Slashdot Log In
Spaceport America Takes Off
Posted by
ScuttleMonkey
on Wed Mar 28, 2007 01:52 PM
from the hanging-on-a-vote dept.
from the hanging-on-a-vote dept.
SeaDour writes "Spaceport America, being built north of Las Cruces, New Mexico, is finally becoming a reality and is set to become the world's first commercial spaceport. Governor Bill Richardson recently secured 33 million dollars from the state legislature for the final design, and a proposed 0.25% sales tax increase in Dona Ana County, where the facility is to be constructed, is expected to bring an additional 6.5 million dollars per year (if approved by voters next week). Richard Branson, the head of upstart Virgin Galactic, on Monday agreed to lease the facility for 27.5 million dollars over twenty years. If all continues to go as planned, SpaceShipTwo will make its first suborbital joy ride in two to three years."
Related Stories
[+]
Mid-Atlantic Commercial Spaceport Makes First Launch 67 comments
PeeAitchPee writes "East Coast residents of the US were treated to the first launch from the mid-Atlantic region's commercial spaceport. The 69-foot Minotaur I rocket soared from the launch pad at 7 a.m. ET, after teams spent the week resolving a glitch in software for one of the satellites that had scrubbed a liftoff on Monday. I witnessed the launch while driving to BWI airport this morning and it was beautiful! It left a zig-zag contrail in the southern sky and the separation / ignition of one of the upper stages was clearly visible." The spaceport, a commercial collaboration of Virginia and Maryland, is on the Delmarva peninsula south of the Maryland line, just west of Chincoteague Island.
[+]
European Launch Site For Virgin Galactic 94 comments
syguy writes "Sir Richard Branson's sub-orbital space tourism venture, Virgin Galactic, is considering a second launch site in Europe. Already committed to Spaceport America near Upham, New Mexico, USA, Virgin Galactic has signed a deal with the Swedish company Spaceport to investigate providing sub-orbital flights from Kiruna airport, Sweden. This is one of the northernmost commercial airports in the world. Branson is attracted by the possibility of offering flights through the Aurora Borealis. Flights could begin in 2011 or 2012." From the article: "The company said last year they would be conducting research into the safety of such a flight. Scientists have little information on how the storms that produce the northern lights affect spacecraft. [The] joint NASA-Canadian Space Agency THEMIS project will launch five satellites into space in February to monitor the northern lights..."
[+]
Politics: One Step Closer To Spaceport America 149 comments
space_hippy writes "The next step for a project we've previously discussed has now come around: thanks to a sales tax increase it seems as though the residents of Dona Ana county in New Mexico will be playing host to the first American commercial spaceport. From the BBC article: 'Residents in the US state of New Mexico have approved a new tax to build the nation's first commercial spaceport. Dona Ana County is a relatively poor and bleak swath of desert in southern New Mexico with fewer than 200,000 residents. But voters passed a 0.25% increase in the local sales tax to help contribute to the cost of building Spaceport America. Sir Richard Branson has signed a long-term lease with the state of New Mexico to make the new spaceport the headquarters of his Virgin Galactic space tourism business. The spaceport is expected to open in 2009, and Virgin Galactic says space flights will cost around $200,000 for a 2.5-hour flight.'"
This discussion has been archived.
No new comments can be posted.
The Fine Print: The following comments are owned by whoever posted them. We are not responsible for them in any way.
Government Propping Up Companies (Score:4, Insightful)
Great, another industry being propped up by government revenue. Because that worked so well for the telecommunications industry.
Re:Government Propping Up Companies (Score:5, Insightful)
With commercial development hopefully driving space flight costs down, we could soon be in a situation where individual states could afford to have their own space programs. We could even get to the point where we could economically use LEO for quick trips to places halfway around the world.
As space flight (hopefully) becomes more commonplace, this spaceport will be a great thing for New Mexico to have. Yes, it's a big gamble, but it's a gamble that could not only pay off big, but also one that will spark the imaginations of New Mexico school children, and hopefully get them more interested in math and science. If it manages to do that, and maybe spur the creation of aerospace programs at the two major universities in the state, then it's worth it even if it tanks after Virgin Galactic is through with it.
Re: (Score:2)
New Mexico is ideal for launching, and the could get facilities next to white sands. Which mean already controlled airspace. in other words location, location, location.
Re:Government Propping Up Companies (Score:5, Informative)
LEO will never be economical for trips between two points on the Earth's surface. The energies involved in getting to that speed are ridiculously high for that short of a distance (relatively speaking, of course). LEO brings a whole host of problems with it, including high reentry temperatures (due to the high velocity needed to attain LEO to begin with) and ridiculous amounts of fuel needed to reach it.
To put things in perspective: Burt Rutan and crew basically recreated the very first manned Mercury launch (the one with Al Shephard aboard). It was a sub-orbital launch that placed the rocket on a parabolic trajectory... pretty much the same as if you could throw a ball in the air high enough to just barely leave the atmosphere, and then let it fall back to Earth. Since the velocity of the projectile (or spacecraft) is very small when it reenters the atmosphere, no heat shielding is needed.
On the other hand, to get a vehicle to low Earth orbit requires balancing the force of gravity exactly with forward velocity to create a stable system. This requires velocities in excess of 17,000 mph, which is why spacecraft reentering from orbit need all kinds of heat shielding to protect the craft from the friction of the atmosphere.
It would be much more economical for a craft to launch at an angle (or start out in flight at high altitudes, with airbreathing jet engines), and gain just enough energy to leave the atmosphere on a parabolic path that would cross much of the trip in the vacuum of space. Reentering would not need much heat shielding, because the velocities would not be as high as an orbital flight, which would make the trip much safer. Such systems using combinations of airbreathing engines and rockets could be very fuel effecient.
The space shuttle, just after Main Engine Cutoff, is on a parabolic flight path that will have it reenter and land in the Indian Ocean (if it stayed ballistic; the shuttle also has control surfaces and can steer). During missions, it has to fire the engines several more times after MECO to elevate this orbit and attain LEO.
Traveling between points on the Earth's surface will almost always be suborbital. However, that being said, finding economical ways to get to LEO in the first place is the first step to economical travel to places like the Moon and beyond.
Re:Government Propping Up Companies (Score:4)
I'm bloody well aware that we live in a fragile ecosystem comprising elements that can only be apprehended in very large networks and complex physical repositories.
Point is, we live on the Earth, and we're using it up.
The only way the Earth's population will diminish is catastrophically; until that happens, we will continue to attempt to grow.
There's more out there if we want it. We may have to live on space food sticks for a while until we can establish enough of a biosphere to act as a backup for the one we've got, the one with the smoking bearings making that scraping sound.
Re:Government Propping Up Companies (Score:4, Insightful)
Secondly, isn't that part of the role of the government? To create and maintain basic infrastructure that people can use?
I don't see how this is different from building an airport or from building roads.
The telecom thing did not take off because the government was trying to provide a service - this is not particularly a service, this is building an infrastructure that could be used by others.
Besides, I think this is the sort of thing governments *should* do - beats the hell out of making condoms or TV sets (look at some socialist countries where the telecom thing was taking to an extreme, where the government started doing just about everything).
Best of both worlds, IMHO.
Re: (Score:2, Funny)
Re:Government Propping Up Companies (Score:5, Informative)
Government funding technology and scientific development in the private sector, and reigning in corporations such as AT&T (well, ok... previously they reigned in AT&T but I am still waiting for the "New" AT&T to be reigned in) when they start abusing their positions of power.
What I am against:
The government being the source of funding for "useless" technology, corporations abusing their position like the telecommunications companies currently, or funding pork barrel types of projects or initiatives.
My opinion is that we want government funding to turn space flight into a future commodity which many can enjoy (especially since NASA's budget has been flagging a lot recently). I certainly do not currently see an issue with their funding unless their actual goals are different than my perceived assumption, or if someone is just trying to make a small fortune off of the American citizens back VIA taxes and subsidies without providing equal compensation to those paying.
Considering this was FTA:
---
Now the voters in the Dona Ana County municipality where the project is to be located will weigh in, in a referendum scheduled for April 3 on a new sales tax to fund the project.
If Spaceport America meets with voter approval, a maiden space voyage is expected in two to three years. If passed, the new tax would add 25 cents to a 100-dollar purchase, bringing in about 6.5 million dollars per year.
---
My take is that the voters will decide, and fortunately we are talking state (county?) legislature, not federal taxes. If you don't like the project, vote against it. If you don't live in that county or other involved counties in New Mexico, don't like it, and hence won't be paying for it, why do you care?
It seems that this is not really pork barrel spending like the telecommunications stuff was. That (telecommunications stuff) was just a lot of people getting a lot of money, with minimal to no returns for the people actually funding it. And on top of that I don't ever recall there being a method for me to directly vote against any of that telecommunications spending myself, only by proxy of a congress critter.
This is New Mexico funding a project which could (potentially) net New Mexico tourisim dollars, not to mention all this research and development is (or would be) paying for people to have jobs, and hence, pay taxes into the program.
I wish them luck, and if they (or the other two states mentioned get this program off of the ground) I might consider taking a tour if the price ever comes down from the clouds or if I happen to get rich.
(Just my 2 cents)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Some government propping is a good thing (OSHA, Fair Labor Laws). For big business, it is all about who will give the company the best deal, which usually means no taxes. When Miller Brewery built their facility near
Commerical/Government (Score:5, Insightful)
Am I the only one that sees the oxymoron here... "the world's first commercial spaceport" vs "Governor Bill Richardson recently secured 33 million dollars from the state legislature for the final design, and a proposed 0.25% sales tax increase in Dona Ana County,
This is a government spaceport. Possible deployed to deliver commercial products into space but it should be billed corrected as a government facility. Yet another shining example of your tax dollars at work. I am glad I don't live in that state/county but I fully expect that when a tornado or hurricane wipes it out I will have to foot the FEMA bill for it.
I'm not against space ports. But if Virgin Galactic wants a facility then Virgin Galactic should foot the bill for it.
Re:Commerical/Government (Score:5, Interesting)
And they aren't leasing out the whole facilities, only portions of it. Now, if this took off, there would doubtless be others who would build something like this and they too could lease the facility.
This is more like the government building the first airport so that more people fly to/from a particularly destination. More people fly out from the Spaceport to see space means NM gets more revenue and the tourism improves. And the companies providing the service will also have to pay the state of NM for use of the facility.
If Virgin was the only company that did it, what is the point? There is no competition and others cannot use the facility. This way, NM keeps the prime real-estate and gets to make money out of it.
Re:Commerical/Government (Score:4, Insightful)
Since you brought up government subsidized airfields... Do you mean "NM keeps the prime real-estate and gets to make money out of it." in the same way that the US government turns a tidy profit these days from the airfields/airlines that it subsidized?
No, I read that Virgin is leasing. Virgin is getting a cheaper cost of vehicle launch at the expense of government tax payers with the state expecting [hoping would be a better word] to make 6.5Million annually.
Sorry, Virgin has a shill in the NM government that is acquiring an economic windfall for them on the public's dime. All the economic risk that Virgin should be bearing is being shifted to the public.
Commercial money should fund commercial ventures. The government should not be involved in the business of making money because it has been proven time and time again that government efforts cannot be done efficiently and do not make money.
And there is a basic flaw with your economic argument... If it is going to be profitable and sustainable to provide this facility why do they need to raise sales taxes? Because the truth is they expect to make a net loss each year and need additional tax revenue to break even. (Yes, you can bring in 6.5Million every year and still have a net loss.)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Your choice of words amuses me.
Re:Commerical/Government (Score:4, Funny)
Because South-Central New Mexico is such a hotbed for Hurricane & Tornado activity......
+1 for observation
-1 for geography & meteorology
Re:Commerical/Government (Score:4, Informative)
Governments have always been involved in commercial operations. The two are not mutually exclusive. This could be a government-run commercial spaceport, or it could be a government-owned-but-privately-run commercial spaceport, or it could be a non-commercial spaceport.
Commercial != Private.
Of course, many people believe that government should not be involved in commercial activity at all, which is what I think you're getting at. But it's still perfectly fine to call this a commercial spaceport regardless of who owns or runs it, since goods and services will be bought and sold there.
Re: (Score:2)
Agreed. And yes my point is that government should not be involved in commercial activity.
But I also don't think it's fine to call it a commercial spaceport because I think the most widely accepted connotation of that is "private industry run/managed/fund
Re:Commerical/Government (Score:4, Interesting)
Re: (Score:2)
So in what way does building something and then charging the people that use it not qualify as commercial?
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Isn't that the same for most FAA airports? Basically, the airports are run by the federal agency and leased by private corporations?
Certainly there should be some regulation of space travel like regular air travel.
No one want
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
How do you feel about the many commercial airports which receive government funding (in many cases orders of magnitude more money than thi
Re: (Score:2)
This is Doña Anna County in New Mexico. If a hurricane wipes it out, it will have done so after traveling at least 600 miles overland and over a
How big is this place? (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
If Branson is getting it for $1, that pretty much shouts "governme
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re:How big is this place? (Score:5, Informative)
A commercial space port won't be complete... (Score:2, Redundant)
OBL: Battlestar Gallactica Reference (Score:2)
The alcohol guzzling, cigar smoking, disobedient, hot-shot pilot
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
One small question.. (Score:3, Funny)
Two thoughts on this (Score:3, Funny)
1. This will be very good for that part of New Mexico. As a whole, the state is relatively poor.
2. What on earth would you use a spaceport for? I don't think in terms of eighth grade pulp sci-fi these days (think Tek Jansen), so seriously, what would a spaceport be for?
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
A spaceport, by definition, is where you launch and recover spacecraft. So I'd imagine that this spaceport would be used to launch and recover spacecraft.
More specifically, it will be the launching point for the Virgin Galactic fleet of space tourism vehi
Re:Two thoughts on this (Score:5, Funny)
Well obviously... where else would you put the space cantina?
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
Basically, it's so a special plane can take people up very very high off the ground
Re: (Score:2)
1. This will be very good for that part of New Mexico. As a whole, the state is relatively poor.
2. What on earth would you use a spaceport for? I don't think in terms of eighth grade pulp sci-fi these days (think Tek Jansen), so ser
Low Numbers (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Will it have... (Score:2)
Re:Will it have... (Score:5, Funny)
If I were in my twenties again (Score:2)
It's a risk, but the potential pay off and wow factor would be to large to ignore.
Will there be a coach class? (Score:2)
Just playing devil's advocate here, but people are going to ask that question or something similar.
Re: (Score:2, Funny)
GNU/America [wikipedia.org] took off years ago, and didn't work out.
Re: (Score:2, Funny)
Re:27 million over 20 years? (Score:4, Insightful)
If this were funded federally, then your point makes sense. But it's not, and so it doesn't.
PURE LACK-OF-COMPREHENSION BULLSHIT
Re:27 million over 20 years? (Score:4, Insightful)
So you are heading up Virgin Galactic and you are trying to decide were you want to spend $27 million dollars to establish a service catering specifically to the ultra rich. You would probably put it in a state like California, New York, or maybe Virginia, if you don't decided to put it in Dubai or some other country outside the US.
This leads us to New Mexico, home of absolutely nothing, with a less than stellar economy. If you are the governor of New Mexico and you hear that Virgin Galactic is looking for somewhere to spend $27 Million dollars, and bring some of the richest tourist in the world to your state what do you do. You could say, go ahead an build it if you can find someone to sell you the land we will approve the zoning. Or maybe you decided you can sell some public trust land for the project. So far you have made no offer that other wealthier areas couldn't make, and so give no enticement to build in your state. So instead you say, I'll front the money for you to bring in your industry and higher local people to work for you. You might feel that enticing companies to move to your state is a waste of governmental funds, but I think you would be in a minority there.