Evolution of the commercial aerospaceport

Abstract

Airports have begun incorporating Spaceport infrastructure and cooperative operations. We are witnessing the evolution of the Aerospaceport. For many years Spaceports were exclusively developed by the Federal Government. They then evolved to also include a State - Federal based model. Now is the Spaceport development model is a mix of competing approaches which also involve State spaceport initiatives, private US domestic spaceports and private international spaceports. To date, the authors have completed detailed design and / or environmental planning at four spaceports for Public-Private and entrepreneurial launch vehicle programs. We are currently supporting development of an Aerospaceport at one location and a "Commercial Launch Zone" located within an existing spaceport at a separate location. Some of these spaceports involved State agency participation in their development, some are being pursued as part of a local Aviation authority and some are being privately funded and developed. This paper discusses the technical, cost, schedule and political requirements of the launch vehicle programs which influenced the evolution of the Aerospaceport development models. It then compares and contrasts the differing requirements of Federal, State and private spaceports which influence the ultimate decision of where to conduct a launch. The "New Space" launch companies have different requirements for spaceport technical capabilities, costs and schedules than do the government supported launch operators. There are certain aspects of existing and planned Public - Private or aviation authority based Aerospaceports which provide both appealing and alienating features to these private companies. There are examples of Public-Private spaceport developments which have not proven useful to the private launch companies. The paper provides the basic guidelines for how new Commercial Aerospaceports should be developed in order to attract the new innovative launch vehicle operators they desire and maximize their benefits to the local area. © 2010 by Finger, Kercsmar & Gulliver.