly can benefit all, there are some challenges associated with any collaborative or cooperative interorganizational and international relationships, such as: • • •

• • •

organizational and national culture clashes; international barriers involving treaties. (On the international level, spacefaring nations are at odds over commercial involvement); legislation, rules, and regulations that are lagging or lacking in completeness with opposing goals and purposes. (Public partners are concerned that their schedules and needs will not be met by private companies who have their own agenda. Private companies are frustrated over rules and regulations that restrict their operations on leased, but government-owned, facilities.); impacts on the partnership and/or spaceports; shifting rules and regulations that complicate long-term partnerships unless risk mitigation efforts are put into place when the original agreements are made; the public partners, especially for PPPs, experiencing a reduction or a perception of reduction in control and influence (Tinoco 2018).

Regardless of the type of partnership or the geographic region, the rewards of a successful partnership are many, but so are the risks. Yet more can be accomplished through the synergy created in a partnership than each organization can often do alone. The challenge is to determine the best strategic solution in

Spaceport business

159

partnering with other entities as regards what is needed for the spaceport, when, and why.

Notes 1 Orbital ATK was formed from the merger of Orbital Sciences Corp. and the Aerospace and Defense units of Alliant Techsystems Inc. (ATK). Subsequently, Northrop Grumman purchased Orbital ATK. 2 California Spaceport is no longer an FAA-licensed space launch site. As Harris Corporation operated the spaceport, they are no longer involved in spaceport operation and management activities at the Vandenberg with respect to this expired spaceport license. It is anticipated that the U.S. Air Force (USAF) at Vandenberg will manage commercial launch activities henceforth. 3 Ellington Airport became Houston Spaceport. 4 ITT Industries, Inc. changed its name to ITT Corporation in 2006. ITT spun off its defense businesses, of which SSI is part, into a company named Excelis in 2011. Excelis, Inc. was acquired by the Harris Corporation in 2015. 5 Terminology on launch areas varies between Kennedy Space Center and Cape Canaveral Air Force Station (CCAFS). LC is used when discussing launch complexes at NASA KSC; SLC is used when discussing launch complexes at CCAFS. 6 Scales Composites was acquired by Northrop Grumman in 2007. 7 FAA Form 5010 is the Airport Master Record. 8 Four board members are appointed by Florida’s governor and three by the mayor of the City of Jacksonville. 9 Jacksonville Port Authority was restructured into two entities, the Jacksonville Aviation Authority (JAA) and Jacksonville Seaport Authority, in 2001. 10 Voters in Otero County rejected the spaceport tax in the November 2008 general election. 11 Approximately 94% from Dona Ana County and 6% from Sierra County (Anderson 2015). 12 Under an agreement signed on April 1, 2015, $580,022 is the minimum annual administrative fee until June 30, 2021. 13 NG-11 mission marked the end of Northrop Grumman’s (formerly Orbital ATK’s) Commercial Resupply Services-1 (CRS-1) contract with NASA. NG-12 mission, the first mission under the CRS-2 contract was launched on November 2, 2019. The CRS-2 contract has six confirmed missions (including NG-12) from 2019 through 2024. 14 Harris Spaceport Systems, a private company, has a launch site operator’s license at Vandenberg Air Force Base. 15 Those airports’ annual passenger enplanements ranged from 10,000 to 449,731 in 2018. 16 Or scheduled services with less than 2,500 passenger boardings a year. 17 Located in Pike County, Ohio. 18 Commercial service airports also derive revenues through flowage fees, but they are generally not as significant as landing fees and terminal charges. 19 It does receive state and federal grants for certain capital projects. 20 ICAO (International Civil Aviation Organization) develops “standards and recommended practices” for operating airports, each state establishes policies and regulations to implement such standards and recommended practices. 21 Highlands and Islands Enterprise (HIE) is the Scottish Government’s economic and community development agency. 22 Some states also provide additional funds for airport capital projects.

160 Spaceport business

References Airport Council International (ACI). (2019). Airport Economics at a Glance. ACI World, Montreal, Quebec, Canada. Anderson, C. (2015). Spaceport America, Spaceport Status Report to New Mexico Legislature, November 3, 2015. Available at: www.nmlegis.gov/handouts/STTC%20110315% 20Item%201%20Spaceport%20Status%20Report.pdf AST & Science. (2018). New Manufacturing Facility and HQ in Midland, Texas, AST & Science News Release, November 15, 2018. Bachman, J. (2019). ‘Virgin Galactic Unveils its New Space Base, but No Flights Yet,’ Bloomberg, August 16, 2019. Boyle, A. (2015). ‘After Virgin Galactic’s Tragic Setback, Spaceport America Goes to Plan B.’ Available at: www.nbcnews.com/storyline/virgin-voyage/after-virgin-galactictragedy-spaceport-america-goes-plan-b-n385761 (Accessed: 16 August 2016). Brinkmann, P. (2019). ‘Firefly Aerospace pushes back first launch to 2020,’ Space Daily, September 6. Available at: www.spacedaily.com/reports/Firefly_Aerospace_pushes_ back_first_launch_to_2020_999.html Bryce. (2019). ‘Start-Up Space: Update on Investment in Commercial Space Ventures, Bryce Space and Technology,’ April 2019. Available at: https://brycetech.com/reports.html Burr, J. (2013).’Cecil Spaceport Signs Agreement with Atlanta Space Launch Company,’ Jacksonville Business Journal December 23, 2013. Clark, S. (2018). ‘Firefly’s commercial satellite launcher to use Delta 2 pad at Vandenberg, Space Flight Now,’ May 2. Available at: https://spaceflightnow.com/2018/05/02/fireflyscommercial-satellite-launcher-to-use-delta-2-pad-at-vandenberg/ Clark, S. (2019). ‘Space Station Resupply Mission successfully launches form Virginia, Spaceflight Now,’ November 2. Available at: https://spaceflightnow.com/2019/11/02/ space-station-resupply-mission-successfully-launches-from-virginia/ Congressional Record. (1995). ‘Commercial Space Activities on California’s Central Coast, Congressional Record - House, Volume 141, Number 22,’ February 3, pp. H1195–H1196. Available at: www.govinfo.gov/content/pkg/CREC-1995-02-03/html/ CREC-1995-02-03-pt1-PgH1195-3.htm Crowder, J.L. (n.d.). ‘Clinton-Sherman Air Force Base,’ The Encyclopedia of Oklahoma History and Culture. Available at: www.okhistory.org/publications/enc/entry.php? entry=CL017 Deloitte. (2006). ‘Closing the Infrastructure Gap: The Role of Public-Private Partnerships.’ Available at: www.deloitte.com/assets/Dcom-UnitedStates/Local%20Assets/Documents/ us_ps_PPPUS_final(1).pdf (Accessed: 22 August 2016). Doreen, S. (2018). ‘Midland City Council Approves Spaceport Extension, Midland Reporter-Telegram,’ September 25. Available at: www.mrt.com/news/local/article/Mid land-City-Council-approves-spaceport-extension-13256859.php FAA. (2009). State Support for Commercial Space Activities, Office of Commercial Space Transportation, the U.S. Federal Aviation Administration, Washington, DC, February 2009. FDOT. (2018). Florida Spaceport Improvement Program – Project Handbook 2018, The Florida Department of Transportation, Tallahassee, Florida, USA. FDOT. (2014). The Florida Spaceports Project Handbook, Aviation and Spaceports Office, State of Florida Department of Transportation, Tallahassee, FL. Foust, J. (2018a). ‘Rocket Lab Selects Wallops for U.S. Launch Site,’ SpaceNews, October 17. Foust, J. (2018b). ‘Alaska Launch Shrouded in Secrecy,’ SpaceNews, July 27. Available at: https://spacenews.com/alaska-launch-shrouded-in-secrecy/

Spaceport business

161

Foust, J. (2018c). ‘Rocket Lab Launches Cubesats for NASA,’ SpaceNews, December 16. Available at: https://spacenews.com/rocket-lab-launches-cubesats-for-nasa/ Foust, J. (2019a). ‘Relativity to Build Launch Site at Cape Canaveral,’ SpaceNews, January 17. Available at: https://spacenews.com/relativity-to-build-launch-site-at-cape-canaveral/ Foust, J. (2019b). ‘Rocket Lab’s U.S. Launch Site nears completion,’ SpaceNews, September 28. Available at: https://spacenews.com/rocket-labs-u-s-launch-site-nears-completion/ Fox, M. (2019). ‘FlightSafety Intl. to Build State of the Art Facility at Houston Spaceport,’ The Houston Report, October 28. Available at: www.houston.org/news/flightsafety-intlbuild-state-art-facility-houston-spaceport Garwood, K. (2019). ‘Aevum Inc. receives contract to launch satellites from Cecil Spaceport,’ Jacksonville Daily Record, September 18. Glasgow Prestwick Spaceport. (2018). ‘Glasgow Prestwick Spaceport Brochure,’ Glasgow Prestwick Spaceport. Available at: www.glasgowprestwick.com/wp-content/uploads/ 2018/02/Spaceport-brochure-Feb-2018.pdf (Accessed: 13 May 2019). Gomez, L., Gutman, B., Lee, B., and McCune, B. (2007). ‘History of Spaceport America, PSL Leonard R. Sugerman Public Forum,’ Las Cruces, NM, October 23. Available at: https:// web.archive.org/web/20080912115523/http://spacegrant.nmsu.edu/isps/presentation/his tory.pdf Google. (2019a). Mid-Atlantic Regional Spaceport (MARS). Map data published by Google. Mountain View, CA. Available at: www.google.com/maps/@37.9330309,75.4744605,3455m/data=!3m1!1e3 Google. (2019b). Oklahoma Air and Space Port. Map data published by Google. Mountain View, CA. Available at: www.google.com/maps/place/Oklahoma+Air+and+Space+Port/ @35.334789,-99.1405713,5714a,35y,270h,38.33t/data=!3m1!1e3!4m5!3m4! 1s0x87abf62c427f6991:0x8b1dbd323f6fb08a!8m2!3d3 Google. (2019c). Cecil Spaceport. Map data published by Google. Mountain View, CA. Google. (2019d). Midland International Air and Space Port. Map data published by Google. Mountain View, CA. Available at: www.google.com/maps/@31.909364,102.2134028,4614a,35y,38.43t/data=!3m1!1e3 Gulliver, B.S. and Finger, G.W. (2010). ‘Can Your Airport Become a Spaceport?: The Benefits of a Spaceport Development Plan,’ 48th AIAA Aerospace Science Meeting, January 4–7, Orlando, FL. Harbaugh, J. (2015). NASA Space Act Agreements, NASA. Available at: www.nasa.gov/ partnerships/about.html (Accessed: 13 May 2019). Henry, C. (2020). ‘Megaconstellation Startup Raises $110 million to Connect Smartphones via Satellite,’ SpaceNews, March 3, 2020. Houston Airports. (2019). NASA Selects Intuitive Machines for Robotic Return to the Moon, Houston Airports News Room, June 19. Available at: www.fly2houston.com/ newsroom/articles/nasa-selects-intuitive-machines-robotic-return-moon-2021/ Hutton, G. (2019). When Will UK Spaceports be ready for Lift-off? The UK House of Commons Library, United Kingdom. Available at: https://commonslibrary.parliament. uk/science/technology/when-will-uk-spaceports-be-ready-for-lift-off/ ITT. (2010). ITT News & Release, February 10. Available at: www.itt.com/newsroom/ news-releases/2010/itt-partnership-awarded-idiq-contract-for-spaceport Kelly, E. (2019). ‘Blue Origin is Expanding its already massive New Glenn Rocket Factory at Kennedy Space Center,’ Florida Today, March 22. Available at: www.floridatoday. com/story/tech/science/space/2019/03/22/blue-origin-is-expanding-its-already-massivenew-glenn-rocket-factory-at-kennedy-space-center/3226113002/

162 Spaceport business Ketcham, D. and Ball, J. (2014). Is Space Exploration Best Served by NASA Holding Property Assets as a Landlord? Colorado Springs, CO: Copyright by the Authors. Kindler, S. (2019). Following Delays, Generation Orbit Expected to be First Cecil Spaceport Launch Customer, WJCT- The World, February 22. Available at: https://news.wjct.org/post/ following-delays-generation-orbit-expected-be-first-cecil-spaceport-launch-customer Krishnan, R. and Perrmohamed, A. (2016). ‘India’s first private rocket set for launch in 2020’’, Business Standard India, 13 June. Available at: www.business-standard.com/art icle/current-affairs/india-s-first-private-rocket-set-for-launch-in-2020-116061300023_1. html (Accessed: 26 May 2019). Lindner, T. (2019). The Spaceport’s Place in the Airport Industry, Airport Magazine, December 2018–January 2019, pp. 36–39. Martin, R.L. and Smith, D.D. (1996). ‘The Western Commercial Space Center, Inc. Launches the California SpaceportTM,’ AIP Conference Proceedings, Vol. 361, pp. 213–217. Michoud Assembly Facility. (n.d.). Do Business with Us! Available at: http://mafspace. msfc.nasa.gov/business.html. Accessed: 14 October 2012. Moskowitz, C. (2010). Largest Commercial Rocket Launch Deal Ever Signed by SpaceX, Science & Astronomy, June 16. Available at: www.space.com/8611-largest-commercialrocket-launch-deal-signed-spacex.html Mulvaney, E. (2014). Spaceport Vision Lands Corporate Partner, Houston Chronicle, April 10. Available at: www.expressnews.com/business/local/article/Spaceport-vision-landscorporate-partner-5393803.php NASA. (2011). 2011 NASA Strategic Plan. Washington, DC: NASA Headquarters. NASA. (2017). Wallop Flight Facility, Fact Sheet, September 2017. Available at: www. nasa.gov/sites/default/files/atoms/files/wallops_factsheet.pdf NASA Partnerships. (2019). ‘NASA Space Act Agreements’, www.nasa.gov/partnerships/ about.html (Accessed: 13 May 2019). New Mexico Spaceport Authority. (2012). New Mexico Spaceport Authority Business Plan 2012–2017. New Mexico Spaceport Authority. (2018). Financial Statements Year Ended June 30, 2019, Las Cruces, NM. Pearlman, R.Z. (2018). Last Delta II Rocket Launches NASA Satellite to Map Earth’s Ice with Space Laser, Spaceflight, September 15. Available at: www.space.com/41850-nasaicesat2-laser-launches-on-last-delta-ii-rocket.html Peltz, J.F. (1994). ‘The Business Space Race: ITT Plans Commercial Satellite “Spaceport”: Aerospace: Launch facility at Vandenberg Air Force Base could lead to the creation of 400 to 500 jobs,’ Los Angeles Times, November 29. Porter, M.E. (2001). ‘Strategy and the Internet,’ Harvard Business Review, Vol. 79, No. 3 (March 2001), pp. 62–78. Raymond, J.A. (1997). Airports and Spaceports: a Historical Comparison, a Research Paper submitted to Air Command and Staff College, Montgomery, Alabama. Robinson, R. (2001). ‘Space authority names director City man becomes first paid employee,’ Newsweek, June 7. Available at: https://newsok.com/article/2743992/spaceauthority-names-director-city-man-becomes-first-paid-employee Ryan, M. (2013). ‘Ellington Airport commercial spaceport moves one step closer to reality,’ Houston Business Journal, July 18. Available at: www.bizjournals.com/houston/ news/2013/07/17/commercial-spaceport-moves-one-step.html Schmidt, K. (2015). ‘NASA Signs Agreement with Space Florida to Operate Historic Landing Facility,’ Space Fellowship, June 23. Available at: https://spacefellowship.com/

Spaceport business

163

news/art44898/nasa-signs-agreement-with-space-florida-to-operate-historic-landing-facil ity.html. Seastrand, A. (1995). Commercial Space Activities on California’s Central Coast, Speech in the US Congress, Congressional Record, Volume 141, Number 22, February 3. Available at: www.govinfo.gov/content/pkg/CREC-1995-02-03/html/CREC-1995-02-03-pt1PgH1195-3.htm. Sheetz, M. (2018). SpaceX planning massive expansion of rocket facilities on Florida’s space coast, CNBC – The Edge, June 8. Available at: www.cnbc.com/2018/06/08/ spacex-expansion-plans-at-kennedy-space-center-revealed.html. Sheetz, M. (2019). Trump says Brazil is the ‘ideal launch location’ for US rocket companies: Here’s why it’s cheaper, CNBC. Available at: www.cnbc.com/2019/03/19/trumpbrazil-an-ideal-launch-location-for-us-rockets.html (Accessed: 26 May 2019). Shell, S. (2019). ‘Space Florida Welcomes Firefly Aerospace to Cape Canaveral Spaceport – Space Florida’, February 22. Available at: www.spaceflorida.gov/news/space-florida-wel comes-firefly-aerospace-to-cape-canaveral-spaceport/ (Accessed: 8 May 2019). Space Daily. (2000). ‘Cape Canaveral Spaceport Master Plan,’ Space Florida, Exploration Park, Florida, USA, January 2017. Space Florida. (2017). ‘CCS Master Plan Update,’ Space Florida. Available at: https:// spaceflorida.gov/wp-content/uploads/2018/12/sf-bod-approved-ccs-master-plan-02-0117.pdf (Accessed: 20 May 2019). Space Florida. (2018). Financial Statements for the Years ended September 30, 2017 and 2016. Available at: www.spaceflorida.gov/wp-content/uploads/2018/12/FY17_-_SF_Fi nancial_Statements_-_CRI_-_Final.pdf SpaceX. (2019a). California Commercial Spaceport at Vandenberg. Hawthorne, CA: Published by Space Exploration Technologies. SpaceX. (2019b). Cape Canaveral Spaceport. Hawthorne, CA: Published by Space Exploration Technologies. Tinoco, J.K. (2018). ‘Public-private partnerships in transportation: Lessons learned for the new space era,’ World Review of Intermodal Transportation Research, Vol. 7, No. 1, pp. 1–22. Tuttle, B. (2018). Here’s How Much It Costs for Elon Musk to Launch a SpaceX Rocket, February 6. Available at: http://money.com/money/5135565/elon-musk-falcon-heavyrocket-launch-cost/ United Nations. (1967). Treaty on Principles Governing the Activities of States in the Exploration and Use of Outer Space, including the Moon and Other Celestial Bodies, London/ Moscow/Washington, done 10 October 1967, entered into force 10 October 1967. Vaughn, C. (2019). ‘NASA Wallops Opens New Payload Processing Facility,’ Salisbury Daily Times, July 12. Available at: www.delmarvanow.com/story/news/2019/07/12/nasawallops-has-new-payload-processing-facility/1701765001/ Virginia Commercial Space Flight Authority (VASPACE). (2018). ‘Financial Statements, Year Ended June 30, 2018, Virginia Commercial Space Flight Authority, Norfolk, Virginia, USA, September, 2018. Webb, A. (2006). ‘Key Spaceport Bills Clear Legislature,’ Albuquerque Journal, February 17. Available at: www.abqjournal.com/news/xgr/434593xgr02-17-06.htm The World Bank. (2017). Public Private Partnerships Transport Sector. Available at: https://ppp. worldbank.org/public-private-partnership/sector/transporation (Accessed 5 May 2017). Zak, A. (2014). The Spaceport in Siberia, Air & Space Magazine. Available at: www.airspa cemag.com/space/spaceport-siberia-180951416/July24 (Accessed: 26 May 2019).

6

Impacts of Spaceports on the Economy, Aviation, Community, and Environment

Spaceports are more than runways, launchpads, terminals, and assembly buildings. Spaceports are considered as economic drivers for local and regional economies, creating jobs, stimulating economic development, and contributing to tax revenues. In the meantime, they potentially impose adverse impacts on the environment and the safety of the local communities. Furthermore, commercial space activities share the national airspace system (NAS) with airlines and other aircraft operators, and also share some airport/spaceport infrastructures and facilities on the ground. Consequently, spaceport activities may impact the operations of airlines, airports, and other airspace and airport stakeholders.

6.1 Economic Impacts Economic impacts measure the spending and employment associated with an industry, a sector of the economy, a specific business entity, or a particular project. The economic impacts of a commercial spaceport include economic activities generated by spaceport construction and operations that make direct, indirect, and induced contributions to the local, regional, and national economies. The direct impacts of spaceports are derived from the economic activities directly associated with daily operations on the spaceports, construction and capital improvements, and visitors to the spaceports. These activities are carried out on the spaceports by spaceport operators, space launch service providers, government agencies, and other service providers and tenants. The direct economic impacts are generally measured in terms of employments (full-time equivalent jobs), payroll (annual wages, salaries, and benefits), and economic outputs (capital spending plus revenues generated). The indirect impacts are derived from economic activities in downstream industries that arise from the direct operational activities at the spaceports, such as production and transportation of propellants and oxidizers. The induced impacts are generated from expenditures by employees who work directly or indirectly for the spaceports. For example, the workers who maintain the launch pads would spend their earnings on groceries, cars and gas, restaurants, home improvements, movies, cell phones, etc. Furthermore, spaceports would also facilitate the business of the other sectors of the economy through various avenues such as tourism effects, investment effects, etc., resulting in catalytic impacts.

Impacts of Spaceports on the Economy

165

As being still in its infancy, economic impact studies of commercial spaceports are limited. The U.S. Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) published five economic impact studies of the U.S. Commercial Space Transportation industry between 2001 and 2010, economic activities associated with spaceports were not included in those studies (FAA 2001, 2010). This section discusses a number of ad hoc economic impact studies conducted by or for the spaceports in the United States (U.S.), with a note of caution of potential bias to the readers. Economic impacts derived from construction of spaceports obviously depend on the scale and duration of the construction. BBRED (2017) provides an economic assessment of Spaceport Camden.1 The study assumes a 15-month construction period, and estimates that the spaceport would bring 190 jobs to the area over the 15-month period, and that the construction would generate $9.23 million in total economic output, and $3.12 million in gross regional product. The overall impact of the spaceport is estimated as $20 million a year. The pre-construction business plan for Spaceport America2 (Arrowhead Center 2005) estimates that for every $60 million in construction spending, the total economic impact for the State of New Mexico would be over $120 million, and would support more than 1,450 new jobs. As stated in Chapter 5, Spaceport America had received $218.5 million in capital funding by November 2015. Assuming the same multiplier, the total economic impact from the capital spending would be over $437 million. We have not been able to find any information on the actual number of jobs created during the construction of Spaceport America. Florida Space Authority3 commissioned Futron Corporation in 2005 to assess the feasibility and potential economic impact of establishing a commercial spaceport in Florida, either using existing facilities at Cape Canaveral or constructing new facilities at a different site (Futron 2005). The study examines two options for a new spaceport in Florida: (1.) expanding an existing airport into an air and space port (split site); and (2.) building a spaceport from a “greenfield” (combined site), and estimates that the costs for establishing the new spaceport would be $10.5 to $28 million for the first option and $185.5 million to $278 million for the second option (Futron 2005). Using the U.S. Department of Commerce’s Regional Input-Output Modeling System (RIMS II), Futron (2005) estimates that the economic impacts associated with the construction of the spaceport would be $554 million to $830 million for a “greenfield” spaceport (combined site), and $31 million to $84 million for expanding an existing airport to an air and space port (split site), generating 3,865–5,800 and 220–580 cumulative new jobs during the 2006–2008 construction period, respectively. As some readers are aware, the proposed new spaceport at Shiloh has never materialized; Cecil Airport (see Chapter 5) became the eighth licensed commercial spaceport in the U.S. in 2010. Again, information on the actual economic impacts of expanding Cecil Airport into Cecil Spaceport is not publicly available.

166 Impacts of Spaceports on the Economy Unlike the temporary nature of spaceport construction, the operations of spaceports contribute to the local, regional, and national economies continuously. In its 2016–2020 business plan published in 2015 (Spaceport America 2015), Spaceport America stated that the State of New Mexico contributed to $460,000 recurring operating costs in Spaceport America in the financial year 2015, which generated a return of $9,556,000. Zach De Gregorio’s presentation (De Gregorio 2016) proclaims that the State of New Mexico contributed $944,000 to Spaceport America from New Mexico’s general fund in the financial year 2016, resulting in a $20.8 million economic impact, including $11 million in commercial space industry, $1.09 million in nonaerospace spaceport business, $1.8 million in tourism, and $3.9 million in indirect purchases in New Mexico businesses, etc. This justifies the continuing funding of Spaceport America by the taxpayers of New Mexico. Cape Canaveral is perhaps the most active spaceport in the U.S., if not in the world. Although many of the space launches take off from Cape Canaveral Air Force Station, Kennedy Space Center (KSC)/ National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA) provides oversight of launch operations and other support services. According to NASA (2017), KSC (Spaceport)4 employed 10,194 people directly in 2017, which created an additional (indirect and induced) 13,559 jobs in the State of Florida. The spaceport jobs include NASA civil service employees (19%), NASA contractor employees (54%), other spaceport tenant employees (5%), commercial launch provider employees (13%), and KSC Visitor Complex employees (9%). These employees collectively earned $1 billion in income in 2017, which resulted in an additional $600 million in indirect and induced income in Florida. The total economic impacts of the operations at KSC (Spaceport) were estimated at $3.9 billion in 2017, including $1.6 billion direct economic impacts and $2.2 billion indirect and induced economic impacts. The McDowell Group (2011) cites a 2010 study that found that Alaska Aerospace Corporation (AAC) created 202 jobs and $10 million in annual labor income in 2009. The McDowell Group study estimates that small and mediumlift operations at Pacific Spaceport Complex – Alaska (PSCA) can create approximately 195 direct, indirect, and induced jobs and a total of $21 million in annual wages and benefits; and that the Alaska Aerospace’s unmanned aircraft systems (UAS) program would generate another 75 jobs, and $6 million in wages and benefits. The study further estimates that AAC could potentially generate 385 high-paying, high-tech jobs in Alaska, plus another 245 indirect and induced jobs by 2022, with an annual payroll of $22 million. Houston Spaceport (Ellington) does not expect to see launch or reentry activities in the foreseeable future (Foust 2019), as it focuses on becoming a center for aerospace innovation, attracting both space companies and nonspace companies, as discussed in Chapter 5, and generating tangible economic impacts. According to Arturo Machuca, general manager of Ellington Airport and Houston Spaceport, “it would not have been possible without Houston Spaceport being recognized and licensed as an operational spaceport” (Foust 2019). Houston Spaceport is an example of how spaceports can become a center of economic development without any launch activity.

Impacts of Spaceports on the Economy

167

The commercial spaceports have achieved varying degrees of success in terms of both financial self-sufficiency and as economic generators. Cape Canaveral (KSC and Cape Canaveral Air Force Station) has been and continues to be a major economic anchor for Florida’s “space coast”, and has generated billions in terms of aerospace research, investment, manufacturing, space exploration, and commerce as well as millions of annual visitors. On the other hand, Spaceport America has yet to fulfill its promise of a bustling space industry.

6.2 Challenges and Issues As mentioned in the previous section, one of the main challenges facing the spaceports is lack of financial sustainability. Other main challenges include the assurance of safe operation and assuaging the uncertainty of the community associated with hazards resulting from possible launch failures. Another issue that has led to recent public debates is the impact of commercial space activities on commercial aviation and other airspace users. 6.2.1 Impacts on Commercial Aviation Space vehicles travel through airspace to/from their destinations in outer space, sharing the airspace with airlines and other users of the airspace. There is a risk of catastrophic failure associated with the space vehicles as they pass through the airspace, which may cause calamitous harm to others in the surroundings. To ensure the safety of space vehicles, airlines, and other stakeholders, it is important to separate the operations of space vehicles from others. Space vehicles have limited ability to alter their trajectories and routing, whereas aircraft have some flexibility to modify their planned flight paths if needed. Therefore, the current practice for managing a space launch is to establish a hazard zone in the form of a restricted area in the vicinity of the space operation, and to restrict aircraft from entering the impacted airspace during the predetermined launch window. These hazard zones, in both geographical and time coverage, include sufficient safety margin to ensure the safety of airlines and other airspace users. Consequently, airlines have to reroute or delay their flights to avoid the hazard zones during the specified time periods, resulting in additional costs to the airlines and extra delays for passengers and freight shippers. When limited space activities were carried out by governments in the past, airlines and other airspace users took it as their patriotic duty to bear the consequences of extra flight times and delays in support of national security and space exploration. The last decade, however, has seen a significant increase in commercial space activities, and many of the commercial launch sites are located along major airline routes (CRS 2019). According to CRS (2019), the launch windows for the two commercial launches in 2018 at PSCA required airspace restrictions for several days in a row, forcing international carriers on the

168 Impacts of Spaceports on the Economy transpacific route to fly hundreds of miles in rerouting. Consequently, we start to see the debate on the question of whether commercial aviation (and other airspace users) should bear the extra costs of disruption of their regular operations by commercial space operations. The Air Line Pilots Association (ALPA) issued a white paper in June 2018 to address the challenges to aviation by the growing commercial space operations (ALPA 2018). The white paper emphasizes the need for better understanding of safety risk associated with space operations as well as changes in policy and regulations. The white paper also presents some rudimentary statistics on the impact of the SpaceX Falcon Heavy launch from Cape Canaveral on February 6, 2018, which indicates that that particular launch caused 563 flights to be delayed with an average of 8 minutes delay per flight. Although there are some debates on the accuracy of the data cited in ALPA (2018)5, the fact that ALPA issued a white paper on the topic and the subsequent discussions in the media indicate that the impacts of space operations on aviation have become issues for airlines, airports, and other stakeholders. In its follow-up paper (ALPA 2019), ALPA states that current space launches are accommodated by closing large volumes of airspace, which places tremendous administrative burdens on commercial space operators, and causes significant disruption to aviation. The paper presents ALPA’s vision for the integration of commercial space moves from today’s accommodation of space activities to better interoperability via data exchange, enhanced coordination, and situational awareness in the near to mid-term. There have been some studies investigating various methods in calculating and establishing the hazard zones and debris areas. For example, Larson et al. (2008) present a computational tool capable of generating aircraft hazard areas based on Space Shuttle reentry trajectories and real time state vectors; Gonzales and Murray (2010) examine aircraft buffer zones and ground buffer zones for reusable suborbital rockets in relation to probability of failure allocation, aircraft vulnerability, effects of wind conditions, and debris catalogues, etc. Luchkova et al. (2016) construct a simulation model to generate the aircraft hazard areas in European airspace along the conceptual SpaceLiner flight trajectory based on the accident debris data of Space Shuttle Columbia. Colvin and Alonso (2015) use NASA’s FACET software to simulate and compare the effects of generating hazard areas using the concept of compact envelopes versus using traditional methods. A number of studies have attempted to estimate the impacts of space launches on airspaces, and how alternative air traffic control (ATC) procedures may potentially mitigate such impacts. Young and Kee (2014) examine a historical launch and reentry to identify and quantify the current-day operational impacts of commercial space launch and reentry operations on the NAS. In particular, the study examines the case of the SpaceX Falcon 9/Dragon capsule that was launched from Cape Canaveral Air Force Station (Florida) on March 1, 2013 to the International Space Station (ISS), and reentered in the Pacific Ocean off the coast of California on March 26, 2013. Their results show that flights in the Jacksonville and Miami Air

Impacts of Spaceports on the Economy

169

Route Traffic Control Centers (ARTCCs) incurred one to 23 minutes additional flight times and an extra 25 to 84 nautical miles flight distances during the launch, but operations at key Florida airports did not suffer any significant impact. Their results also show that flights travelling to/from Hawaii and Australia had 1.5 to seven minutes additional flight times, and 15 to 27 nautical miles additional flight distances, impacted by the reentry operations, but there were minimal impacts on domestic and other international flights. In a subsequent study, Young et al. (2015) conduct fast-time simulations to compare the impacts on NAS using existing ATC procedure versus a proposed ATC procedure using 4D Compact Envelopes under alternative future traffic and space vehicle scenarios. The results from the simulation suggest that the proposed 4D Compact Envelopes procedure would reduce flight delays, rerouting distances, and fuel burns. Tompa et al. (2015) develop a Markov decision process model to investigate the optimal aircraft rerouting strategies under the scenarios of a two-stage-to-orbit vehicle launched from Cape Canaveral. Srivastava et al. (2015) propose a two-step approach to estimate the impact of space launch or reentry operations, using a minimum deviation path around the blocked airspaces on selected historical days. While the aforementioned studies analyze the impacts of vertical space launches, Tinoco et al. (2019) use the Total Airspace and Airport Modeler (TAAM) simulations to examine the potential impacts of horizontal space vehicle launches on airlines. Specifically, the study conducts a comparative analysis of current and future impacts on airlines of a horizontal launch from Cecil Spaceport in Florida (the U.S.) and explores mitigating integration strategies to reduce negative impacts of space operations on airlines and airports. A horizontal space launch has the space vehicle mated to a carrier aircraft. The carrier aircraft would take off from a runway at a spaceport, similar to a regular aircraft, and the space vehicle would then launch from the carrier aircraft when they reach approximately 40,000 feet. A temporary flight restriction (TFR) is generally issued to prevent airlines or other airspace users from entering the predetermined hazard areas of the space vehicle launch operation, as well as the flight path or corridor of the carrier aircraft, before reaching the launch altitude. If the carrier aircraft is considered a regular aircraft, then there is no restriction to other aircraft from flying through the “corridor” during the TFR closure. The current practice is that the TFR is effective for four hours for a space launch, two hours before and two hours after the scheduled launch. Tinoco et al. (2019) examine the impacts on the affected flights under different scenarios including shortening the TFR closure time window and no corridor TFR. Their preliminary results indicate that there would be minimal impacts on the flights if the airspace along the corridor is open during the space launch as most of the potentially affected flights are routed close to the coastline. Finally, Kaltenhaeuser et al. (2019) analyze a potential horizontal space launch from the German North Sea coast based on historical air traffic data in the potential impacted areas and conclude that there would be limited impact on European air traffic operations.

170 Impacts of Spaceports on the Economy Space operations not only affect aircraft in the airspace, but also operations on the ground. For example, propellant and oxidizer storages must be kept at a safe distance from other fuel storages; launch pads and landing pads at co-located air and space ports must have sufficient separation from the runways, taxiways, and other aviation facilities. Horizontal space launches and carrier aircraft landings would cause disruptions of aircraft movements at the co-located air and space ports. Although there are some ad hoc reports on the effects of space operations on airports, there is no systematic study that provides quantitative evidence on such impacts. The ALPA white paper (ALPA 2018) mentions that Orlando International Airport, the closest large hub airport to Cape Canaveral Spaceport, experienced 62 departure and 59 arrival delays during the SpaceX Falcon Heavy launch on February 6, 2018. However, these numbers do not exclude delays due to other reasons. Based on authors’ private conversations with the air traffic controllers at Jacksonville ARTCC, very limited, if any, ground holds have ever been issued because of space launch operations from Cape Canaveral, arguably the busiest spaceport area in the U.S. The impacts of commercial space activities on general aviation have not received much attention. In their letter in response to the FAA’s Notice of Proposed Rulemaking for the Streamlined Launch and Reentry Licensing Requirements, the Aircraft Owners and Pilots Association (AOPA)5 states that “we do not believe that the FAA has adequately accounted for VFR general aviation operations in their risk management strategy”. The letter points out that many spaceports are located in areas where there is a significant amount of visual flight rules (VFR) traffic, and many of these general aviation operators do not utilize air traffic services when flying VFR. AOPA also noted inconsistent designations of aircraft hazard areas at different launch sites, and cited lack of clear compliance language published in TFRs issued for launches from coastal launch sites, where it was not always made clear that restricted airspace extends beyond the 12 nautical mile coastal limit. 6.2.2 Impacts on the Local Community While the economic benefits to the local community may be present and understood by community members, they often come at a cost to their way of living. In general, spaceports are being added to areas where population densities are typically low, often near coastal areas, and where the landscape is dotted with longtime residents and small towns. Nature and quiet surroundings are highly valued. As with any new development, the community is often split between being for or against a spaceport in their community. While acknowledging the possibility of new and more higher-paying jobs and other economic benefits, many concerns expressed by community residents and small businesses typically include: • •

safety of person, property, and environment (flora and fauna), and impacts to health and well-being; noise, vibration, and light pollution impacting people and fauna. Sonic booms are also a concern;

Impacts of Spaceports on the Economy • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • •

171

destruction of solitude, way of life, and local culture; contamination to groundwater, surface water, soil, and air. Fire hazards and falling debris from anomalies, among others; electromagnetic interference (EMI) ramifications; proposed flight patterns over homes and businesses; lack of transparency by authorities on all negative implications of a spaceport; diversion of much-needed public funds to spaceport-related projects; long-term community debt for the spaceport; other impacts on the environmental ecosystem, not yet known; destruction or negative consequences to archeological sites; regulatory and legal restrictions due to the spaceport that impact the local community residences and businesses; closure of national and local parks during launches; temporary restrictions and closures of airspace and navigable waterways which may have implications for general aviation, charter companies, fishermen, etc. Livelihood may be impacted as a result; possible evacuation of residential areas; standard of living increase which negatively impacts the local residents; launch failures and unintended discharge of rocket fuel, debris and contaminants could create major safety concerns for park visitors and wildlife in these sensitive wetlands; impacts to roads and local infrastructures; impact to utility availability and distribution, such as water supply (rocket launches require significant water to reduce sound emissions), power, and natural gas; small businesses forced to close by larger businesses; increases in taxes to pay for necessary spaceport support that impact both residents and businesses; political motives outweighing concern for businesses and residents; security and protection from malicious acts

A good example of community discordance regarding spaceports is the protests against local funding for Spaceport Cornwall at Newquay Airport in Southwest England. Newquay Airport has a 9,000 foot runway and is served by seven airlines. The airport served 41,172 aircraft movements and 456,888 passengers in 2018. Virgin Orbit selected Spaceport Cornwall as the launch site for the first launch of its LauncherOne system, targeting 2021 for the first launch from Cornwall. Virgin Orbit uses a modified Boeing 747–400, named Cosmic Girl, as the launch carrier. Cosmic Girl will take off from Spaceport Cornwall carrying a LauncherOne rocket under its wing to a launch range over the Atlantic and release the rocket at around 35,000 feet for onward flight into space, carrying a satellite into Earth orbit. Spaceport Cornwall is expected to eventually create 480 jobs and contribute £25 million a year to the local economy. The Cornwall and Isles of Scilly Local Enterprise Partnership (LEP)’s Space Action Plan further predicts that the wider space sector could create thousands more jobs in Cornwall and by 2030 be worth £1 billion

172 Impacts of Spaceports on the Economy

Figure 6.1 Trash Collection at Canaveral National Seashore. Source: NASA/Dimitri Gerondidakis 2018

a year. The United Kingdom (U.K.) Space Agency approved a £7.35 million ($9.5 million) grant to Virgin Orbit on November 6, 2019 to help set us its launch facility at Spaceport Cornwall (O’Callaghan 2019). Subsequently, Cornwall Council approved a £10.3 million ($13.3 million) local grant toward the Spaceport project with a vote of 66 to 34 on November 26, 2019, which resulted in “chaos” erupting in the council chamber by the protesters observing the vote (Berger 2019). Launches bring tourists and viewers. Economically, the local area benefits from the influx, but with people come cars, congestion, and trash impacting community and environment. Extra money is spent on cleanup following launch viewings. Even during off-time, trash builds up as tourists come to the area. Figure 6.1 shows a pickup full of trash, one of many, following a beach cleanup at the Canaveral National Seashore, just north of KSC. All of these concerns will need to be addressed with understanding and transparency in order to work toward symbiotic solutions when a spaceport is proposed. Otherwise, delays due to community pushback (cf, The Herald Scotland Online 2018) and even lawsuits (cf, Landers 2019) will begin to take their toll on advancing the spaceport to a viable concept and eventual licensure. 6.2.3 Impacts on the Environment The environmental impacts of spaceport operations are well known, based on the years of data gathering from space launches around the world. The following highlights the key safety issues associated with the environment and implications for the ecosystem. Many of these replicate the community concerns referenced in 6.2.2 and were addressed earlier for entities wishing

Impacts of Spaceports on the Economy

173

to become or develop spaceports in their areas. National circumstances, guidelines, policies, regulations, and procedures will vary. •

• • • • • • • • •

Contamination of air, water (surface and ground), and soil due to toxic materials not properly controlled, stored, and handled. Implications are to flora, fauna, personnel, and the local community including meeting clean air, clean water, safe drinking water requirements, clean soil; safety hazards associated with pressurized gases, propellants, fuels, oxidizers, cleaning materials, etc.; disposal of hazard waste materials; noise pollution, light pollution, sonic booms, ground and air vibrations, and resulting implications for the ecosystem; air pollution, greenhouse gas emissions, ozone depletion; EMI and emissions; hazardous operations, including instantaneous combustion dangers, and explosive hazards on the ground and in the air; depending on spaceport location, dangers to the coastal ecosystem, rivers, grasslands, lakes; blast effects, thermal effects, and flying debris; hazards to endangered species and marine mammal protection.

Other environmental considerations for spaceports include vulnerability to natural phenomenon due to location, such as those associated with severe temperature and environmental extremes (ice, snow, wind, etc.), hurricanes, tsunamis, tornadoes, cyclones, and lightning, as well as landslides or any severe ground movements such as earthquakes and tremors (Allahdadi et al. 2013). 6.2.4 Case Examples in Launch and Landing Anomalies In order to illustrate a case in point, the hazards due to anomalies in launch and return can be catastrophic. In 1986, the Orbiter Challenger broke up over the Atlantic Ocean (see Figure 6.2) upon takeoff. While NASA and the world dealt with the loss of the astronauts, there was less impact to the local community in terms of debris as most fell in the ocean. However, in more recent times, the Columbia accident of 2003 had the potential for much more catastrophic implications in terms of environment and community. Following its breakup over the continental U.S. during its return trajectory, debris fell for up to 90 minutes following the initial incident, beginning in California (see Figure 6.3) and continuing through to Utah, Nevada, Arizona, New Mexico, Texas, and Louisiana. In the upper atmosphere, velocity of debris reached 12,000 miles per hour (mph) and as it fell some large pieces of debris up to 800 lbs in weight hit the ground at over 1,400 mph, creating craters more than 6 feet in diameter. In Nacogdoches, Texas, a sizable piece of debris landed between explosive natural gas tanks placed just a few feet apart. It is a wonder that no one was injured on the ground or in the air.

174 Impacts of Spaceports on the Economy

Figure 6.2 Challenger Accident. Source: NASA 2008

Commercial airlines and other airspace users had to be rerouted, but this was not instantaneous. Concerned citizens called local authorities to report sonic booms, rumbles, and falling debris at a frequency of 18 calls per minute. Cattle were spooked, fishermen reported falling debris in lakes, and one woman reported debris hitting her windshield. In addition to injury by falling debris, NASA was concerned about the type of debris. Highly toxic propellants and gases were believed to have burned up in the atmosphere (Waymer 2019). However, pyrotechnic devices with associated triggers (think in terms of grenades) that could explode would have had serious consequences and needed removal by trained professionals. Burns from highly heated metals and chemical burns from concentrated ammonia were also considered as emergency personnel were dispatched. In two major water bodies where geographically the debris field was dense, sonar was used to identify debris under water. These bodies included Lake Nacogdoches and Toledo Bend Reservoir in Texas. Sonar discovered 3,100 pieces of debris in the reservoir and 326 pieces in the lake. Figure 6.4 shows a 40 in. diameter aluminum cryogenic liquid storage tank that was recovered from Lake Nacogdoches. With respect to the environment, this particular tank was not toxic. The most debris (38% to 48% of the Orbiter) was recovered from Eastern Texas to Western Louisiana. Shown in Figure 6.5, the black line illustrates the most concentrated debris areas. Additionally, in Figure 6.6, one can see that the debris line of Orbiter panels began immediately southwest of Dallas and extended into Louisiana. Many communities lie within this line.

Figure 6.3 Columbia Events and Initial Debris Fallout. Source: NASA 2003

176 Impacts of Spaceports on the Economy

Figure 6.4 Recovered Liquid Storage Tank. Source: Nacogdoches Police Department and NASA 2003

More than 2.3 million acres were searched and more than 84,000 pieces were found, weighing a total of 84,000 lbs. Debris was collected and brought back to KSC for examination (see Figure 6.7). More than $305 million were used to fund the effort by the Federal Emergency Management Agency alone. This cost is not inclusive of what other agencies and emergency personnel, etc. spent. Additionally, $50,000 was dispersed to farmers who had legal damage claims, a relatively small sum. In all, many more millions of dollars were spent by many federal, state, and local communities in the search and cleanup efforts. Two more recent explosions are discussed next. In 2014, the Antares rocket at Wallops Flight Facility exploded during launch. The mission consisted of an Orbital ATK Antares launch vehicle and a Cygnus spacecraft loaded with pressurized cargo, set for the ISS. Slightly over 15 seconds into the flight, an explosion occurred in the main engine system and it fell back to the ground. Range safety personnel issued a destruct command to terminate the flight, reducing further damage. No injuries occurred, but as with any explosion, toxic gases were likely released and hazardous debris needed to be cleaned up by trained

Figure 6.5 Highly Concentrated Debris Field, Texas. Source: NASA 2003

178 Impacts of Spaceports on the Economy

Figure 6.6 Debris Field Showing Location of Dallas and Extending into Louisiana. Source: NASA 2003

Figure 6.7 Columbia Debris Collected at KSC. Source: NASA 2003

personnel. Extensive damage to the launchpad and nearby facilities and buildings occurred. The launch area following the explosion is shown in Figure 6.8. In 2019, a test fire of the SpaceX Crew Dragon capsule failed, causing toxic red fumes of nitrogen tetroxide to be released into the air. Risk mitigation efforts had been put in place prior to the test fire which included checking safe

Impacts of Spaceports on the Economy

179

Figure 6.8 Launchpad at Wallops Flight Facility Following Rocket Explosion. Source: NASA 2015

distances from the public. Further, prevailing winds were assessed and the test fire was pointed away from the population (Waymer 2019). There were no injuries, but it is a reminder that at spaceports activities other than launch and landing can have dangerous consequences as well and that proper procedures must be in place and followed by trained personnel. Even successful launches may result in hazardous situations to residents not only in the immediate surrounding areas, but also in the drop zones for the first-stage and side boosters. According to Jones (2019), a Chinese Long March 3B carrying two BeiDou satellites was launched from Xichang Launch Center on November 22, 2019, and the two satellites were delivered successfully into orbit. The rocket’s first-stage booster, however, fell into a village downrange, destroying a home. The first-stage and the side boosters of Long March 3B contain toxic hypergolic propellant (Jones 2019). Although this occurred in China, it should be noted that the current version of the FAA’s Flight Safety Analysis Handbook (FAA, 2011) does not address the risk from toxic release. The aforementioned case examples illustrate that community concerns, public safety, and environmental concerns are serious and need direct and honest attention. In order to resolve community and environmental concerns prior to spaceport development and activities, entities require assessment and mitigation of impacts depending on the regulatory requirements of the area – national, regional, and

180 Impacts of Spaceports on the Economy local. Reliance on outside recognized institutions for assessment of impacts (Allahdadi et al. 2013) may provide the most reliable results and adds legitimacy to the assessment. Finally, all stakeholders are responsible for ensuring that the spaceport is economically beneficial, sustainable, and safe. If there is a concern, all partners need to speak up in a timely manner in order to resolve concerns and issues.

Notes 1 The Camden County Board of Commissioners formally submitted its application for a Launch Site Operator License (LSOL) to the FAA in January 2019. However, the county pulled their application in December 2019 to modify for alternate launch vehicles. 2 Referred to as Southwest Regional Spaceport at the time of the study. 3 Florida Space Authority was consolidated with the Florida Space Research Institute and the Florida Aerospace Finance Corporation in May 2006 to form Space Florida. 4 NASA (2017) refers to KSC as Kennedy Spaceport. 5 Over 85% of all general aviation aircraft in the U.S. are operated by AOPA members http://download.aopa.org/advocacy/2019/190715_space_launch.pdf.

References Allahdadi, F.A., Rongier, I., and Wilde, P.D. (2013). Safety Design for Space Operations. S. Sgobba Editor; Sponsored by the International Association for the Advancement of Space Safety & Books 1st ed.. Oxford: Elsevier. ALPA. (2018). ‘ALPA White Paper Addressing the Challenges to Aviation from Evolving Space Transportation,’ Air Line Pilots Association, Washington, DC, June 2018. ALPA. (2019). ‘ALPA White Paper – Safe Integration of Commercial Space Operations into the U.S. National Airspace System and Beyond,’ Air Line Pilots Association, Washington, DC, October, 2019. Arrowhead Center. (2005). ‘Southwest Regional Spaceport Business Plan’, developed for New Mexico Economic Development Department, New Mexico State University, Las Cruces, NM, October 2005. Berger, E. (2019). Rocket Report: Cornwall Locals protest spaceport, China’s toxic rocket problem, Ars Technica, November 29, 2019. Available at: https://arstechnica.com/sci ence/2019/11/rocket-report-ariane-6-already-eyeing-upgrades-floridas-busy-december/ The Bureau of Business Research and Economic Development (BBRED). (2017). Spaceport Camden Summary, A Report Prepared for Camden County. Woodbine, GA: Georgia Southern University, September 2017. Colvin, T.J. and Alonso, J.J. (2015). ‘Near-Elimination of Airspace Disruption from Commercial Space Traffic Using Compact Envelopes’, AIAA Space Forum, Pasadena, CA, August 31–September 2, 2015. CRS. (2019). ‘Impact of Commercial Space Launch Activities on Aviation,’ Congressional Research Service, November 1, 2019. De Gregorio, Z. (2016). ‘Economic Development Impact for New Mexico’, Spaceport America, Las Cruces, NM, Available at: https://nmpolitics.net/index/wp-content/ uploads/2017/03/Spaceport-America-Economic-Impact-09-21-2016.pdf FAA. (2001). ‘The Economic Impact of Commercial Space Transportation on the U.S. Economy’, Federal Aviation Administration, U.S. Department of Transportation, Washington, DC, February 2001.

Impacts of Spaceports on the Economy

181

FAA. (2010). The Economic Impact of Commercial Space Transportation on the U.S. Economy in 2009, Federal Aviation Administration, U.S. Department of Transportation, September 2010, Washington DC, USA. FAA. (2011). Flight Safety Analysis Handbook, Version 1.0, Federal Aviation Administration, Washington DC, USA, September 2011. Foust, J. (2019). ‘Commercial Spaceports increases focus on Economic Development,’ SpaceNews, November 26, 2019. Available at: https://spacenews.com/commercial-space ports-increase-focus-on-economic-development Futron. (2005). ‘Feasibility Study of a Florida Commercial Spaceport, a report for Florida Space Authority’, Futron Corporation, Washington, DC, September 2005. Gonzales, E.A.Z. and Murray, D.P. (2010). ‘FAA’s Approach to Ground and NAS Separation Distances for Commercial Rocket Launches’, 48th AIAA Aerospace Science Meeting including the New Horizons Forum and Aerospace Exposition, Orlando, FL, January 4–7, 2010. The Herald Scotland Online. (2018). ‘Bid to Bring Spaceport to Scotland under Threat Due to Crofters’ Dispute,’ The Herald Scotland. Available at: www.heraldscotland.com/ news/17255738.bid-to-bring-spaceport-to-scotland-under-threat-due-to-crofters-dispute/ (Accessed: 24 May 2019). Jones, A. (2019). Rocket Booster Smashes Home Following Chinese Long March 3B Launch, SpaceNews, November 24, 2019. Available at: https://spacenews.com/rocketbooster-smashes-home-following-chinese-long-march-3b-launch Kaltenhaeuser, S., Luchkova, T., Klay, N., and Ang, R.B.R. (2019). ‘Assessment of the Impact of Air Launch Operations on Air Traffic in Europe, Space Traffic Management Conference,’ Robert Strauss Center for International Security and Law, The University of Texas at Austin, Austin, TX, February 26–27, 2019. Landers, M. (2019). ‘Camden County Sued over Keeping Spaceport Secrets,’ Savannah Morning News, Available at: www.savannahnow.com/news/20190220/camden-countysued-over-keeping-spaceport-secrets (Accessed: 24 May 2019). Larson, E.W.F., Carbon, S.L., and Murray, D. (2008). ‘Automated Calculation of Aircraft Hazard Areas from Space Vehicle Accidents: Application to the Shuttle’, AIAA Atmospheric Flight Mechanics Conference and Exhibit, Honolulu, HI, August 18–21, 2008. Luchkova, T., Kaltenhaeuser, S., and Morlang, F. (2016). ‘Air Traffic Impact Analysis Design for a Suborbital Point-to-Point Passenger Transport Concept’, Space Traffic Management Conference, Daytona Beach, FL, November 16–18, 2016. McDowell Group. (2011). Potential Economic Benefits of Alaska Aerospace Corporation, a report prepared for Alaska Aerospace Corporation, March 2011. Available at: https:// akaerospace.com/sites/default/files/reports/Potential%20Economic%20Benefits%20of% 20AAC.pdf NASA. (2003). Colombia Accident Investigation Board Report Volume 1. August 26, 2003. Available at: www.nasa.gov/columbia/home/CAIB_Vol1.html NASA. (2015). Independent Review Team Orb–3 Accident Investigation Report, Executive Summary. Available at: https://sma.nasa.gov/SignificantIncidents/assets/orb3_accident_ investigation_report.pdf NASA. (2017). ‘Economic Impact Study of NASA in Florida’, John F. Kennedy Space Center, Public Affairs Directorate, FL. O’Callaghan, J. (2019). ‘Virgin Orbit Awarded $9.5m to begin horizontal rocket launches from the U.K. in 2021,’ Forbes, November 6, 2019. Available at: www.forbes.com/sites/ jonathanocallaghan/2019/11/06/virgin-orbit-awarded-95m-to-begin-horizontal-rocketlaunches-from-the-uk-in-2021/#66a89110519c

182 Impacts of Spaceports on the Economy Spaceport America. (2015). ‘Spaceport America Business Plan: bring the future to the present’, 2016–2020, Las Cruces, NM. Srivastava, A., St. Clair, T.J., Zobell, S., and Fulmer, D. (2015). ‘Assessing Impact of Space Launch and Reentry Operations on the National Airspace System (NAS) Using Historical Traffic Patterns’, 2015 IEEE/AIAA 34th Digital Avionics Systems Conference (DASC), Prague, pp. 1–19. Tinoco, J.K., Yu, C., Firm, R., Castro, C.A., Moallemi, M., and Babb, R. (2019). ‘Sharing Airspace: Simulation of Commercial Space Launch Impacts on Airlines and Finding Solutions,’ Space Traffic Management Conference, Robert Strauss Center for International Security and Law, The University of Texas at Austin, Austin, TX, February 26–27, 2019. Tompa, R.E., Kochenderfer, M.J., Cole, R., and Kuchar, J.K. (2015). ‘Optimal Aircraft Rerouting During Commercial Space Launches,’ 2015 IEEE/AIAA 34th Digital Avionics Systems Conference (DASC), Prague, pp. 1–31. Waymer, J. (2019). ‘SpaceX’s Crew Dragon fire sent hazardous chemical compounds into the environment’, Florida Today, April 25, 2019. Available at: www.floridatoday.com/ story/news/local/environment/2019/04/25/spacexs-crew-dragon-incident-sent-hazard ous-chemicals-into-environment/3548180002/ (Accessed: 19 November 2019). Young, J. and Kee, M. (2014). ‘SpaceX Falcon 9/Dragon Operations NAS Impact and Operational Analysis,’ DOT/FAA/TC-TN13/49, US Department of Transportation, Federal Aviation Administration, William J. Hughes Technical Center, Atlantic City International Airport, NJ. Young, J., Kee, M., and Young, C. (2015). ‘Effects of Future Space Vehicle Operations on a Single Day in the National Airspace Systems: A Fast Time Computer Simulation,’ DOT/FAA/TC-TN15/14, US Department of Transportation, Federal Aviation Administration, William J. Hughes Technical Center, Atlantic City International Airport, NJ.

7

Spaceport Licensing and Planning

The chapter begins by examining the sources of law that pertain to spaceports and their operations, and contrasts these with some basic air law concepts. It then discusses the domestic laws that expressly address spaceports or launch sites in different jurisdictions, and safety requirements. The current space law in the United States (U.S.), the Commercial Space Launch Act of 1984, requires the spaceport operators to be licensed in order to serve any commercial space launch. The Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) has been tasked with licensing the operation of new commercial spaceports and has developed a four-step licensing process. Section 7.3 provides a brief overview of the four-step licensing process and discusses the synergies that can be drawn between air and space ports. As most of the current commercial spaceports have been transitioned from airports, there are similarities between spaceport planning and airport planning. Spaceport master planning is thus discussed in Section 7.4 with reference to airport master planning.

7.1 Sources of Spaceport Laws The space treaties are often considered the primary source of international law pertaining to spaceports, and always the source of law governing the space activities performed at these sites. However, the discussion of spaceport laws must also include the aviation treaties if some suborbital vehicles are classified as aircraft, flying internationally, and the launch sites are considered aerodromes or modified airports. While somewhat general in nature (Vlasic 1967), the space treaties impose some specific legal obligations. Among these, inter alia, are the ongoing obligations of the appropriate state for continuing jurisdiction and control over registered space objects (Article VIII, Outer Space Treaty, United Nations 1967), the liability regime (United Nations 1972), the requirement to register (United Nations 1974), and the mandate to notify and to conduct activities with due regard found in Article IX of the Outer Space Treaty (Von der Dunk 2011). The treaties themselves lack specific codified standards and procedures. However, states are ultimately responsible for all space activities of their nationals and for ongoing supervision and control of those activities. As a result of this

184 Spaceport Licensing and Planning responsibility, the spacefaring states establish and implement space regulatory and licensing regimes, including safety standards and procedures, with respect to space activities. For instance, the U.S. has promulgated a developed licensing scheme for launches and reentries, commercial human spaceflight, and launch sites that satisfies the Article VI requirement that a state authorize and continually supervise the activities of its nationals in space. Despite its recency in time, the conditions under which the space treaty regime evolved were markedly different from those in which current and future space activity is, and will be, transpiring. For instance, at the time of the treaties’ drafting and ratification, launches were performed from state-owned and operated sites/spaceports, launch vehicles were expendable, human spaceflight was not contemplated for the paying masses, and the Cold War was raging (Mineiro 2008). While the world has moved on from those days, the principles and legal obligations set forth in the first treaties remain intact and in force. To date, spaceports are located within states that are parties to, or signatories of, the Outer Space Treaty. As a result, the launch activities performed at these must follow the provisions set out in the Outer Space Treaty. For examples, under these provisions, spaceports are prohibited from launching any nuclear weaponry or weapons of mass destruction; and spaceports should keep detailed records of the launches’ performances from their facilities and provide them to the state;1 in case of an emergency landing, spaceports must grant all possible assistance to astronauts, and safely and promptly return them to their home country. The source of power for the domestic component of spaceport laws, rules, and regulations is derived from the state’s sovereignty. There are different mechanisms for promulgating these rules. In the U.S., the Office of Commercial Space Transportation (AST) was established in 1984 to “regulate the U.S. commercial space transportation industry, and to ensure compliance with international obligations of the U.S., and to protect the public health and safety, safety of property, and national security and foreign policy interests of the United States”.2 AST was initially part of the Office of the Secretary of Transportation within the Department of Transportation (DOT), and was transferred to the FAA in November 1995 as the FAA’s only space-related line of business.

7.2 Laws and Regulations of Spaceports in Different Countries Licensing and regulations regarding spaceports vary greatly between different countries. Australia requires a standard space license for the launch facility. As required by the Australia Space Activities Regulation 2001, the applicant must provide, in writing, information regarding employee function, qualifications, duties, background employment history, and contact information for all employed at the launch facility and all individuals directly connected with the facility or its operations. Furthermore, the Space Activities Regulations 2001 requires specifics for the spaceport facility pertaining to its safety, environmental, and management plans, security plans, and emergency plans.

Spaceport Licensing and Planning

185

China maintains four active launching sites and performs commercial launches from these. However, it does not have an official spaceport policy. The government operates the sites and performs the launches, although some of these are revenue-producing and could be considered commercial although not privately performed. China’s newest spaceport, Wenchang Satellite Launch Center on Hainan Island, is open to the public for tours and launch events (Roberts 2019). In Europe, the European Aviation Safety Agency (EASA) proposed to the European Commission a few years ago to treat suborbital spacecraft as aircraft, and spaceports as aerodromes (Howard 2014). Under the proposal, EASA would administer certification of spaceports, and provide oversight under EASA regulations implemented through NPA 2011–203 (combined) and Annex 14 of the Chicago Convention. The airport/spaceport certification basis has a local component in that special detailed technical specifications might be necessary because of the design features of a particular airport/ spaceport. As a result, the national authority where the spaceport is located would be responsible for its certification according to Article 8a of Regulation (EC) No 216/2008. For instance, the Swedish Civil Aviation Authority (SCAA) is responsible for Spaceport Sweden. Furthermore, member states, as signatories to the Chicago Convention, are the parties obliged to adopt the international Standards and Recommended Practices (SARPs) and to certify and oversee their aerodromes in accordance with the Basic Regulation and all associated rules and specifications. Again, the SCAA will certify and oversee the facility. The EASA rules standardize procedures for certification, oversight, management, and operation of the aerodrome/spaceports, and the SCAA will, in turn, implement these. Sweden’s space law does not address regulation of launch sites. However, the proposal to include suborbital spaceports in the existing aviation scheme was simply that – a proposal. It has not been adopted by the European Commission (Howard 2014). The European Parliament endorsed a provisional agreement in April 2019 on the European Union (EU) Space Programme for the budget period 2021–2027, including establishing an EU Agency for the Space Programme and unifying and simplifying the system of governance. If (or when) it is implemented the Commission as programme manager will set priorities and operational decisions. The European Space Agency (ESA) remains the main partner in the Programme implementation whereas the (new) EU Agency for the Space Programme will support market uptake and security accreditation. The Austrian law contains provisions that are on point for orbital sites and/or facilities.4 Austria’s national law controls all launch sites and facilities. Austria requires authorization for space activities, which include the operation of a launch facility.5 Again, like Australia, the requirements for the facility license are general but do address the operator’s competence, the safety of the space activity, Austria’s obligations under international law, foreign policy interests, and insurance.

186 Spaceport Licensing and Planning Kazakhstan’s law allows the government to define arrangements for the development and support of the Baikonur Cosmodrome,6 and deems the Baikonur Cosmodrome a strategic object not subject to privatization. From this, it can be inferred that it is possible that privatization of other cosmodromes would be permissible, as the definition of cosmodrome is not limited to Baikonur. The Kazakhstan law propounds clear policy goals. It assures safety, and addresses international obligations, international cooperation, and development of a national market of space services and expansion of space services in the world market. However, the law does not give specifics of what procedures the government would or could implement in the repurposing of out-of-use facilities nor what is entailed in the privatization of any of these cosmodromes (other than Baikonur). There is a disconnect between the policy goals listed and the legal requirements. How do we get from one to the other? New Zealand’s Outer Space and High-Altitude Activities Act, promulgated in 2017, is somewhat unique in its acknowledgment of high-altitude activities and its policy choice to legislate these with outer space activities while distinguishing between the two. The Act does provide for spaceport licensing with or without linkage to a launch license. Russia includes cosmodromes, and launching complexes and installations in the definition of space infrastructure in its Law on Space Activity. Ostensibly, this means regulated by the law, to the extent that they are used for ensuring or carrying out space activity, tying regulation of infrastructure back to the launch activity. In Ukraine, the ground facilities and infrastructure used for exploring and using outer space are included in the definition of space facilities. The regulations include operating standards for these facilities, as well as their certification and registration. Also regulated are the construction, operation, maintenance, and repair of installations and ground infrastructure. Any space facility engaging or intending to engage in space activities either in, or under, the jurisdiction of Ukraine is required to be licensed and registered in Ukraine’s State Register of Space Facilities. After this registration, Ukraine will not recognize any prior registration of the facility with another state. The number of countries actually addressing spaceports, launch sites, or facilities in their national law has increased in the past decade. The most recent enactments contemplate spaceport licenses or approvals. Launching from a spaceport implicates the state where it is located as a launching state, as well as any and all state parties that have an interest in the facility, regardless of the degree of state involvement in the operations of the spaceport (Schrögl 1999). Whether the state licenses the site or not, it is internationally responsible for all liabilities that flow from the launch. Even though the facility can trigger responsibility, it is the launch that is of primary concern. The facility is determinative by the launch. Table 7.1 presents elements of spaceport and launch laws to provide perspective on the current trends in spaceport law. Table 7.1 is created after a quantitative assessment of the launch and spaceport laws available in the UN

Gov’t

Gov’t Y

Y

Limited

Limited

Limited Limited Limited

Y

Y

Y Y Y

Key: Y = Yes; Gov’t = Government

Gov’t Gov’t

Y

Y Y

Y

Gov’t Gov’t Y Y Y Y Y Y

Y

Y Y Y

Y Y

Y Y

Australia Austria Belgium Canada China Denmark Finland France Indonesia Japan Kazakhstan Netherlands New Zealand Nigeria Norway Russia South Korea Spain Sweden Ukraine United Kingdom United States

Y

Site Site license Vehicle licensing tied to launch licensed as license part of launch

State

Y Y

Y

Gov’t Gov’t Y Y Y Y

Gov’t Y Y Y

Y Y Y

Y Y

Y Y Y

Y Y

Y Implied Y Y

Y Y

Y Y Y Y

Y Y Y Y

Y

Y Y Y Y

Y

Y

Y Y Y

Y Y

Y Y Y Y

Y Y Y

Operator Extraterritori- Safety Operator licensed as ality is competence part of launch a driver a driver

Table 7.1 Key Elements of Launch Site License and Launch License by Country

Y Y Y

Y Y

Y Y

Y Y Y

Y Y Y

Operator financial responsibility a driver

Y Y

Y

Y

Y Y

Y Y Y Y

Y Y Y

Sanctions levied

188 Spaceport Licensing and Planning Office for Outer Space Affairs online repository of national space laws, and reveals some interesting trends. The countries that perform all launches by the government (China, Japan, Kazakhstan), as well as Canada, who is completely silent on all but one issue – safety, are excluded in Table 7.1. Of the 22 countries listed in Table 7.1, ten (45.4%) addressed site license regulation in their national space laws. Of those ten, three (17% of all countries listed) completely connect launch licensing to site licensing, while five (28%) do so in limited fashion. Also, separating the states performing government launches from those allowing private activities, 72% license the vehicle as part of the launch and the same amount (72%) license the operator with the launch. Safety is the most common value (83%) among the elements, followed by operator financial responsibility (72%), with the same level of incidence for extraterritoriality (72%) and availability of sanctions for violations (72%), and dropping to operator competence at (67%). Safety is a component of facility licenses as well as launch licenses. Although there is no specific treaty mandate regarding safety, the Liability Convention implicates, by necessity, safe activities of a launching state. The launching state is responsible in perpetuity for damage from its space object. The Outer Space Treaty Article VI provides a legal basis for a safety requirement by putting the onus on the state granting the spaceport license to authorize, or endorse, the activities from the facility, and then to continually monitor and supervise. International obligations to conduct space activities safely are implicit in Article IX of the Outer Space Treaty. These activities certainly include launch and reentry. Article IX of the Outer Space Treaty requires avoidance of harmful interference with activities in the peaceful use and exploration of outer space. This obligates states to ensure that the spaceport operators perform operations from their facilities safely, at least with sufficient due diligence expended to reasonably avoid actions that will have adverse effect on the activities of other state parties.

7.3 Spaceport Licensing in the U.S. The commercial space transportation regulations in the U.S. are detailed in Chapter III, Parts 400–460, of Title 14 Code of Federal Regulations (CFR). In particular, licensing and safety requirements for operation of a launch site are specified in Parts 401, 417, and 420. The Commercial Space Launch Act of 1984 authorizes the U.S FAA AST to oversee, authorize, and regulate both launches and reentries of launch and reentry vehicles, and the operation of launch and reentry sites when carried out by U.S. citizens or within the U.S. Guidance on the procedural aspects of the licensing application process is provided in FAA Advisory Circular (AC) 413–1 (FAA 1999), which applies to licensing applications for commercial space launch, reentry, and the operation of a launch or reentry site. The main objective of the licensing process is to ensure that the proposed commercial space launch/reentry activities and launch/reentry sites “will not jeopardize public health and safety, property, the U.S. national security or foreign policy interests, or international obligations of the United States”.7

Spaceport Licensing and Planning

189

As stated earlier, the FAA has developed a four-step application process for launch site license applications: (1.) pre-application consultation, (2.) policy review and approval, (3.) safety review and approval, and (4.) environmental review. After the license is granted, AST monitors the licensee compliance with the Commercial Space Launch Act, the Commercial Space Transportation Licensing Regulations, and the terms and conditions stipulated in its license. Pre-Application Consultation helps the applicant to understand the application process and procedures through meetings and other communications between the applicants and FAA personnel, and to develop a schedule for submitting an application. The pre-application consultation also provides the FAA with an opportunity to gain an understanding of the potential applicant’s proposed operations, and to work together with the applicant to identify and resolve any technical, legal, or policy issues associated with the application. Items considered in the pre-application consultation include environmental assessment, system safety analysis, flight safety analysis, maximum probability loss, air traffic organization/airspace integration, airports, and safety inspection overview. Policy Review and Approval involves multiple government agencies, including the FAA, the Department of Defense (DoD), the Department of State, and the National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA), etc., to review the application to reassure that U.S. national security or foreign policy interests, or U.S. international obligations, are not negatively impacted by the proposal. The FAA will advise applicants, in writing, of issues arising during review that would preclude granting the license. The applicant can then respond in writing with more information or amend the license. It is for these reasons that the incremental application approach is more flexible and creates more transparent, open lines of communication between the FAA and the applicant. Safety Review and Approval is to ensure that the proposed operation can be conducted safely, and that the applicant fully understands the potential hazards associated with the proposed operations. Safety review also include the launch site location review, in which the applicant must demonstrate that launch vehicles can be flown from the proposed launch points safely. Various factors are reviewed for the launch site location review, including its boundaries, flight corridors, and a risk analysis. Information provided with the location review is, inter alia, comprised of maps, launch vehicles type/s and class/es, trajectory data, wind data for each month and percent wind data used in the analysis, populated areas located within flight corridors or impact dispersion areas, estimated casualty expectancy calculated for each populated area within a flight corridor or impact dispersion area, effective casualty areas used in the analysis, and information regarding the presence or absence of the general public from populated areas located within overflight exclusion zones, as well as agreements to evacuate the public during a launch. The risk analysis, also referred to as a quantitative risk assessment (QRA), is integral to the license. It computes the risks to any populated areas located within the flight corridor. The risk analysis includes a total vehicle probability

190 Spaceport Licensing and Planning of failure estimate, an effective casualty area by debris from launch vehicle failure at a particular point on its trajectory, and a population model corresponding to the hazard (debris) area. FAA AC 431.35–1 (FAA 2000) provided an acceptable methodology for estimating the value, or upper limit of the value, of Expected Casualty (Ec) for commercial space launch and reentry missions. The AC was cancelled on March 25, 2013, and replaced by the Flight Safety Analysis Handbook (FAA 2011). The handbook describes a two tier approach: Tier 1, low order estimate of risk, and Tier 2, high order estimate of risk. The Tier 1 approach employs relatively simple means and conservative assumptions to estimate the risks. If the Tier 1 analysis indicates excessive risks, a Tier 2 approach should then be applied, and it also calls for risk mitigations. The Tier 2 approach entails more accurate and sophisticated methods. For example, a Tier 2 analysis would replace simple hazard thresholds with validated vulnerability models (FAA 2011). Tier 2 analysis would include sensitivity analysis under different scenarios.8 The FAA’s concern in evaluating the location site is to assess the safety of the launch point. However, the launch site operator (spaceport operator) bears de minimus responsibility for the safety of flight operations, including significant portions of the ground safety, which are tied to its license. The application needs to include a Letter of Agreement (LoA) with the associated air traffic control authorities. For example, Jacksonville Airport Authority’s LoA for Cecil Spaceport was signed by Jacksonville Center (ZJX), Miami Center (ZMA), Jacksonville Approach Control (JAX), Cecil ATC Tower (VQQ TWR), and Fleet Area Control and Surveillance Facility Jacksonville (FACSFACJAX). The LoA specifies the type of proposed launch vehicle(s), scheduling activities, preflight activity, and postflight activity. Under scheduling activities, the LoA would specify the frequency of space launches and the days of the week and the time of the day if applicable, it may also state specific days (or days of certain events) to avoid, and specify the runway(s) for departures and arrivals. The LoA often also includes a preflight/postflight checklist, and an airspace map of the reusable launch vehicle (RLV) operations area. As required by the U.S. National Environmental Policy Act, Environmental Review examines the environmental impacts of proposed operations and reasonable alternatives to those actions based on the FAA AST Environmental Policy. The spaceport operator’s license includes multiple terms and conditions with which the licensee must comply. For example, the license would require the licensee to develop and implement an accident plan containing procedures for the reporting, response to, and investigation of launch site accidents, and to develop an explosive site plan. The launch operator is required to maintain records until investigations of an accident or incident are completed. The accident plan must pledge cooperation with federal officials and requires the signature of a person authorized to sign and certify the application. Currently, the National Transportation Safety Board (NTSB) does not have explicit statutory jurisdiction over commercial space accidents. It does,

Spaceport Licensing and Planning

191

however, have signed Memoranda of Understanding with the FAA and the United States Air Force (USAF) regarding the investigation of launch accidents, allowing the agency to lead investigations of certain commercial space launch accidents (Wall 2014). The explosive site plan deals with quantity-distance requirements providing minimum separation distances between explosive hazard facilities, surrounding facilities, and areas where the public may be. However, much of the handling of propellants falls within the launch operator’s safety review. Again, the spaceport operator’s concern is geographic or locational safety of the public; the launch operator’s interest is the safety of the launch as it relates to the public. The explosive site plan was initially included in the application requirements but was moved to the subpart of the rule that explains licensing responsibilities. This is because the spaceport operator has an ongoing duty to comply with the plan. Security issues are implicit in the spaceport operator’s license. The FAA will only grant the license if it determines through the policy review process that issuance will not jeopardize foreign policy or national security interests, implicitly involving International Traffic in Arms Regulations’ (ITAR) considerations. The licensee shall utilize security personnel and surveillance systems to prevent unauthorized access to the launch site or any areas of the spaceport deemed hazardous, such as explosive facilities. From a safety perspective, this is different than the explosive site plan. The means of restricting access must be approved as part of the license. Sometimes, the applicant deliberately narrows the scope of planned operations in order to facilitate the initial license. For example, Jacksonville Airport Authority only included the Concept Z launch vehicle in its initial spaceport application for Cecil, even though Cecil’s future plans include Concept X and Concept Y vehicles, as well as horizontal takeoff manned suborbital flights. The spaceport operator may later apply for a license amendment to broaden the scope of their operations.

7.4 Spaceport Master Plan Once the operating license is granted, it is important for the spaceport operators to establish long-term strategy and development goals. A master plan is an integral part of achieving such goals. The master plan provides a comprehensive review and assessment of the spaceport’s capability and capacity with respect to its short-term, medium-term, and long-term development plans to meet the needs of current and future demands. Each individual master plan may have a specific purpose or objective, depending on the particular circumstances. Preparation of a master plan involves collaboration with airports/spaceports’ users/ customers, partners, and other stakeholders. At present, there are NO specific guidelines for spaceports to prepare master plans. Since most of the current commercial spaceports have transitioned from airports, and share many similar characteristics with airports, the basic elements of an airport master plan would apply to spaceports.

192 Spaceport Licensing and Planning There are a number of key guidance documents regarding airport master plans. In the U.S., airports are not required to prepare master plans, but the FAA strongly encourages them to do so, and provides detailed guidance for airports to prepare their master plans in AC 150/5070-6B (FAA 2015). Outside the U.S., many countries generate guidelines for airport master plans based on the International Civil Aviation Organization (ICAO) Airport Planning Manual: Master Planning, Part I (Doc 9184, Part 1), which provides guidance on the airport planning process, airside development, landside development and airport support elements. As defined by ICAO Airport Master Planning Task Force subgroup leader, David Stewart (Stewart 2018): An airport master plan is the airport’s vision of how the ultimate development potential of the airport could be realized. It is a physical representation of an airport’s long-term capital investment/business plan; It will provide an indication of how capacity enhancement may proceed over the short (0–10 year) medium (10–20 year) and long (20+ year) terms. Mr. Stewart also stated that “A master plan indicates how developments are linked to: air traffic type & demand; economic & environmental factors; investment requirements; financial implications & strategies” and that The level of detail in a Master Plan is a function of: the size, issues & opportunities at the airport; Budget considerations include investment so that the decision making process is appropriate & the evolution of the plan adequately reflects local conditions & the special circumstances of its users; National policies & regulations. All the aforementioned would apply to spaceport master plans. The FAA refers to the process of developing or updating an airport’s master plan as master planning studies. FAA AC 150/5070-6B separates master planning studies into Airport Master Plans or Airport Layout Plan (ALP) Updates. As stated in FAA AC 150/5070-6B, an airport master plan generally includes the following elements (FAA 2015, p. 5–6): 1)

2)

Pre-planning – The pre-planning process includes an Initial Needs Determination, Request for Proposal and Consultant Selection, Development of Study Design, Negotiation of Consultant Contract, and Application for Study Funding. Public Involvement – Once the consultant team is under contract and has been issued a notice-to-proceed, establish a public involvement program and identify and document the key issues of various stakeholders.

Spaceport Licensing and Planning 3)

4) 5) 6)

7)

8)

9)

10)

193

Environmental Considerations – A clear understanding of the environmental requirements needed to move forward with each project in the recommended development program. Existing Conditions – An inventory of pertinent data for use in subsequent plan elements. Aviation Forecasts – Forecasts of aeronautical demand for short-, medium-, and long-term time frames. Facility Requirements – Assess the ability of the existing airport, both airside and landside, to support the forecast demand. Identify the demand levels that will trigger the need for facility additions or improvements and estimate the extent of new facilities that may be required to meet that demand. Alternatives Development and Evaluation – Identify options to meet projected facility requirements and alternative configurations for each major component. Assess the expected performance of each alternative against a wide range of evaluation criteria, including its operational, environmental, and financial impacts. A recommended development alternative will emerge from this process and will be further refined in subsequent tasks. This element should aid in developing the purpose and need for subsequent environmental documents. Airport Layout Plans – One of the key products of a master plan is a set of drawings that provides a graphic representation of the long-term development plan for an airport. The primary drawing in this set is the Airport Layout Plan. Other drawings may also be included, depending on the size and complexity of the individual airport Facilities Implementation Plan – Provides a summary description of the recommended improvements and associated costs. The schedule of improvements depends, in large part, on the levels of demand that trigger the need for expansion of existing facilities. Financial Feasibility Analysis – Identify the financial plan for the airport, describe how the sponsor will finance the projects recommended in the master plan, and demonstrate the financial feasibility of the program.

The final master plan generally includes a technical report, a summary report, and a set of drawings of the airport layout plan, as well as public information brochures or presentations. As the State of Florida is home to one of the most active spaceports in the U.S., Cape Canaveral Spaceport (CCS), Florida has specific provisions in the state laws related to master plans for spaceports. Florida Statutes, Chapter 331, Section 360 states: (3) Space Florida shall develop a spaceport master plan for expansion and modernization of space transportation facilities within spaceport territories as defined in s. 331.303. The plan shall contain recommended projects to meet current and future commercial, national, and state space transportation

194 Spaceport Licensing and Planning requirements. Space Florida shall submit the plan to any appropriate metropolitan planning organization for review of intermodal impacts. Space Florida shall submit the spaceport master plan to the Department of Transportation, and such plan may be included within the department’s 5-year work program of qualifying aerospace discretionary capacity improvement under subsection (4). The plan shall identify appropriate funding levels and include recommendations on appropriate sources of revenue that may be developed to contribute to the State Transportation Trust Fund. (4) Subject to the availability of appropriated funds, the department may participate in the capital cost of eligible spaceport discretionary capacity improvement projects. The annual legislative budget request shall be based on the proposed funding requested for approved spaceport discretionary capacity improvement projects. As required under the Florida Statutes, Space Florida (and its predecessor) has published a series of evolving editions of “Cape Canaveral Spaceport Master Plan Space Florida (2017)”, with the most recent edition in January 2017. We observe two essential differences between typical airport master plans and the CCS Master Plan. First, airport master plans are typically updated every 10–15 years. The CCS Master Plan is stated as “a living document requiring continuous adjustments and adaptation of specific strategies and objectives”. Second, airport master plans are typically rather technical and include detailed financial feasibility analysis associated with development plans, whereas the CCS Master Plan is rather general and appears to have incorporated some elements of strategic plans as it maps out the CCS Strategic Vision 2025 and the associated goals. We believe that these differences reflect where the two industries are in their respective life cycles: airports being a mature industry, and spaceports still in their infancy. Incorporating elements of strategic plan into master plans9 does not appear to be unique to Space Florida. Jacksonville Aviation Authority, owner and operator of Cecil Spaceport, published Cecil Spaceport Master Plan in March 2012. As Cecil Spaceport is co-located with Cecil Airport owned by Jacksonville Aviation Authority, Cecil Spaceport Master Plan includes more elements of a typical airport master plan, such as financing and cost estimates associated with development plans. However, it also includes elements of strategic plans similar to those in the CCS Master Plan.

Notes 1 2 3 4

The U.S. Code of Federal Regulation 431 requires the registration of space objects. www.faa.gov/about/office_org/headquarters_offices/ast/ Authority, Organisation and Operations Requirements for Aerodromes. Regardless of whether the European Commission (EC) adopts some form of EASA’s proposal, the jurisdiction of the EU ends wherever it is that outer space begins or an activity is deemed to be a space activity and the State is responsible.

Spaceport Licensing and Planning

195

5 Austrian Federal Law on the Authorisation of Space Activities and the Establishment of a National Space Registry (Austrian Outer Space Act, adopted by the National Council on December 6, 2011, entered into force on December 28, 2011) at §2.1., §3. 6 The Law of the Republic of Kazakhstan on Space Activities defines cosmodromes as “a complex of technical facilities, devices, buildings, constructions and land plots that is intended to provide preparation and implementation of space objects launches”. 7 https://www.faa.gov/licenses_certificates/commercial_space_transportation/. 8 Capristan (2016) presents a safety analysis tool, called the Range Safety Assessment Tool (RSAT), that quantifies the risks to people on the ground due to a space vehicle explosion or breakup. 9 For airports in the U.S., master plan studies are eligible for federal funding through the airport improvement program (AIP), whereas costs associated with developing strategic plans are not eligible for government funding.

References Capristan, F.M. (2016). Advances in Flight Safety Analysis for Commercial Space Transportation, a Dissertation Submitted to the Department of Aeronautics and Astronautics. Stanford, CA: Stanford University, March 2016. FAA. (1999). Advisory Circular 413-1, License Application Procedures, Federal Aviation Administration. Washington, DC: Office of Commercial Space Transportation. FAA. (2000). Advisory Circular 431.35-1, Expected Casualty Calculations for Commercial Space Launch and Re-entry Missions. Washington, DC: Office of Commercial Space Transportation, August 2000. FAA. (2011). Flight Safety Analysis Handbook Version 1.0. Washington, DC: Office of Commercial Space, September 2011. FAA. (2015). Advisory Circular 150/5070-6B - Airport Master Plan, Federal Aviation Administration. Washington, DC: Office of Airport Planning & Programming. Howard, D. (2014). The Emergence of an Effective National and International Spaceport Regime of Law, Dissertation, Institute of Air and Space Law, McGill University, Montreal, Canada. Copyright by D. Howard. Mineiro, M.C. (2008). ‘Law and Regulation Governing U.S. Commercial Spaceports: Licensing, liability, and legal challenges,’ Journal of Air Law and Commerce, Vol. 73, No. 4, pp. 759–805. Roberts, T.G. (2019). Spaceports of the World. Washington, DC: Center for Strategic & International Studies, March 2019. Schrögl, K.-U. (1999), ‘Is the legal concept of “launching State” still adequate?’ International Organisations and Space Law, Proceedings of the Third ECSL Colloquium, Perugia, Italy, 6–7 May 1999. Edited by R.A. Harris, pp. 327–329. Space Florida. (2017). Cape Canaveral Spaceport Master Plan. Exploration Park, FL, January 2017. Stewart, D. (2018), Airport Master Planning – Process & Update, presented at ICAO Airport Planning Seminar for the SAM Region, Lima, Peru, 10–14 September 2018. United Nations. (1967). Treaty on Principles Governing the Activities of States in the Exploration and Use of Outer Space, Including the Moon and Other Celestial Bodies. New York: Committee on the Peaceful Uses of Outer Space. United Nations. (1972). Convention on International Liability for Damage Caused by Space Objects. New York: Outer Space Affairs Division of Department of Political and Security Council Affairs, United Nations.

196 Spaceport Licensing and Planning United Nations (1974). Convention on Registration of Objects Launched into Outer Space, New York. Vlasic, I.A. (1967). ‘Space treaty: A preliminary evaluation,’ The California Law Review, Vol. 55, No. 2, pp. 507–519. Von der Dunk, F.G. (2011). The Origins of Authorisation: Article VI of the Outer Space Treaty and International Space Law, in National Space Legislation in Europe: Issues of Authorisation of Private Space Activities in the Light of Developments in European Space Cooperation. In ed. F. von der Dunk, Studies in Space Law, vol. 6, pp. 3–28. Leiden: Nijhoff, Chapter 1. Wall, M. (2014). ‘NTSB Begins Investigation of Virgin Galactic Spaceship Crash,’ Space. com, 1 November 2014. Available at: www.space.com/27631-virgin-galactic-crash-inves tigation-begins.html (Accessed: 9 November 2019).

8

Future of Commercial Spaceports

The future for commercial spaceports is wide open even as we grapple with its challenges: airspace integration of aircraft and launch vehicles, air and space traffic management, political disagreements, regulations, infrastructure needs, changing business models, risk, etc. The list goes on. But the rewards are many. Commercial space transportation is becoming more affordable and accessible. Efforts to bring down space launch costs through the development of reusable and more efficient launch vehicles have already started to bear fruit, as evidenced by the successful landings and reuse of SpaceX rockets and those of Blue Origin, as well. Several nation-states are also looking toward reusability as their next game-changer. Furthermore, dedicated launch vehicles for the small satellite markets are emerging as a viable avenue for a wider range of customers at significantly lower costs, creating new opportunities for businesses, research, and education. Space tourism, once thought insurmountable, is closer to reality. The gateway to Mars via the Moon is planned and countries around the world recognize that a new space race is occurring. Inevitably, we expect to see a monumental expansion of commercial space launch activities in the coming decades, propelling the growth of commercial spaceports. With that backdrop, in this chapter we review economic projections and national efforts, identify planned developments of future spaceports, new technologies that will drive change, and then discuss our visions for the future of commercial spaceports.

8.1 Global Economic Projections and Space Activity The global space economy, including both private industry revenues and government budgets, grew 7.4% in 2017, reaching a total of $383.5 billion. Revenues from commercial space sectors totaled $307.32 billion, representing 80.1% of all global economic activity in space, while global government spending increased 4.8%, totaling $76.2 billion. In 2016, commercial infrastructure and support industries accounted for $126.26 billion, a large portion of the total global space activity. This includes hardware and services for development, launch, and operation of space infrastructure assets, including ground equipment, and manufacturing, among other areas (Space Foundation 2018).

198 Future of Commercial Spaceports More importantly, the global space economy projected growth at a compound annual growth rate is 5.6%, leading to a forecasted value of $558 billion by 2026. By 2030, the economic value is projected to be $805 billion with space tourism accounting for $3 billion and high-speed travel via space $20 billion annually (Sheetz 2019). While the United States (U.S.) will continue to increase commercial space activities, what roles do major players in Europe and Asia play? There is a mix in terms of budget and activities. France and Germany increased their space spending by more than 10%, yet other national budgets declined (Space Foundation 2018). At the same time, some countries began to ramp up other areas of their commercial and government space activities, such as that seen with the 2018 commencement of the Australian Space Agency and other activity in the Middle East. While the U.S. commercial space industry is in a rapid growth period in spite of setbacks, the Russian space industry has been plagued with several launch failures, quality control issues, and supply chain management challenges leading to a decline in the number of annual launches. To meet these issues head on, Russia has restructured the state corporations and other institutions under the Russian Federal Space Agency (Roscosmos) (United States Federal Aviation Administration 2018). It is clear that while Russia has had challenges, the U.S., as well as other countries, continues to rely on Russia for reliable and safe astronaut transport to the International Space Station (ISS). Their time-proven design and technological capabilities endure. Europe’s Arianespace continues to offer unwavering and dependable launch services with the Ariane 5, Soyuz, and Vega C launch vehicles, while Japan’s Mitsubishi Heavy Industries (MHI) sells launch services with H-H-IIA/B, and India’s Indian Space Research Organization (ISRO) provides launch services via its Polar Satellite Launch Vehicle (PSLV). To that end, in 2017, the most frequently purchased launch vehicles for satellite deployment included Ariane 5, Proton-M (launched by International Launch Services (ILS)), and the Falcon 9 by SpaceX (United States Federal Aviation Administration 2018). Currently, Russia, China, the U.S., Europe, India, and Japan lead the world in launch activities, but others are increasing their activity. The number of orbital launches by China has increased each year since 2010. Moreover, since 2015, China has aggressively worked toward viable new launch vehicles and developed a new spaceport on Hainan Island (United States Federal Aviation Administration 2018), located in the nation’s southernmost point. Meanwhile, Israel’s attempt to land on the Moon with the Beresheet spacecraft, built by SpaceIL and Israel Aerospace Industries (IAI), failed, yet it was the first privately funded spacecraft in Israel and came within 490 feet of the Moon’s surface before crashing. The near success is a testament to the advancing capabilities of countries around the world and the increasing attention to commercial space. India is also becoming more and more of a dominant player in the space industry, with the successful landing of Chandrayaan-2 on the Moon in 2019; the mission included data gathering from the Moon’s South Pole. Japan is to

Future of Commercial Spaceports 199 follow with an unmanned Moon landing planned for 2021. As such, in spite of the mix of successes and failures, there clearly is incredible growth and potential of global space activities, both government funded and commercially funded. With increased attention to space, it should go without saying that peaceful use of space is paramount, along with the recognition that space debris is and will be a concern that needs to be dealt with.

8.2 Commercial Spaceports: Proposed and Under Development For those countries that have had longtime involvement in space activities, particularly launch activities, long-standing spaceports based on aging infrastructure from the 1960s and 1970s will need modernization to meet the new complex technologies and capabilities of today’s launch service providers, as well as those of tomorrow. Landing pads never imagined even 20 years ago, are now becoming a competitive necessity in order to meet the vertical landing landscape. Airports, looking for expanded economic streams, are analyzing the space industry for potential positive impact, reviewing their current infrastructure and operations, and envisioning the air and spaceport of tomorrow. Greenfield commercial spaceports have commenced and are operational in the U.S. While Spaceport America was one of the first greenfield private spaceports, Blue Origin and SpaceX now sport their own. Hence, the world has seen, and will continue to see, legacy spaceports modernized, airports reinvented to air and space ports, and completely new spaceports developed from the ground. Read the news and there are any number of commercial spaceports in various stages of proposal, whether real or a dream, and also in development. Malaysia and Curaçao are two countries that saw the immediate benefits that commercial spaceports can bring and began the steps toward development several years ago. Others began to follow suit: the United Kingdom (U.K.), Canada, Italy, and Portugal are in various stages of proposal, working with governments, regulatory agencies, local authorities, and communities to make their visions come to fruition. Each country is approaching spaceports with a different vision in mind, keeping in mind their country’s needs as well as what the future may bring. Table 8.1 highlights many of the proposed spaceports that are being considered or are in various stages of development. Clearly, the majority of the proposed spaceports are for horizontal takeoff and landing (HTOL) and many are proposed as expansions to current airports that are operating as commercial and/or general aviation airports. We anticipate this trend to continue in the U.S. and throughout the world. Virgin Galactic is a driving force, particularly for HTOL and space tourism, as Sir Richard Branson sets up agreement after agreement to enable his plans for this sector to be a viable reality in the near future. Point-to-point travel which includes a suborbital trajectory apogee without a full Earth orbit will thrill space travel enthusiasts, while allowing fast travel around the world. While Spaceport America in the U.S. may be the hub, Richard Branson plans to fly to the United

200 Future of Commercial Spaceports Table 8.1 Commercial Spaceports Proposed or In Development as of 2018 Country

Spaceport Name

Type of Operations

Status

Canada

Canso Spaceport, Nova Scotia Caribbean Spaceport Grottaglie Spaceport Spaceport Malaysia Schiphol Spaceport at Amsterdam Airport Schiphol Not yet named, Azores Al Ain Airport/Spaceport Abu Dhabi Glasgow Prestwick Airport Cornwall Spaceport Sutherland Space Hub Manassas Regional Airport, Virginia Space Coast Regional Spaceport, Florida Spaceport Hawaii, Hawaii Roosevelt Roads Spaceport, Puerto Rico Camden County, Georgia SpaceX Launch Site (Private)

VTO

Proposed

HTOL HTOL HTOL/VTOL HTOL

In development Proposed In development Proposed

VTO HTOL

Proposed Proposed

HTOL

Proposed

HTOL VTO HTOL

Proposed Proposed Proposed

HTOL

Proposed

VTO

Proposed

HTOL

Proposed

VTO VTOL

Proposed In development

Curaçao Italy Malaysia Netherlands

Portugal U.A.E. United Kingdom

U.S.

Sources: e.g., Space Foundation (2018); United States Federal Aviation Administration (2018)

Arab Emirates (U.A.E.), the U.K., Italy, and other nation-states with spaceports that can accommodate his reusable launch vehicle (RLV) and carrier aircraft, and where sufficient participant demand is forecasted Additionally, Airbus and other companies, seeking infrastructure for their HTOL concepts, are working with possible spaceport site representatives to help create the infrastructure to fulfill industry and demand needs. Vertical launch facilities are also being proposed for new spaceports around the world. Canada, Portugal, the U.K., and areas in the U.S. where vertical launches are feasible are being considered. Many of these are striving to fill the anticipated market gap for infrastructure to support small satellite launches. We also anticipate that more private spaceports will be proposed and developed by

Future of Commercial Spaceports 201 private companies. These facilities allow research and development and testing of launch vehicles to proceed without the costly use of government facilities and other restrictions attached to using public resources. Further, companies such as Rocket Lab have newly established launch sites outside of the U.S. – another trend we expect to continue as private companies look outside their home country base for cost savings and ease of operations.

8.3 Technology as a Continued Driver As stated in earlier chapters of this book, launch vehicle, propellant, and payload drive the spaceport requirements; technology underpinning all three. Technology will continue to be a major driver in spaceport development, need, and capabilities. This drive stems from the ever-advancing state-of-the-art innovation, as well as the need to reduce launch costs. Many in the space industry are recognizing the need for standardization with their designs built around commonly used propellants. For example, launch vehicle developers are finding that less exotic propellants are “getting the job done”. Many of these common propellants have been the mainstay of launches for the past 50 years, such as RP-1 kerosene. Not only are these propellants more readily available at spaceports, they are also commonly available at airports (RP-1 is similar to the commodity Jet A fuel). With the use of more common propellants, launch of new space vehicles will move quickly into the norm. The pushback on common propellants is the recognized need for more sustainable options for propulsion. As discussed earlier, further research and development into green fuels is making headway, particularly for satellites. AF-M315E is a hydroxyl ammonium nitrate propellant blend being developed at Ball Aerospace, Inc. as a replacement for hydrazine (Button 2017). Sweden is developing the green propellant, ammonium dinitramide, considered more hazardous than AF-M315E, but less expensive than hydrazine (Whitmore and Bulcher 2017). As these systems become more prevalent, satellite propellant storage needs at spaceports will change as a result. Finally, with respect to propulsion technology advancements, nuclear propulsion spacecraft will continue to grow in development and number. Handling requirements and other implications for spaceports will need to be addressed. Other technological areas of advancement include additive manufacturing (3D printing). Space enthusiasts recognize that 3D printing will be fundamental to creating habitats and other infrastructure on the Moon and at additional destinations. It has been noted that the ability to print 3D in space will allow a decrease in the amount of cargo and, subsequently, the added weight that rockets must be able to lift off and carry. Further, testing with various rocket parts, including combustion chambers, manufactured via 3D printing are being undertaken by many, including the National Aeronautics

202 Future of Commercial Spaceports and Space Administration (NASA) and Virgin Orbit (Rowe 2019). 3D printing may also be beneficial at spaceports where a noncritical element can be readily replaced in a short period of time should supply be lacking. For additive manufacturing, its uses are many and, perhaps, not yet fully realized. We believe, however, that it will play a role in the spaceports of tomorrow, either directly or indirectly, as suggested above. With respect to telecommunications, 5G wireless communication is upon us, supported by new communication satellite constellations. Whether it be launching these satellites from spaceports or the spaceport wireless communications on the grounds, 5G and future generations of wireless communication will impact spaceports. Communications with augmented reality (AR) or virtual reality (VR) are a possibility. Moreover, astronaut, passenger, and participant training using AR or VR may occur at the spaceport. As such, future spaceports will need to support such training with proper facilities, infrastructure, and operations.

8.4 The Spaceport of the Future The need for both government and commercial spaceports will continue to grow. The fully integrated multiuser spaceport of the future, shown in Figure 8.1 as envisioned by NASA, may need to accommodate government, military, and civilian operations; vertical and horizontal activities; processing, integration, and launch operations for destinations to other planets, asteroids, and the Moon, as well as point-to-point travel to destinations on Earth; return/landing pads; airport infrastructure, and both air travel and space travel with a variety of aircraft, spacecraft, launch vehicles, and payloads, as well as cargo.

Figure 8.1 The Spaceport of Tomorrow as Envisioned by NASA. Source: NASA 2011

Future of Commercial Spaceports 203 Foreseen by many air and space port champions are terminals and gates where passengers and participants can either board an aircraft or a craft launching to space. Visibly, the air and space business models chosen are highly dependent on challenges, issues, and matters discussed in this book, but may take on an integrated tone similar to airports today where type and size of space vehicle will play a significant role. Spaceports do not operate in a vacuum but in a complex ecosystem, and are part of a much larger multifaceted network requiring coordination and collaboration between all parties involved. Additionally, as aforementioned, more and more airports are looking toward space as an expansion to their operations and as a new economic driver. Finally, spaceports will begin to develop on other planets and celestial bodies. Many countries are focusing on lunar landings and visions of spaceports, not on Earth, are beginning to take shape. Earlier in the book we visited spaceport infrastructure and operations (see Chapter 4) and defined the key components of the air and space port, repeated in Figure 8.2. The integrated air and space port will need to support the elements shown, but like airports of today, many variables are taken into consideration, including the choice of what aircrafts, launch vehicles, payloads, and processing/integration needs, etc. to support will dictate the infrastructure elements that are needed. There likely will not be a “one-size-fits-all” commercial air and space port as is already apparent in the spaceports of yesterday, today, and planned for tomorrow. Throughout this book, we have examined various factors that impact spaceports that are not apparent in Figure 8.2, such as: • • • • •

implications for air traffic control and integration of commercial space into the national airspace; legislation and licensing of spaceports and launch activities; some unique characteristics and requirements of launch concepts and vehicles, payloads, and propulsions systems that impact spaceport infrastructure; economic impacts and additional challenges and issues for airlines, airports, the local community, the environment, and other stakeholders; changes to the way we do business in terms of business models, partnerships, and investments.

Weaved throughout is the element of risk: international, national, regional, local, business, financial, environmental, and personal. Further, the growing pains of commercial space are palpable no matter where they are occurring: •

disagreements between nation-states on commercial involvement and the Outer Space Treaty, but also extraordinary collaborations among nationstates as well as the competition;

Mission and Launch Control Centers

Test and Training Facilities

Shipping and Receiving

Parking Facilities, Port Facilities, Rail Terminals, Taxi Areas, Loading Areas

Figure 8.2 Main Components of an Air and Space Port.

Maintenance and Storage Hangars

Office Space

Air and Space Port Components

Security Perimeter

SRB Storage

Passenger/ Participant/ Astronaut/ Crew and Baggage Processing

Terminal

Hazmat Storage

Payload Processing and Storage with Clean Rooms

Vehicle and Payload Telemetry

Passenger/ Participant/ Astronaut/ Crew Waiting and Loading

Fiber Optic Communications Network

LOX Storage

Fire and Rescue

Liquid Fuel Storage

Runways

Landing Pads

Launchpads T a x i w a y s & r a m p s

Gate

Launch Vehicle Integration and Processing with Clean Rooms

S E C U R I T Y

Fuel and Propellant Loading

Liquid Propellant Storage

Future of Commercial Spaceports 205 •

• • • • • • • • • •

changing federal statutes, treaties, regulations, policies, plans, and procedures as necessary to facilitate commercial development while maintaining integrity, foreign policy interests, national security, public health and safety, safety of property; sector and industry concerns, including those of the space community and the other stakeholders of Earth and space, including the aviation sector; balancing government space budgets with immediate needs of the country; space labor workforce – what talents are needed, where, and when; environmental impacts of space activities on Earth and in space, particularly as space crowds with objects and space debris increases; air traffic management and space traffic management – domestic and international agreement; air and space integration for safe and efficient operations; technological innovation in advance of regulation; new regulation consideration within countries and internationally, such as certification for vehicles, crew, spaceports, etc.; new airspace rules; government organizational structures – what institution controls what aspect of space; military’s involvement in space and implications for the commercial sector.

In this book we introduced readers to a broad range of topics through case studies, literature reviews, and database research analysis, broadened and made richer through the authors’ personal experiences and expertise, as well as close involvement with the subject matter. We have provided in-depth analysis of the benefits, challenges, and issues facing commercial spaceports and stakeholders, using the U.S. as a foundational example, but broadened with application to the international community. As the Outer Space Treaty states so eloquently yet succinctly, space is for everyone. The tasks that lie ahead for nations and the space sector are daunting, but neither can move forward without viable spaceports to support the efforts. Although the challenges are many, the future is also full of promise as we launch on the runways to space.

References Button, K. (2017). ‘Green propellant.’ Aerospace America. Available at: https://aerospacea merica.aiaa.org/features/green-propellant/ (Accessed: 2 August 2018). Rowe, J. (2019). NASA and Virgin Orbit 3D Print, Test Rocket Combustion Chamber. Available at: www.nasa.gov/centers/marshall/news/news/releases/2019/nasa-and-virginorbit-3d-print-test-rocket-combustion-chamber.html (Accessed: 31 October 2019). Sheetz, M. (2019). ‘Super fast travel using outer space could be $20 billion market, disrupting airlines, UBS predicts,’ CNBC. Available at: www.cnbc.com/2019/03/18/ubs-space-traveland-space-tourism-a-23-billion-business-in-a-decade.html (Accessed: 26 May 2019). Space Foundation. (2018). The Space Report: The Authoritative Guide to Global Space Activity. Washington, DC: The Space Foundation.

206 Future of Commercial Spaceports United States Federal Aviation Administration. (2018). The Annual Compendium of Commercial Space Transportation: 2018. Publication produced for FAA Office of Commercial Space Transportation (AST) by Bryce Space and Technology, January 2018. Whitmore, S.A. and Bulcher, A.M. (2017) ‘Vacuum Test of a Novel Green-Propellant Thruster for Small Spacecraft,’ In: 53rd AIAA/SAE/ASEE Joint Propulsion Conference. 53rd AIAA/SAE/ASEE Joint Propulsion Conference, Atlanta, GA: American Institute of Aeronautics and Astronautics. doi: 10.2514/6.2017-5044.

Index

Entries in bold indicate tables; those in italic indicate figures. 3D printing 129, 201–202 4D Compact Envelopes procedure 169 5G wireless communication 202 ABL Space Systems 144 abort landing sites 17, 107 accidents 20, 173–180, 190 Aeolus satellite 48 Aerodrome Reference Codes 149 aerodromes 183, 185 aeronautics 6 Aerospace 117 Aerozine-50 58 Aevum 135 aging infrastructure 110, 199 Air Force Javelins 31, 32 Air Line Pilots Association (ALPA) 168, 170 air navigation service provider (ANSP) 14, 15, 16, 17–19 air quality 109, 171, 173 air traffic control (ATC) 14–17, 24, 98, 99, 105–108, 168–169, 190, 205 Air Traffic Organization (ATO) 14, 15, 16, 18, 24 airborne launches 23–25 Airbus 34, 37, 200 air-conditioning 93, 94 Aircraft Owners and Pilots Association (AOPA) 170 Airlines for America 12 Airport and Airway Development Act of 1970 5 Airport and Airway Trust Fund (AATF) 150 Airport Council International (ACI) 147 Airport Improvement Program (AIP) 150 airports: air and space ports 129–140, 202–205; and airspace access 13;

compared to spaceports 98; history of 4–5; legislation 185; lessons from 147–149; master planning 192; spaceports used as 119 airspace access 11–27, 105–108, 132, 167–170, 205 air-space boundary 23, 31, 36, 37 Alabama (United Space Boosters, Inc.) 75 Alaska - Pacific Spaceport Complex 2, 117, 119, 140–142, 146, 166, 167 Alaska Aerospace Corporation (AAC) 140, 166 Alcântara, Centro De Lançamento de 114 Allahdadi, F.A. 173, 180 Allen, Paul 131 Alonso, J.J. 168 Alpha 46 Altitude Reservation (ALTRV) 17 aluminum powder 55 ammonium dinitramide 59, 201 Andøya Rocket Range in Norway 31 Angara 45 angel investors 149 Ansari XPRIZE 131 Antares 43, 46, 52, 124, 125, 145, 176–177 anti-satellite missile tests 62 Apollo 110, 126 ARCA Space 46 Ariane 43, 45, 47, 52, 57, 126, 198 Arianespace 102, 115, 198 Arion 2 35, 46 Arrowhead Center 165 artificial satellites 29 AST (Office of Commercial Space Transportation) 2, 8, 17–18, 30, 31, 36, 184 AST & Science 116, 137–138

208 Index Astra Space 141 astronautic speeds 23 Athena 126 Atlantis Space Shuttle 94, 96, 102, 103 Atlas rockets 43, 46, 53, 102, 103, 122, 129 Atmospheric Laboratory for Applications and Science (ATLAS-3) 102, 103 augmented reality (AR) 202 Aurora Launch Services 146 Australia 1, 4, 115, 184, 187, 198 Austria 185, 187 automated flight processes 40 auxiliary power unit (APU) 50 Avgas 48, 102 aviation, impact on commercial 167–170 aviation fuel 48, 102 aviation law 183 aviation route charges 19 Azercosmos 115 backup landing sites 92 BAE Systems 157 Baikonur Cosmodrome 186 Ball Aerospace 59, 201 balloons 24, 35, 39 bank funding 150 BBRED 165 Beresheet spacecraft 198 Berger, E. 172 Bergin, C. 81 bipropellant engines 50–51 bistate partnerships, shift towards 2 Black Arrow 2 46, 57 Blaine, J.C.D. 4, 5 Bloostar 46 Blue Origin 34, 39, 46, 47, 57, 114, 116, 127–128, 199 BlueWalker 137 Boeing 42, 43, 46, 114, 118 Boeing for DARPA 35, 42 bond issues 140, 143 boosters 40 Branson, Richard 143, 199 Brazil 114, 115 Breurer, M. 2 Bryce 149–150 buffer zones 168 build-operate-transfer (BOT) 154 build-own-operate-transfer (BOOT) 154 Bulcher, A.M. 59, 201 business and financial management 113–163 business models 119–149 Button, K. 59, 201

Cab-3A 46 California Commercial Spaceport, Incorporated (CCSI). 121 California Spaceport at Vandenberg Air Force Base 2–4, 119, 120–123 Camden 165, 200 cameras 86, 89 Canada 122, 187, 199, 200 Canaveral National Seashore 172 cancellation of launch, procedures 104–105 Canon/JAXA 45 Cape Canaveral Air Force Station (CCAFS) 2, 53, 71, 77, 78, 91, 97, 113, 116, 126, 128, 129, 155, 156, 166, 168 Cape Canaveral Spaceport (CCS): business and financial management 116, 119, 126–129; co-located with federal facilities 4; economic impact studies 166, 170; and the Florida “space coast” 166; landing pads 105; licenses 2; master planning 193–194; operating a commercial spaceport 144–145; projected launches 22; SRV configurations 39; strategic intermodal system (SIS) 151 capsule reentry models 21 cargo transport 43, 59–60, 98, 101, 118 carrier aircraft 36–37, 39, 107, 169, 171 CASSIOPE Satellite 122 catalysts 51 catalytic impacts 164 Cecil Spaceport, Jacksonville 4, 39, 107–108, 113, 116, 119, 133–135, 165, 169, 190, 194 Centaur 57 Central Data Subsystem (CDS) 89 Centro De Lançamento de Alcântara 114 Challenger Learning Centers 140 Challenger Space Shuttle 95, 120, 173–176 Checkout, Control and Monitor Subsystem (CCMS) 89 checkout phase 102 Chicago Convention (Convention on International Civil Aviation) 26, 185 China: accidents 179; business models 120; commercial launch providers 115; expendable launch vehicle (ELV) 43–45; fairing attachment 102; future of commercial spaceports 198; legislation 185, 187; Long March 42, 43, 44, 45, 179; payloads 62; propellants 57, 59, 60, 62

Index China Aerospace Science and Technology Corporation (CASC) 42, 43, 44 China Great Wall Industry Corporation (CGWIC) 44 China National Space Administration (CNSA) 44 Civil Aeronautics Act of 1938 5, 6–7 Civil Aeronautics Authority 14 civil-military cooperation 13, 14–15, 19, 43 classified missions 125 clean rooms 87, 94 cleaning facilities 77, 87 cleanliness 101 cleanup post-launch 172 Code of Federal Regulations 2, 129, 188 collaborative working 154–155 Colombia Space Shuttle 20, 23, 41, 95, 106, 168, 173, 175, 178 Colorado Air and Space Port at Front Range, Denver, C.O. 39, 116 Colvin, T.J. 168 commercial customers of spaceports 114–117 Commercial Resupply Services (CRS) 167 Commercial Space Launch Act of 1984 8, 12, 17, 183, 188, 189 Commercial Space Transportation Licensing Regulations 189 Committee for the Peaceful Uses of Outer Space (COPUOS) 19 communications networks 98, 108, 202 community impacts 170–172 competitive tendering 135 Concept X 36–37, 38, 39, 135, 191 Concept Y 37, 38, 39, 191 Concept Z 36–37, 38, 39, 105, 106, 107, 135, 191 concessions 154 Concorde 23 Congress 6 contingency plans 92 controlled airspace 16–17, 106 controlled reusables 21 Convention on International Civil Aviation (Chicago Convention) 26, 185 Cosmic Girl 171 cosmodromes 17 countdowns 89 Crew Dragon 42, 128, 178–179 crew facilities 40, 70, 73, 77, 94 crew training 97 crew transport 43, 62, 117–118, 198

209

critical systems 77 cryogenic propellants 51, 55, 56, 57, 86, 104, 174 CubeCab 46, 47 CubeSats 64–65, 66, 125 Curaçao 199, 200 customer facilities 94, 98, 99 customers of spaceports, key 114–119 Cygnus 176 Dallas Fort Worth airport 7 DARPA 35, 42 De Gregorio, Zach 166 debris 20, 23, 106, 107, 168, 171, 173–176 Debus, Kurt 2 Defense Meteorological Satellite Program 122 defense space as customer 11 definitions of spaceports 1–4, 17 deflectors 86 dehumidifiers 94 Delta rockets 43, 46, 52, 54, 62, 63, 64, 121, 122–123, 129 Department of Commerce 14 Department of Defense (DOD) 2, 7–8, 189 Department of Transportation (DOT) 6, 8, 184 deplaning 105 desert locations 131 design-build-operate (DBO) 154 design-build-operate-maintain (DBOM) 154 Dietlein, I. 40 Discovery Space Shuttle 95 Diver Operated Plugs (DOP) 91 divestitures 154 DLR (German Aerospace Center) 31, 32, 34, 40 Dnepr 45 Dream Chaser 39, 42, 43, 43, 138 drones 125 drop zones 179 economic impacts 164–167 ecosystem damage 172–173 Edwards, T. 48, 102 Edwards Air Force Base, California 92, 93, 116, 129, 131 efficiency 14, 19, 26 electric propulsion system 59 electromagnetic interference (EMI) 171 Electron 46, 125

210 Index Ellington Airport, Texas 4, 39, 116, 119, 138–140, 166 Ellis, R.E. 106, 107 emergency medical services 98 emergency systems 87, 92, 184 emergency training 97 employment 164, 166 Endeavor Space Shuttle 96 entrepreneurialism 118 environmental issues: air quality 109, 171, 173; environmental justice 109; environmental reviews 190; green fuels 59; impacts of spaceports 172–173; local flora and fauna impacts 170, 173; master planning 193; noise 108–109, 170, 171; pollution 109, 170, 171, 173, 174, 179; propellants 56, 104, 201; in space 205; supersonic transport 13; water 109 environmentally controlled storage 72, 79, 101 Epsilon 45 Esrange Space Center in Sweden 32 EU Space Programme 185 Eurocontrol 18 European Aviation Safety Agency (EASA) 185 European Space Agency (ESA) 34, 43, 47, 48, 57, 115, 185, 198 evacuation systems 87 Exos Aerospace 144 expendable launch vehicle (ELV) 30, 43–48, 72, 94 Experimental Spaceplane (XS-1) 35, 42 Exploration Park 127, 128, 156 Explorer IX 123 explosive site plans 191 explosive-proof components 89 FACET software 168 Fair, M. 7 fairings 64, 72, 73, 102 Falcon Heavy 62, 63, 128, 149, 168 Falcon rockets 31, 42, 43, 46, 54, 97, 122, 128, 149, 168, 198 Federal Air Regulations (FARs) 16 Federal Airport Act of 1946 5 Federal Aviation Administration (FAA): and airspace access 14–15; classifications of spacecraft 28, 39; economic impact studies 165; Flight Safety Analysis Handbook (FAA, 2011) 179, 190; forecasts of launches 22; horizontal takeoff and landing (HTOL)

33–34; incentive programs 150; licenses 39, 131, 137, 141, 183, 188–191; master planning 192; Notice of Proposed Rulemaking for the Streamlined Launch and Reentry Licensing Requirements 170; Office of Commercial Space Transportation 6, 8; operating certificates 149; regulatory authorities 17–18, 105–106, 107, 109, 121; spaceport definitions 2, 4; standards 24 Federal Emergency Management Agency 176 federal range airspace 15–16 fees and charges 137, 144–145, 148, 149 fences 87 fiber-optic communications 108 financial management 113–163, 193 Finger, G.W. 36, 37, 38, 104, 129, 153 fire protection systems 77, 86–87 Fire Scout 145 Firefly Aerospace 46, 116, 123, 156 5G wireless communication 202 fixed service structures (FSS) 87 flame trenches 87 Flight Control Rooms (FCR) 89 Flight Safety Analysis Handbook (FAA, 2011) 179, 190 Flight Safety International (FSI) 140 Flight Test Aerospace 131 Florida Space Authority 165 Florida Spaceport System Plan 2018 149 forecasts of launches 22, 193 4D Compact Envelopes procedure 169 Foust, J. 125, 129, 141, 166 France 45, 60, 102, 187, 198 French Guiana 47, 48, 51, 120, 126 fuel 30, 31, 36, 48–59, 72, 98; see also oxidizers; propellants funding and financial incentives 149–151, 171 Futron 105, 106, 165 Galileo satellites 47 gasoline 48, 102 gate-to-gate distances 105 Generation Orbit 46, 116 Gent, E. 38 George C. Marshal Space Flight Center, Huntsville 76 German Aerospace Center (DLR) 31, 32, 34, 40 Germany 198 Glasgow Prestwick Spaceport 157, 200

Index glider stops 23, 36, 37, 38, 92, 107 global economy 5–6, 197–199 global inter-operability 8 global space economy 197–199 Goddard Space Flight Center, Greenbelt, Maryland 76 GOLauncher 35, 46 Gonzales, E.A.Z. 168 Gore Sr., Senator 1 government customers of spaceports 117–118 government investment 150 government-owned spaceports 114 Granath, B. 104 green fuels 59 green propellants 201 greenfield spaceports 105, 113, 119, 140–144, 153, 154, 156, 165, 199 greenhouse gas emissions 109 Ground and Space Networks 89 ground-based infrastructure 28–69 Gulliver, B. 36, 37, 38, 104, 129, 153 Haas 2C 46 Hainan Island 185, 198 Harbaugh, J. 155 Harris Corporation 117 Harris Spaceport Systems 120 Hawaii 115, 117, 200 hazard, being treated as a 17, 18, 20 hazard zones 167, 168, 169, 171, 179, 190 hazmat suits 110 heating, ventilation, and air-conditioning (HVAC) 77, 101 helium 39–40, 72, 102–103 Henry, C. 97 high seas airspace 19 Highlands and Island Enterprise 150 history of spaceports 2, 4–8 Horizon Space Technologies 46 horizontal launch/return: airspace access 21–23, 30; commercial launch providers 114; Concept X and Concept Z 36; economic impact studies 169; former military bases 105; future of commercial spaceports 199–200; international development 34, 38; key elements of a spaceport 72; processing facilities 104–105; rocket power 37; suborbital reusable vehicles (SRV) 33–39 Houston Spaceport at Ellington 4, 39, 116, 119, 138–140, 166 Howard, D. 185

211

Howell, E. 37 Hughwey, E.W. 1 Hutton, G. 150 hydrazine 50, 55, 58, 59, 201 hydrazine/nitrogen tetroxide 50 hydrogen 56, 72, 86, 94 hydroplaning 93 hydroxl-terminated polybutadiene (HTPB) 55, 57–58 hydroxyl ammonium nitrate propellant 59, 201 hypergolic propellants 55, 86, 179 hypersonic passenger craft 40 hypersonic suborbital point-to-point transport 20, 21–23, 40 IATA 13 in-air launches 1 indefinite delivery, indefinite quantity (IDIQ) contracts 122 India: business models 120; commercial launch providers 114, 115; expendable launch vehicle (ELV) 45; future of commercial spaceports 198–199; Indian Space Research Organization (ISRO) 31, 32, 34, 43, 49, 198; payloads 62; propellants 60; Satish Dhawan Space Centre 49, 114, 115, 120, 137 indirect impacts 164, 166 inhabited areas, overflying 22, 106 Inhoff, Jim 133 Instrument Flight Rules (IFR) 16 instrumentation data 89 INTA-CEDEA, Seville 32 integration 5–6, 20–25, 73, 97, 203, 204 intellectual property 144 interagency coordination 6 Intermediate eXperimental Vehicle (IEV) 34 intermodal connections 5–7, 70–112 international agreements 155 international barriers 158 international boundaries 152 International Civil Aviation Organization (ICAO) 18, 19, 24, 26, 149, 192 International Launch Services 198 International Space Station (ISS) 29, 43, 117–118, 124, 125, 168, 198 International Traffic in Arms Regulation (ITAR) 191 international treaties 26, 183, 203; see also UN (United Nations) Interorbital Systems 131, 157

212 Index Interstate Commerce Commission (ICC) 7 Intrepid 46 Intuitive Machines 140 investment 4, 149–151 Iran 45, 60, 115 Iridium Communications Inc 122 Iridium NEXT 122 Iridium satellites 120–121 ISO standards 101–102 Israel 45, 60, 62, 115, 198 IT infrastructure 98, 108 Italy 114, 199, 200 Jacksonville Airport Authority 133, 190, 191, 194 Japan 43, 45, 50, 60, 115, 187, 198 jet fuel 48, 102 jet power 36, 37, 38 Jiuquan Satellite Launch Center 120 job creation 164, 166 Johnson Space Center 89 Joint Use Agreements 127 Jones, A. 179 just-in-time inventory 72 Kaltenhaeuser, S. 169 Kármán line 31, 36, 37 Kazakhstan 115, 186, 187 Kee, M. 168 Kennedy Space Center (KSC): business and financial management 126, 127, 155, 156; commercial customers 116; economic impact studies 166; history of spaceports 2; multiuser spaceports 113; projected launches 22; Space Shuttle Program 43, 72–97 Kennedy Space Center Master Plan (U.S. NASA 2017) 2 kerosene 48, 51, 55, 56, 57, 59, 102, 201 Khrunichev 45 Kiritimati Launch Area 115 Kuaizhou 44 Kwajalein Atoll (Reagan Test Site), Marshall Islands 117 land use agreements 140, 145 landing aid control buildings 93 landing pads 47, 99, 105, 199 landing sites 17 landlord ports 154 Langley Research Center 145 Larson, E.W.F. 168 launch approvals, getting 12–14, 20, 22

launch azimuths 106 launch capacity 13; see also multiple launch concept Launch Complex 2 (LC-2) 62, 125 Launch Control Center (LCC), Space Shuttle Program 89, 90 launch control centers 108 launch corridors 107, 169, 189 launch failures 105, 167, 168, 171, 173–180, 190 launch frequency 25, 94–97 launch pads 84–89 Launch Processing System (LPS) 89 launch sites: and airspace access 11–12; definitions of spaceports 2; delay costs to commercial aircraft 12; moving towards commercial space activity 11; segregated airspace 17 launch vehicles 13, 28–69; and airspace access 20; definition 28; expendable versus reusable 30; spaceports accommodating multiple 71, 97 launch windows 12, 25 LauncherOne 46, 171 lease-and-use permits 118, 119, 155, 156 leases 118, 120, 146, 147, 154, 156, 157 LEED certification 144 legacy companies 118, 199 legacy spaceports 110 legislation 183–188 Leinbach, Mike 94 Letters of Agreement 106, 107–108, 138, 190 liability 154 Liability Convention 188 licenses 183–196; air and space ports 129; air traffic control (ATC) 106; commercial spaceports 2–4, 120, 121; economic impact studies 166; Ellington Airport, Texas 4, 138; history of spaceports 2–3, 8; horizontal launch/return 39; including reentry 21; Midland International Air and Space Port 137; Mojave Air and Space Port 131; Office of Commercial Space Transportation 18; Oklahoma Spaceport at Burns Flat 133; Pacific Spaceport Complex – Alaska 141; public private partnership 155, 157; Space Florida 127; Spaceport America 144 lift-class classifications 149 light pollution 170, 171 lighting 93

Index lightning masts 87, 88, 93 Link Space 45 liquefied natural gas (LNG) 56, 57 liquid hydrogen (LH2) 48–49, 56, 72, 104 liquid methane 55, 57 liquid nitrous oxide 58 liquid oxygen (LOX) 48–49, 55, 56, 57, 58, 59, 72, 85, 86, 104 liquid propellants 48, 80, 102–105 liquid rocket engines 50–51 local area impacts 170–172 Lockheed L1011 107 Lockheed Martin 46, 75, 114, 117, 118, 126, 127, 150, 151 Lockheed Martin Commercial Launch Services (LMCLS) 46 logistics facilities 77–79, 94, 98 Long March 42, 43, 44, 45, 179 low Earth orbit (LEO) 37, 38, 62, 125 Luchkova, T. 40, 168 Lunar Atmosphere and Dust Environment Explorer (LADEE) 125 lunar landers 140 Lunar Prospector 127 Lyndon B. Johnson Space Center, Houston 76 Lynx vehicle 37 Machuca, Arturo 166 maintenance and repair 75 Malaysia 199, 200 manned flights 34–35, 37 Manned Orbiting Laboratory (MOL) 122 manufacturing space 119, 137 map surveys 106 Marciacq, J.-B. 7 Marconi, E.M. 31, 33 Marina, Lt. Luis 122 Martin Marietta Corporation 75 Masten Space Systems 131 master planning 191–194 mated rockets 36, 37, 38, 93 mate/demate device (MDD) 93 McCoy, J.F. 102, 105 McDowell Group 166 medical facilities 77, 98 Medium Class Launch Facility (MCLF) 124 memoranda of understanding 15–16, 19, 108, 191 Merlin-ID 59 Merritt Island, Florida 126 methane 55, 57

213

Michoud Assembly Facility 75, 157 Microcosm 114 microgravity 39 Mid-Atlantic Regional Spaceport (MARS) at Wallops Flight Facility 2, 4, 113, 119, 123–125, 145, 151, 154, 157 Middle East 198 Midland Development Corporation (MDC) 137 Midland International Air and Space Port 4, 39, 116, 117, 119, 135–138 military airspace 14–15, 16 military bases 104, 105, 110, 119, 120–129 military customers 19, 118 military operations areas (MOA) 106 Minotaur 46, 121, 122, 125 Minuteman boosters 121–122 mission assurance window 21 mission control centers (MCC) 89, 90, 99, 108 mission-need factors 12 mitigating factors 107 Mitsubishi Heavy Industries (MHI) 45, 198 mobile fans 93 Mobile Ground Power Unit 94 mobile launcher platforms (MLP) 71, 81, 83–84, 85 modernization of old facilities 110 Mojave Air and Space Port 2, 39, 116, 119, 129–131, 146, 154, 157 monomethylhydrazine (MMH) 56, 58 monopropellant engines 50–51, 55 Moon 29, 62, 118, 125, 140, 198–199, 203 Moon Express 116 Morton Thiokol Chemical Corp 75 Motorola 120 multimodal transportation spaceports 70–112, 98, 99, 101, 154 multiple launch concept 97, 106 Murray, D. 6, 106, 107, 168 NADA 45 nanoracks 66 NASA (National Aeronautics and Space Administration): Commercial Lunar Payload Services (CLPS) 140; crew transport capsules 43; as customer of commercial spaceports 118; FACET software 168; history of spaceports 2, 7–8; Jet Propulsion Laboratory 28; launch failures 173–180; licenses 189; Mid-Atlantic Regional Spaceport (MARS) at Wallops Flight Facility/

214 Index MARS 123–125; public-private partnership 155; repurposing of facilities 72; secondary payloads 64; sounding rockets 31–32; Space Shuttle Program 72–97; spaceport business and financial management 113; Special Use Airspace (SUA) 22; suborbital reusable vehicles (SRV) 31; 3D printing 201–202 National Advisory Committee for Aeronautics (NACA) 123 National Airport Plan (NAP) 5 National Airspace System (NAS) 6, 14–15 National Environmental Policy Act 190 National Plan of Integrated Airport Systems (NPIAS) 5, 150 National Reconnaissance Office (NRO) 122 National Seashore Park 77 National Space Centers 120–129 National Space Policy 7 National Space Technology Laboratories, Hancock County, Mississippi 76 National Space Transportation Policy 5–6, 7 National Transportation Safety Board (NTSB) 190 navigable airspace, definition 15 navigation facilities, history of airports 4–5 navigation performance standards 13 Nelson, J.C. 7 Netherlands 187, 200 New Glenn 46, 57 New Line 1 45 New Mexico Spaceport Authority 113, 142, 157 New Shepard launch system 34, 39 New Zealand 114, 115, 186, 187 Newman, Henry 7 nitric acid 56, 58 nitrogen pipes 72, 102–103 nitrogen tetroxide 55, 56, 178 nitrous oxide “laughing gas” 56, 58 noise 108–109, 170, 171 nonprofits 121 nonregulatory airspace 16 Nonreimbursable Agreements 155 North Atlantic track system 13 North Korea 45, 60, 115 Northam, Ralph 125 Northrop Grumman 24, 107, 116, 117, 124, 125, 131 Norway 31 Notice to Airmen (NOTAM) 17

Nova-C 140 nuclear weapons 184 Office of Commercial Space Transportation (AST) 2, 8, 17–18, 30, 31, 36, 184 Office of Space Commercialization 143 office space 99 Oklahoma Space Industry Development Authority (OSIDA) 133 Oklahoma Spaceport at Burns Flat 4, 116, 119, 132–133, 157 OneSpace 45 OneWeb Satellite 116 operations 70–112 Orbit Generation Launch Service 35 Orbital ATK 46, 52, 176 Orbital Outfitters 137 orbital reusable vehicles (ORV) 31, 39, 41–43 Orbiter Modification and Refurbishment Facility (OMRF) 79 Orbiter Processing Facility 79 Orbiters 41, 43, 50, 72–97 Orion 83 Outer Space Treaty of 1967 153, 183–184, 188, 203, 205 oxidizers 36, 48–59, 72, 102–104, 170 PA Yuzhmash 45, 46 Pacific Missile Range Facility, Hawaii 117 Pacific Spaceport Complex – Alaska 2, 117, 119, 140–142, 146, 166, 167 parachutes 31, 38, 75, 91, 92 parafoils 38, 40 Part 139 airports 4 partnership working 121–122, 151–159 passenger facilities 97, 98, 99 payloads: commercial 47; definition 28; operational facilities 99–102; secondary payloads 64, 65; Space Shuttle Program 72, 73, 79; spaceport infrastructure 30, 31, 36, 37, 59–66 Pegasus 46, 107 Phantom Express 35, 42 piggybacking 64 pilots 40, 70 piped gas 72, 102 platform units 94 PLD Space 32, 35, 46 Poker Flat Research Range in Alaska 31, 117 Polar Satellite Launch Vehicle (PSLV) 43, 49, 198

Index pollution 109, 170, 171, 173, 174, 179 polybutadiene acrylonite (PBAN)-based ammonium perchlorate 55 Porter, M.E. 119 Portugal 199, 200 post-launch processing 77, 87, 89–94, 105, 172 Postmaster General 4 precision approach path indicator systems 93 predictable airspace use 22 pre-launch operations 104–105 prime contractors 75–77 private equity 149 private sector: commercial launch providers 114; cooperation with 6; manufacture of components 75; public-private partnership 2, 110, 151–159; publicpublic partnership 151–159; shift towards 2 probes, definition 29 processing facilities 77–79 propellants: after an accident 174; cryogenic propellants 51, 55, 56, 57, 86, 104, 174; liquid propellants 48, 80, 102–105; loading 104–105; operational facilities 99; solid propellants 31, 48, 51, 52–53, 60; Space Shuttle Program 72, 73, 81, 85–86, 89; spaceport infrastructure 31, 36, 48–59; standardization 201; storage 85, 102–104, 170, 201 proprietary information 144 propulsion systems 28, 30, 36, 37, 48–59 protests 172 Proton Medium 45, 198 public awareness 2 public-private partnership 2, 110, 151–159 public-public partnership 151–159 quantitative risk assessment (QRA) 189–190 R&D 118, 137 rail links 77 Raptor 57 Record and Playback Subsystem (RPS) 89 record keeping 190 red fuming nitric acid (RFNA) 58 redundancy 89 reentry failures 173–180 reentry sites: airspace planning 20; definitions of spaceports 2; at a distance

215

from launch site 40; horizontal return 23; multiple returning segments 21; powered versus unpowered reentry 38, 39 Regional Input-Output Modeling System (RIMS II) 165 “regions of space” 5–6, 7–8 regulatory authorities 17–18, 153, 158 Reimbursable Space Act Agreement 113, 124, 155 Relativity Space 129 remote sensing/imagery 59 Required Navigation Performance (RNP) 13 rerouting 107 responsive development 5 resupply missions 125 return on investment 119, 151, 153 reusable carrier aircraft 36 reusable components 94, 97 reusable launch vehicles (RLV): former military bases 105; future of commercial spaceports 200; memoranda of understanding 108; Space Shuttle Program 89–90; spaceport infrastructure 30, 31–43 revenue streams 131, 145, 146, 147 Richardson, Bill 143 ride-share customers 123 risk 12, 106, 108–109, 154, 178, 189–190, 203 Robinson, R. 133 Rocket Crafters Inc. 46 rocket gardens 129 Rocket Lab 46, 47, 114, 115, 117, 125, 201 rocket power 36, 48–59 Rocketplane Global 133, 157 Rockot 45 Rockwell International 75 Rohini sounding rockets 32 Ros, M. 40 Roscosmos 198 Rotary Rocket 131 runways: direction 106, 109; former military bases 105; length 36, 37; runway damage 38; Space Shuttle Program 93, 98, 99 Russia: commercial launch providers 115; commercial spaceports 119; future of commercial spaceports 198; launch vehicles 43, 45–46; legislation 186, 187; propellants 57, 58, 59, 60, 61

216 Index safety: air traffic control (ATC) 14, 105; buffer zones 105; cancellation of launch 104; charging regimes 19; community impacts 170; contingency plans 92; environmental issues 171; government investment 150; history of federal regulation 5; launch control centers 108; legislation 187, 188; licenses 189–191; mitigating factors 107; policy goals 8; powered versus unpowered reentry 38; propellants 50–55, 89, 104; reentry sites 20; regulatory authorities 18; risk assessments 154; Space Shuttle Program 88–89; standards 26; suborbital reusable vehicles (SRV) 32, 36; training 97; turnaround times 94 Safir 45 sales or use tax exemptions 121 San Jacinto College EDGE Center at Houston Spaceport 138 satellites: California Spaceport 120–122; cargo transport 59–60; commercial uses of 110; electric propulsion system 59; launchers 24; Mid-Atlantic Regional Spaceport (MARS) 125; Midland International Air and Space Port 137; natural 29; as payload 47, 48; payloads 64; reducing cost of 11; versus spacecraft 28–29 Satish Dhawan Space Centre, India 49, 114, 115, 120, 137 Saturn 57, 126 Scaled Composites 131 science fiction 2 Scott, Rick 135 Scout rockets 123 Sea Launch Odyssey 115 Seastrand, Andrea 120 secondary launches 107 secondary payloads 64, 65 security 99, 144, 171, 191 security clearances 118 Seedhouse, E. 102 segregated airspace 17, 18, 21, 24–25 Shanghai Academy of Spaceflight Technology (SAST) 44 Shavit 2 45 Sheetz, M. 114, 129, 198 Shiloh (proposed) Spaceport 165 Shuttle Landing Facility (SLF) 92–93 Sierra Nevada Corporation (SNC) 39, 42, 43, 43, 157 simulated launch tests 102

Sippel, M. 40, 41 skid stops 36, 37, 92 Skylab 126 Small Class Launch Facility (SCLF) 124 small launchers 21 SmallSats 125 solid propellants 31, 48, 51, 52–53, 60 solid rocket boosters (SRB) 43, 48–49, 70, 72, 73, 74, 75, 79, 80, 86, 91, 94 sonic booms 13, 109, 170, 171, 174 sound suppression systems 86 sounding rockets 30, 31–32, 33 South Korea 115 sovereignty 152, 183, 184 Soyuz 43, 45, 51, 198 Space Act Agreement 155 Space Daily 43, 122 Space Exploration Technologies Corporation 101, 108 Space Florida 104, 110, 116, 126, 127, 129, 135, 144, 155–156, 194 Space Foundation 4, 30, 32, 197, 200 Space Hub Sutherland 150, 200 Space Launch Complex (SLC) 54 space launch ranges 6 Space Launch System 46, 64, 65, 77, 81, 83 Space Life Sciences Lab (SLSL) 127, 145 space planes 21, 23 Space Policy Online 11 Space Shuttle Orbiter 31 Space Shuttle Program 17, 20, 23, 41–43, 48, 52, 120, 122, 126, 168; case study of spaceport operations 72–97 space tourism 22, 25, 118, 133 Space Traffic Management 18 spacecraft: definition of 28, 39; versus satellites 28–29 Spaceflight Contractor’s Tax Refunds Act of 2008 151 SpaceIL 198 SpaceLiner 34, 40–41, 168 SpaceLoft XL 34, 143 SpaceMobile 138 SpaceNews 37 SpacePlane (Airbus) 34, 37 Spaceport America: business and financial management 113, 119, 142–144, 154, 157; economic impact studies 165, 166; funding 153; future of commercial spaceports 199; greenfield spaceports 119; licenses 2; operating a commercial spaceport 146–147; projected launches

Index 22; spaceport infrastructure 105; suborbital reusable vehicles (SRV) 39 Spaceport America Cup 146 Spaceport Business Parks 137 Spaceport Camden 165, 200 Spaceport Cornwall 171–172, 200 Spaceport Florida Authority (SFA) 126–127 Spaceport Grant Program (Florida) 151 Spaceport Improvement Program 156 Spaceport Sweden 157, 185 Spaceport Systems International (SSI) 121–122 Spaceport Tucson 117 Spaceship Company, The 116, 131, 157 SpaceShipOne 131 SpaceShipTwo 23, 34, 37, 107 SpaceX: accidents 178–179; airspace access 12; in Brazil 114; California Spaceport at Vandenberg Air Force Base 122; Cape Canaveral Spaceport 128–129; commercial customers of spaceports 118; commercial launch providers 116, 117; communications networks 108; future of commercial spaceports 199; impact on commercial aviation 168; launch fees 149; launch vehicles 31, 42, 43, 46, 47, 54, 57, 59, 63; leasing to 110; Nova-C 140; spaceport development 114; spaceport infrastructure 77, 97, 101, 105; test facilities 119 SpaceX Falcon Heavy 62, 63 Spain 32, 46, 60, 114, 187 Special Use Airspace (SUA) 15, 16, 17, 19, 22, 106 speeds which define astronautics 23 SpinLaunch 117, 144 splashdown return 21, 91 Sriharikota 32 Srivastava, A. 169 stair units 94 stakeholders 17–20, 154, 155, 180, 192 standardization 59, 102, 201 standards 8, 26, 149 Standards and Recommended Practices (SARPs) 185 Starfighters 127 State Transportation Trust Fund 151 Stewart, David 192 storage facilities 72, 77–79; see also propellant storage strap-on motors 52

217

strategic intermodal system (SIS) 151 Stratolaunch 35, 37, 93, 105, 116, 119, 131, 157 suborbital hypersonic transport 20, 21–23 suborbital launch vehicles (SLV) 30 suborbital reusable vehicles (SRV) 30, 31–41 Super Guppy aircraft 101 supersonic corridors 131 supersonic transport 13, 22, 23, 109 support vehicles 99 Sweden 32, 59, 157, 185, 187, 201 Taiwan 127 Tanegashima Space Center, Japan 50 tax 121, 133, 146, 150, 171 taxiways 98 technology safeguards 114 Tegler, E. 84 telecommunications 202 television 86, 89 temperature/humidity control 77, 101, 104 temperature-resistant surfaces 86 Temporary Flight Restrictions (TFRs) 17, 19, 106, 107, 169 tenants of spaceports, key 114–119, 147, 155, 156 Tengyun Project 42, 43 Terran rockets 129 Tesla 62, 63 test facilities 2, 75, 102, 114, 119, 131 tethering to carrier aircraft 36–37 Texas Spaceport Trust Fund 137 Thor-Agena 122 3D printing 129, 201–202 Thumba Equatorial Rocket Launching Station (TERLS) 32 Tinoco, J.K. 152, 153, 155, 157, 158, 169 Titan rockets 122 Title 49, US Code Chapter 471 5 Tompa, R.E. 169 topography 2 Total Airspace and Airport Modeler (TAAM) simulations 169 training 97, 138, 202 trajectories, planning 106–107 tripropellant motors 57 turbofan engines 37, 38 turnaround times 94–97 UK: business and financial management 114, 157; community impacts 171–172; funding 150; future of commercial

218 Index spaceports 199, 200; Glasgow Prestwick Spaceport 157, 200; history of spaceports 1, 4; launch vehicles 46, 57; legislation 187; propellants 60; Spaceport Cornwall 171–172, 200 Ukraine 186, 187 ultra-long-haul travel 40 UN (United Nations): International Civil Aviation Organization (ICAO) 18; Office of Outer Space Affairs (UN OOSA) 19, 188; Outer Space Treaty of 1967 153, 183–184, 188, 203, 205 uncontrolled airspace 16, 17 Unha 45 United Arab Emirates 114, 200 United Launch Alliance (ULA) 42, 46, 53, 54, 57, 62, 63, 64, 116, 118, 127, 129 unmanned aerial systems (UAS) 107 unmanned aerial vehicles (UAV) 94, 125 unmanned aircraft systems (UAS) 166 unmanned vehicles 21, 94, 125 unsymmetrical dimethylhydrazine (UDMH) 56, 58, 59 UP Aerospace 34, 117, 143, 144 US: commercial launch providers 114, 115–117; future of commercial spaceports 199, 200; legacy companies 118; legislation 187; licenses 184, 188–191; propellants 60, 61 Vandenberg Air Force Base Space Launch Complex 2 62, 117, 120–123 Vector 46, 114 Vega 43, 45, 48, 198 Vehicle Assembly Building (VAB) 77, 80–83, 89 venture capital 149 vertical launch and return: economic impact studies 169; expendable launch vehicle (ELV) 47; future of commercial spaceports 200–201; international development 34; key elements of a spaceport 72; launch vehicles 20–21, 30, 31; orbital reusable vehicles (ORV) 42, 43; processing facilities 104–105; Space Shuttle Program 79, 84; suborbital reusable vehicles (SRV) 32–33, 39–41 vibration 170, 171 Virgin Galactic: business and financial management 114, 116, 117, 131, 143, 157; commercial space activity 23, 24; future of commercial spaceports 199; launch vehicles 34, 37; Spaceport

America 154, 157; spaceport infrastructure 107 Virgin Orbit 24, 46, 171, 172, 202 Virginia Commercial Space Flight Authority (VCSFA) 2, 113, 117, 124, 125, 145 Virginia Space Flight Liability and Immunity Act 150 virtual reality (VR) 202 visual flight rules (VFR) traffic 170 Vostochny Cosmodrome 115, 119 Voyager 29, 35, 39 Vulcan 42, 57 Wall, M. 40 Wallops Flight Facility, Virginia 31, 52, 113, 117, 123–125, 126, 176, 179; see also Mid-Atlantic Regional Spaceport (MARS) at Wallops Flight Facility water landings 72, 75, 77, 91 water supply 171 weather 14, 107, 110 Wenchang Satellite Launch Center, Hainan Island 185, 198 West Coast Space Shuttle 120 Western Commercial Space Center, Incorporated (WCSC) 121 White Fuming Nitric Acid/WFNA 56 White Knight carrier 24, 34, 37, 107, 131, 144 white room 94 White Sands Missile Range in New Mexico 31, 117, 142 White Sands Space Harbor 92 Whitmore, S.A. 59, 201 wildlife, harm to 109 wildlife refuges 77 Wilson, G.L. 7 winds 81, 106, 107, 131, 168 wingspans 38, 105 Woomera Test Range 4, 115 World Bank 154 World View 35, 39, 117 XCOR Aerospace 37, 137 XPRIZE 131, 143 Young, J. 168, 169 Zero 2 Infinity 46 Zero G Zero Tax Act of 2008 150