Beyond Earth (ATWG) - Chapter 26 - The Changing Role of Spaceports by Derek Webber
From The Space Library
Chapter 26
The Changing Role of Spaceports
By Derek Webber
Less Glamorous yet Enabling
When anyone speaks of rocket science, they are usually making reference to the more glamorous aspects of the space business, such as the design of spacecraft, or the provision of launch services. The terrestrial component is often overlooked. A, and yet, in many ways, the so-called "ground segment" of space activities is equally critical to the success of any mission. After all, we cannot imagine space flights that do not start from a tower of flame at a launch pad, and include telemetry, tracking and control back to base. We have become familiar with the sights of Kennedy Space Center with its line of gantries marching along the Atlantic Ocean coastline at Cape Canaveral. W, and we have seen the huge Vehicle Assembly Building and the "crawler ways" that take the assembled Shuttle stack to their point of take off for their orbital destinations.
But this may be about to change. In 2004, the only astronauts to enter space from the US departed from Mojave Spaceport. Mojave was, a site not managed by the US Air Force. It has no gantries, no high high-energy LOX and propellant bunkers, nor blockhouses. It does not even have a launch pad! Does Mojave represent the prototype of a new kind of spaceport that will take over from the earlier types as we look forward to the next stages of mankind's journey into space? If so, then however different it may be from its predecessors, we may be sure that it will still be as important and enabling to the overall success of the venture as will be the new spacecraft and launch systems.
Geopolitical Factors
The early launch sites were, established during the Cold War following World War II. They, were all military establishments, and originally they were only in the USA and the former Soviet Union. And because of their differing geographies, they happen to neatly demonstrate the two basic types of locations for a spaceport. Underneath the trajectory of a rocket heading into space is a ground track where ideally you don't want to have any people, because any such people would be at risk from debris resulting from an possible explosion caused by the typically high-energy oxidizer and propellants on board the rocket. The best zones on the Earth's surface which that meet this objective are deserts and oceans.
Another factor, resulting from of astrophysics, is that different kinds of space missions require different kinds of orbits. Polar-orbiting spacecraft can generally observe the whole surface of the Earth over a series of orbits as the Earth spins underneath. Orbits in the equatorial plane require the least energy to achieve, because advantage can be taken of the Earth's initial rotation from West to East can help to in achieveing the necessary orbital velocities, and s. Such orbits are particularly useful at geostationary altitude for providing various broadcasting and telecommunications services. Other kinds of missions may need an intermediate inclination, and the location of the a spaceport should ideally support launches into any of these types of orbit. For the desert spaceport, this is not usually a problem.
Sometimes this is hard to achieve for a coastal spaceport, and a functional split can result with equatorial launches taking place from spaceports having an Eastern coastline, and being located as near to the Equator as possible, and while Polar launches taking place from spaceports having either a Northerly or Southerly ocean overlook. For some favored countries, a fortunate single location can serve for all these needs.
During the Cold War, the Soviet Union developed a series of desert spaceports and the USA used a combination of desert and coastal spaceports. Because of the accident of a geographical accident, all of the territories of the former Soviet Union were a long way from the equator. The Soviets were (and indeed Russia remains today), therefore at a disadvantage versus the USA with regard to provision of equatorial launches. The USA can launch from much nearer to the Equator. It is somewhat ironic therefore, that because of the less favored astrophysical geography of Russia, the International Space Station (ISS) operates in an orbit placing challenges on the US Shuttle launch system in delivering supplies and components. The ISS orbit was chosen, at least in part, to allow key Russian components to be launched from the high latitude spaceport of Baikonur.
Early Launch Sites
The early coastal launch sites of the USA were at Wallops at 37.5 deg N, and Cape Canaveral (KSFC) at 28.5 deg N for equatorial launches, and Vandenberg seven years later, firing southerly for polar launches. The US also had a desert site at White Sands for early sub-orbital northerly firings. The former Soviet Union had desert sites at Kapustin Yar (48.4 deg N), at Baikonur (45.6 deg N) and ten years later at Plesetsk (62.8 deg N).
The only other active launch sites at that time were two contrasting desert sites - one in the cold Northern desert of Churchill in Canada (57.7 deg N) , used for sounding rockets, and the other being in the decidedly hot desert of Woomera, Australia ( 31.0 deg S), where the British tested their ICBM in northerly sub-orbital firings.
Today's Global Picture
Since that Cold War era, much has changed. There are now some 16 countries with launch sites, many with more than one spaceport, so that there are currently and a total of about 35 active spaceports in the world.
A significant development has been the move to develop spaceports nearer to the equator. This has been motivated by the need to provide launch facilities for a series of commercial geostationary communications and broadcasting satellites.
The best examples of these are the European coastal launch facilities located in French Guiana at Kourou 5.2 deg N), the Brazilian coastal facilities at Alcantara (2.2 deg S), and the international Sea Launch platform, known as Odyssey, that is positioned exactly at the Equator for its launch service. The US is also developing the capabilities of Kwajelein in the Marshall Islands, which is an atoll conveniently located at 8.0 deg N.
In developing the Ariane launch system, the Europeans abandoned the Australian Woomera site, where they had learned their early lessons trying to develop the Europa launcher, for one nearer the equator at Kourou that would enable Easterly azimuth launches. The Australians, in their turn, are currently considering developing the a Christmas Island site, on Australian territory in the Indian Ocean, near Indonesia, located at 10 deg S with clear Easterly azimuths.
A recent development at Kourou has been the decision to build a separate spaceport for the Soyuz launcher, and thus allow Russia to overcome its historical geographical disadvantage in launch economics. Simultaneously, this will provide the Europeans with their own capability to provide support a space tourism experience, if they decide to do so. Somewhat ironically, upon the demise of the former Soviet Union, Moscow lost its premier historical spaceport to the republic of Kazakhstan, and now has to lease the Baikonur facilities from that country for its Soyuz launches.
China has four active spaceports, the earliest one being Jiuquan, at 40.6 deg N, from where this country now launches its crewed missions are now launched. All of the its sites are very strictly controlled by the militarily controlled, but recent indications suggest some emphasis on developing the Hainan Island site, which, at 18.0 deg S, is the nearest spaceport in Chinese territory to the Equator, and the only Chinese site that is not a desert spaceport. Both India, from Sriharikota at 13.7 deg N, and Japan, from its spaceports at Tanegashima (30.4 deg N) and Kagoshima (31.2 deg N) are active coastal spaceports.
Predicting the Future of Launch Demand
How many orbital launches a year are provided from these 35 global spaceports? What kinds of customers and payloads are served? And how, if at all, do we see this changing over the next few decades? The historical picture, quite contrary to the trend in spaceport development, has been a rather severe decline in global launches.
From 1965 through 1985, the global launch rate for orbital missions was around about 120 launches per year. Now Today it hovers around at about 60 launches per year, and this figure includes all countries, and all military, all civilian, and all commercial launches. This at averages at only about 2 launches a year per spaceport, which cannot of course represent a good economic proposition.
And what of the future? The ASCENT Study, organized by NASA's Marshall Space Flight Center and issued in 2003, made it clear that the twenty-year forecast would remain at about the same annual level of launches for these same payload types, ie only between about 50 to 70 launches per year in total globally.
At launch rates like this, it does not make sense to design and build a reusable launch vehicle (RLV), because one such vehicle could serve to transport the entire global payload needs in a given year. The same study showed, furthermore, that the price elasticity of demand of commercial launches would not be a significant factor in increasing the annual launch demand.
However, there was also some good news. The ASCENT Study identified, (and its initial findings were incorporated in the Final Report of the President's Commission on the Future of the US Aerospace Industry), the dramatic impact that would be made by a successful space tourism industry. Even at prices around $20M, the study reported, there could be a market for 50 launches per year of paying passengers seeking an orbital experience. Note that this figure, if achieved, would result in a doubling of the launch rate projections that exclude space tourism.
And the news gets better. Unlike the traditional payload markets, it turns out that the demand for human payloads is very price sensitive. If the price per trip could be reduced to, say, $5M per orbital flight, the demand would reach about 2,000 per year. This is because while there are relatively few billionaires, there are over eight million millionaires in the world. In between, there are enough people who are rich enough to spend say 5% of their net assets on a once-in-a-lifetime orbital experience. Of course, to achieve the reduced ticket prices, it will be necessary to fly several orbital tourists at a time, so the incremental number of launches might only be, say, 500 per year. But this is still a transforming number.
Such numbers suggest a new kind of spaceflight. They lead to, the beginnings of airline-like operations, and better operability and reliability, and lower costs in general regarding the cost per pound of payload into delivered to orbit. Space tourism can thus be seen as an enabling and transforming technology and business opportunity. Yes, RLV's even make sense, but only in the context of the massive new tourism markets.
The Emergence of Space Tourism
Following the success of Burt Rutan with SpaceShipOne in winning the X-Prize in 2004, it has become a certainty that space tourism will soon be operational. Richard Branson of Virgin Galactic, out of at Mojave, and the Rocketplane team to be flying from Oklahoma, intend to provide the first space tourism offerings. Of course, these first ventures are sub-orbital only, but for this reason the prices are significantly lower. At a ticket price of around $100,000, then all 8,000,000 millionaires around the world could afford a ticket without spending more than 10% of their net worth to do it. (It' is worth mentioning that the first two tourists, Tito and Shuttleworth are reported to have spent about 10% of their assets to make their own (orbital) trips.)
What are the prospects for orbital space tourism? Well, of course the Russians already offer the service via Soyuz from Baikonur, and in a few years this it will also be possible for the Europeans from the new Soyuz pad in Kourou. The Russians are seeking funds to develop a new, larger follow-on to Soyuz, called Klipper, which could carry more tourists into orbit, and they have been trying to solicit European support in the venture. The Chinese may be assumed to eventually offer tourist rides in their Shenzhou spacecraft, once they have obtained some more operating experience. In the US, certain entrepreneurial companies have announced their intention to eventually provide an orbital space tourism experience, among them the companies being run by the billionaires Jeff Bezos and Elon Musk. And the a new company, Transformational Space Corporation (t/Space), is proposing to build a spacecraft, called the CXV, to carry US astronauts into LEO for their ongoing missions either at the ISS or as part of their journeys to the Moon and beyond, as part of the President's Vision for Space Exploration. The company will offer orbital space tourism experiences in between the trips required for the NASA crews.
How does all of this affect the spaceport scene? Recall the history making flights of Burt Rutan's civilian SpaceshipOne at Mojave, in 2004. Mojave is a totally new kind of spaceport. No "tower of flame" was seen at the launch pad. In fact no flames at all, and no launch pads at all either. And the astronaut came back an hour later and landed right in front of the crowd. To get into space from Mojave, takeoff is from a normal aircraft runway. If all of the growth in the launch industry is going to come from the tourism sector, then attention needs to be taken to the needs of this new marketplace.
US Non-Federal Spaceport Plans
What has been the reaction within the US to these developments? Mojave became the first of a "new breed" of licensed US Non-Federal spaceports. The FAA's Office of Commercial Space Flight has previously granted licenses to six US Federal Spaceports (KSC, Edwards, Vandenberg, Wallops, White Sands and the Kwajelein site). It has also licensed five Non-Federal Spaceports (California, Kodiak, Florida Space Authority, Virginia - all based within the territories of existing Federal Spaceports - and Mojave).
Throughout the US, various many States are exploring the potential economic benefits of creating spaceports to serve the new space tourism markets, and some of them have begun the process of obtaining FAA operating licenses. These states are anticipating potential benefits in terms of employment, building contracts, tax base, and terrestrial tourism as a result.
The Rocketplane venture is doing its work based at the Oklahoma spaceport, and this is likely to be one of the next spaceports to receive a license. In Upham, New Mexico, the Southwest Regional Spaceport is being developed and will be the venue for a series of annual X-Prize Cup races into space, the first one being scheduled for 2006. Texas is proposing 4 different possible spaceport sites, and the following States propose one each: Nevada, Alabama, Washington, Wisconsin, Utah have proposed one each. In all, about a dozen potential non-Federal spaceports are currently in various stages of the process of evaluation and regulatory approval.
Can they all succeed? And if so, what will be the impact on the existing spaceports?
Spaceport Transformation
For a spaceport to succeed as a provider of space tourism opportunities, the management will need to have a focus on satisfying the needs of the new sector. This may prove to be possible, but unfortunately it would appear that the needs of the new sector can be almost directly opposite to the needs of that existing traditional spaceports that have served us in the first half century of human spaceflight. It may well prove to be the case, because of this, that the existing spaceports continue to serve their traditional markets, with their limited growth potential, while the new high growth sector goes to a series of new specially-designed spaceports of the Twenty first Century.
What kinds of transformation do the new spaceports need to represent, and which may prove impossible for the existing spaceports to offer?
The most obvious, and in a way the most emblematic, is the fact that existing Federal Spaceports are generally military establishments; among their payloads are military cargoes. Traditional rocket fuels are highly dangerous mixes of propellants and oxidants, from which the public needs to be protected.
By contrast, the SpaceshipOne flights in 2004 used a new kind of hybrid rocket engine that used combined rubber and laughing gas, a mixture of fuel and oxidizer so inherently safe that it presented no danger to the crowds who waved at the passing carrier aircraft and suspended space plane as it went by en route for space.
For space tourism to succeed, the public needs to be encouraged, not discouraged, from entering a spaceport to watch launches. Open access will be an important feature, even in such traditionally sensitive areas as launch control and training facilities. There will need to be new facilities for training and medical care of the space tourists. Entertainment features such as IMAX movie theaters and space theme parks will be important, and central to the experience, especially for the friends and families of tourists who are going off into space. New residential facilities and restaurants and shops will need to be built for staff, tourists, families, and terrestrial tourism customers. This will decidedly not be your father's spaceport experience!
From this I conclude that Space tourism is needed to move spaceflight from the twentieth century paradigm to the new possibilities of the Twenty-first century, and to recreate an aerospace industry with renewed growth prospects and a reinvigorated future for the younger generation. The spaceport remains an essential element of the whole space business experience, but must undergo a dramatic transformation in order to enable this new industry to develop. It remains to be seen how many of the traditional spaceports will be able to adapt to this changing role, or and how many totally new spaceports will emerge that will provide the space tourists of the future with the kind of experiences that they will demand for the price of their tickets into space.
Extracted from the book Beyond Earth - The Future of Humans in Space edited by Bob Krone ©2006 Apogee Books ISBN 978-1-894959-41-4
 Buy This Book Click here |
 Buy Derek Webber's The Wright Stuff Click here |
