This is not a NASA Website. You might learn something. It's YOUR space agency. Get involved. Take it back. Make it work - for YOU.
Commercialization

Why Does Space Florida Need Its Own Spaceport?

By Keith Cowing
NASA Watch
December 30, 2013
Filed under , , ,

FAA Notice of Intent to Prepare an Environmental Impact Statement: Shiloh Launch Complex
“Based on comments received during the scoping period, the FAA may analyze additional alternatives. However, at this time, the alternatives under consideration include the Proposed Action and the No Action Alternative. Under the No Action Alternative, the FAA would not issue a Launch Site Operator License to Space Florida.”
Federal review set for Fla. plan to build site for rocket launches, Washington Post
“Space Florida expects a new center for launches could be largely free of much of the federal red tape and the competing national priorities that can bog down private launches from the nearby Kennedy Space Center or from Cape Canaveral Air Force Station launch complexes. It’s also close enough to the old Kennedy space shuttle landing strip, which Space Florida also is seeking to acquire, that the agency thinks companies could use them together. It’s the only place, we believe, that Florida could offer the capability for a purely commercial launch site,” said Dale Ketcham, Space Florida’s director of strategic alliances. But the spot is within one of the most revered natural places in Florida, a 140,000-acre sanctuary of marshes, beaches, lagoons and abundant wildlife.”
Keith’s note: Why is more government land needed when so much of KSC and CCAFS’s vast real estate already remains unused – and is begging for commercial users? Oh, and at the same time, why go out of your way to pick a national wildlife refuge to destroy? Creating a third spaceport next to KSC and CCAFS will result in duplication of capabilities at a time when consolidation and dual use are what people are striving for. While NASA is moving toward more commercial use of its facilities (LC-39A for example) it is odd that Space Florida wants to go in the opposite direction.
I do not understand how this is going to make things easier since this new spaceport would still need to cooperate with range issues on launches from KSC and CCAFS next door and would be subject to the same weather and face issues with use of a runway deep inside a government facility. They are just going to end up making things more complicated in the Space Coast area rather than less complicated. And just watch as Space Florida sticks their hand out looking for Federal (NASA) money to create this duplicate capability – directly and/or indirectly.
If anything the commercial launch sector ought to be looking for places that do not have space launch neighbors, comparatively blank slates in terms of operational complexity, and better weather – like SpaceX has been seeking to do in Texas. Why should Florida have a near-monopoly on launching things into space?

NASA Watch founder, Explorers Club Fellow, ex-NASA, Away Teams, Journalist, Space & Astrobiology, Lapsed climber.

36 responses to “Why Does Space Florida Need Its Own Spaceport?”

  1. MarcNBarrett says:
    0
    0

    I am just an amateur space enthusiast, but I was always told that the reason that space centers were located in south Florida had to do with a bit of orbital mechanics. For normal orbits (IE: not polar ones), the closer a launch is from the equator, the less energy is needed to get the rocket into orbit. (The rocket gets a ‘boost’ from the motion of the earth) This said, I have always wondered, why not locate a launch center in Puerto Rico?

    • kcowing says:
      0
      0

      Then why are rockets being launched to the ISS from Wallops Island, VA, Baikonur, French Guiana, and Japan? ISS was supposed to be at 28.8 but it was moved to 51.6 so as to allow easier access to ISS from Russia and other launch locations.

      • Gonzo_Skeptic says:
        0
        0

        Then why are rockets being launched to the ISS from Wallops Island, VA, Baikonur, French Guiana, and Japan?
        The launch site at Kourou, French Guiana, is almost on the equator.

        • kcowing says:
          0
          0

          But a the other launch sites are further away from the equator.If being close to the equator is *SO* important then why did we move ISS from 28. to 51.6 unless … its not.

          • DTARS says:
            0
            0

            Didn’t Elon Musk say that fuel is the cheapest part of a rocket? Isn’t the difference from one latitude or the other fixed by making your tanks larger which lowers your max q and your payload only a tiny bit. Haven’t we learned from Spacex that you just build margin into your rockets. Make your rockets affordable which includes launch from anywhere.

            Also when my family moved from New York to South Carolina so did many other people. They were getting away from high taxes and big government. Isn’t it hard to undo the red tape?

          • Jeff Smith says:
            0
            0

            Hard? Nearly impossible.

            All current management theory (*shudder* that I’m relying on that) points out that radical change from within a large organization is terribly difficult. It’s MUCH easier to create a new company/organization/department/office/bureau/etc to deal with disruptive change. That’s the central premise from Clayton Christensen at Harvard in his book The Innovator’s Dilemma. Steve Jobs couldn’t build a Mac at IBM nor could Elon Musk build a Falcon at NASA, it just is not possible to do certain kinds of innovation at existing organizations.

            Jeff

          • Gonzo_Skeptic says:
            0
            0

            its not

            I’m not an expert on orbital mechanics, but I’m guessing it matters for anything going past LEO.

            For the ISS, you are probably right.

          • RockyMtnSpace says:
            0
            0

            The ISS was moved to 51.6 to enable launches from the former Soviet Union. They only had access to sites well north of the equator (homeland Russia as it were) so the ISS was moved to a higher inclination so that little or no plane change was needed to reach the ISS from these launch sites. Shuttle ended up spending more propellant to get to the ISS as a result and that is why the launch window was so narrow (5 minutes if memory serves). The other sites you mention are all well north of the equator so the same logic holds for them.

          • dogstar29 says:
            0
            0

            Baikonur is in Kazakhstan, part of the former USSR, but not Russia.

          • Brian Thorn says:
            0
            0

            That was forced on NASA by the Clinton Administration, wasn’t it? Alpha with Russia (Ralpha) was the only way to get Freedom reinstated, and Ralpha meant 51.6 instead of 28.5. It was obviously doable, but hardly ideal from the US’s perspective, with a 30%ish payload penalty compared to Shuttle to 28.5. That meant the SLWT project, which more or less offset whatever we saved by partnering with Russia, and still required launching Destiny, Kibo, etc. nearly empty.

          • Jeff2Space says:
            0
            0

            While this is true, the shuttle is a bad example for a couple of reasons. #1 is that it is retired. #2 is that the orbiter itself wasn’t counted as “payload” when coming up with that “30%ish” number. An Atlas, Delta, Falcon, etc. will have a *much* smaller “payload penalty” than the space shuttle.

          • dogstar29 says:
            0
            0

            Moving the ISS to a high inclination required considerably more shuttle launches since payload was reduced. Equatorial launch sites provide considerable advantage for launching to equatorial orbits, including GEO. The advantage of an equatorial launch site is less and may become a liability when launching to high inclination orbits. Moving to a high inclincation was essential for Russian participation, which was essential for Congressional funding.

    • Anonymous says:
      0
      0

      Note that Spacex recently acquired land at the very southern tip of Texas, south of Brownsville. The latitude is a almost two hundred miles south of Cape Canaveral, roughly equivalent to north Miami.

      They chose that location for good reason. Max payload to equatorial orbit, but still in the U.S. proper, so no customs or ITAR issues, with sea, road and potentially rail access. Also, you can launch over water and recover the (1st? 2nd?) stages on land in Florida, then ship them back to Texas.

      • Brian Thorn says:
        0
        0

        No. Florida is too far away and in the wrong direction (due east or east-northeast to get to Cape Canaveral) to recover first stages from Brownsville (which will fly southeastward to thread the needle between the Yucatan and Cuba) and the second stage will be near orbital velocity and can thus land pretty much anywhere it wants, probably California after one orbit or back at Brownsville if overflight is allowed.

      • Hug Doug ✓ᵛᵉʳᶦᶠᶦᵉᵈ says:
        0
        0

        the 1st stages will return to the launch site to land. they’ll only be about 100 miles or so downrange at stage separation.

    • cynical_space says:
      0
      0

      Here is where the terminology matters. The “normal” orbits you are referring to are equatorial orbits or those with 0 deg inclination. Yes, launching from the equator gives you a bigger boost going up, since that is where the Earth is turning the fastest, relative to that 0 deg inclination orbit.

      Another thing is that if you launch from somewhere on the Earth other than the equator your spacecraft winds up in an inclination different from 0 deg. So, you will need to carry more fuel on your vehicle to make this inclination change if that is the operational inclination. More fuel=more mass=more expense. Inclination changes can be quite expensive in terms of fuel used, and the larger the change, the more fuel that is needed.

      So, there is advantage for those spacecraft going to equatorial orbits to be launched from the equator and a large number of satellites (especially commercial) do have equatorial orbits, either at LEO or geosync. They don’t have to book that extra fuel for an inclination change if they are already starting from the equator.

      Note however, that not all spacecraft are in equatorial orbits and even for those that are, the industry is such that folks still launch from the variety of launch sites across the globe. For non-orbiting spacecraft, the trajectory determines the most efficient launch site, and you can’t just assume an answer.

      In practical terms, launch site location just hasn’t been as large a competitive factor as one might assume.

      • Steve Pemberton says:
        0
        0

        “In practical terms, launch site location just hasn’t been as large a competitive factor as one might assume”

        Case in point – the Inmarsat launch earlier this month from Baikonur was to a geostationary orbit

        • savuporo says:
          0
          0

          Case in point Kwajalein : )
          Corroded nuts and slow boats dont compensate for a few degrees of inclination.

    • Steve Pemberton says:
      0
      0

      Rotational speed (mph)

      Equator 1,038
      Brownsville 933
      KSC 911
      Wallops 819
      Baikonur 726

      To put this in perspective, if we assume launching to ISS at 17,100 mph, then the acceleration needed from each site is:

      Equator 16,062
      Brownsville 16,167
      KSC 16,189
      Wallops 16,281
      Baikonur 16,374

      Yes it’s nice to be closer to the equator, but it’s not the be-all end-all

      • Saturn1300 says:
        0
        0

        Thanks Steve for the research. In fact NASA is going to launch the next Mars launch polar. They are using a larger rocket than the craft was designed for. So where does it make the 90 deg. turn and why do it?

  2. Stephen C. Smith says:
    0
    0

    Keith, this question has been answered rather definitely in our local media here in the Space Coast.

    Basically, it boils down to not having multiple government agencies adding redundant layers of bureaucracy to the launch process.

    When SpaceX came to CCAFS, they were handed a mound of USAF regulations, some of which went back to the 1950s-1960s and no longer have relevance. SpaceX, as you know, is all about reducing costs; complying with obsolete or pointless regulations raises costs.

    Now SpaceX is negotiating to lease 39A on the KSC side. The same issues exist. SpaceX is a very specific approach to how they launch rockets. KSC for the last half-century has done it differently. NASA’s bureaucracy, I suspect, will have the same difficulty as the USAF allowing SpaceX to innovate without imposing obsolete regulations.

    As for other pads at CCAFS, most of those are obsolete by today’s standards. They were designed in an era where pads weren’t much larger than a few acres. Today’s vehicles are much larger and far more complex.

    Some pads are being reactivated for commercial use, e.g. LC-36 is now managed by Space Florida which is looking for potential tenants. Masten Systems has expressed an interest, and it’s possible that SpaceX might use LC-36 to land reusable stages and the crewed Dragon.

    As for Shiloh, the land under consideration was an orange grove for a century. It’s not pristine land. Environmentalists spinning this as virgin land simply aren’t telling the truth.

    • kcowing says:
      0
      0

      This is just a waste of money – instead of trying to fix the problems that all the SF spokespeople are waving their arms about, SF wants to build a spaceport next to a spaceport that is already next to a spaceport. They are just going to end up making things more complicated in the Space Coast area rather than less complicated since all launch sites still need to coordinate with one another. Throwing in yet another entity that will still be required to adhere to a long list of FAA, NASA, DoD, etc regulations won’t make anything simpler. As for launch pads there is plenty of real estate at KSC and CCAFS to build these launch sites you refer to. Space Florida is simply obsessed with empire building and throwing out these imaginary problems to justify their ambitions.

      • Skinny_Lu says:
        0
        0

        Agree completely. Here is something useful Space Florida can do. Help Space X and NASA work out details of the LC-39A lease. NASA was ready to let this pad “rust to the ground”. Now SpaceX has a use for it. Do not allow NASA to impose unrealistic expectations about what SpaceX can do or not do with the pad. The pad was going to end up next to the Apollo tower, rusting away on a empty lot in KSC. It was only a few years ago that the pieces were finally carted off and scrapped. Let SpaceX modify the pad to fit their needs. If NASA wants to retain some pieces of PadA as historical artifacts, cart them away to the museum.

        • Steve Pemberton says:
          0
          0

          “If NASA wants to retain some pieces of PadA as historical artifacts, cart them away to the museum.”

          NASA has already removed the 39A orbiter access arm and white room earlier this year for eventual display somewhere.

          In the Announcement for Proposals for the lease of pad 39A, NASA specifically mentioned three items as being historic artifacts – the orbiter access arm (includes the white room), the Gaseous Oxygen Vent Arm (includes the beanie cap), and the Emergency Egress Bunker Rubber Room and Blast Room.

          The AFP further states:“NASA will require access to these artifacts with proper coordination, and they cannot be damaged or modified during the term of any agreement”

          The way I interpret this, SpaceX is free to modify the service structure to their liking as long as they don’t touch the beanie cap. And if NASA also removes the vent arm and beanie cap, then SpaceX would be free to do as they will with the FSS and RSS including tearing it all down if they don’t need it and it’s in their way.

      • lifeshardnew says:
        0
        0

        When Elon and Jeff almost get into a fist fight over Pad 39A you can’t tell me there is no demand. Where else in the USA is there the infrastructure to coordinate multiple launches already in place. I am sure in one of those KSC buildings the FAA and DoD are on speed dial. The only people to suggest we need a second whole new spaceport are the ones hoping for Fed pork dollars.

        • dogstar29 says:
          0
          0

          FAA was not in the past involved. The value of LC-39A as a launch site doesn’t depend on the ability to access NASA and DOD, but on their willingness to keep their hands off.

          • lifeshardnew says:
            0
            0

            I just don’t see it vulture4, IF ITS NOT BROKE DON”T FIX IT. Who are all these other Commercial Space launchers begging for a new Launch Complex? Only Space X is launching their own rocket and I never hear them complain about KSC Range issues. Sierra Nevada Space Systems nope, Boeing CST-100 nope, they both are counting on United Launch Alliances which has its investments in KSC. How about Virgin Galactic NOPE Sir Richard has his own Space Port. Where are the big Commercial Space customers for WHOLE NEW SPACEPORT? can you count them on one hand? can you count them at all? Give us the names of your renters so we can see your logic.

          • dogstar29 says:
            0
            0

            The system most assuredly IS broke. I remember when all commercial satellites were launched from the Space Coast, but that was a long time ago. We have not had a single launch paid for by anyone except the taxpayers in over five years, because our costs are simply not competitive with the world market. Now SpaceX has had two commercial launches in the past month. SpaceX is alone in having cost reduction and competition for commercial launch services as a goal. So for SpaceX the inefficient procedures required by the DOD and NASA are unacceptable and would undermine its business.

          • dogstar29 says:
            0
            0

            The system IS most assuredly broken. Here on the space coast we once launched ALL the world’s commercial satellites. But ULA became uncompetitive with world prices. In the past five years there were none at all, only a handful in ten years, until SpaceX launched two in the past month. SpaceX is the ONLY launch provider that can win commercial contracts for the US because SpaceX is the ONLY launch provider that is intent on reducing cost. SpaceX does not want to launch under the authority of the DOD. Coincidence? I think not.

      • dogstar29 says:
        0
        0

        The problem is that currently the Eastern Test Range has authority over all KSC launches. There has been talk of “modernizing the range” for at least 25 years that I remember, but little has changed. Efficient regulation of commercial industry just isn’t the DOD mission, and DOD oversight adds costs considerably greater than building a new launch pad.

        If NASA announces tomorrow that launches from LC-39 will be under FAA jurisdiction and that the Eastern Test Range will no longer be involved, SpaceX might drop the plan for Shiloh. That said, I believe a launch site at Shiloh could be operated with little or no impact on the land’s environmental value.

        • lifeshardnew says:
          0
          0

          vulture4 I like your can do PRO SPACE attitude we are all on the same side of the table. But we got to watch out for the Bean Counters and the “Space whats it good for haters” WE DO WANT more Space Centers and more projects. But if too soon and if a big investment fails, Space Vision as a whole gets the blame. Hurting us all. We can’t do a big project like this on the hopes that Elon will move and that the environmental impact will be small. We must keep the Vision but keep it safe from being hated. And by all means keep up the IDEAs. peace my friend.

  3. Dewey Vanderhoff says:
    0
    0

    When you look at the Space Coast from on high in Google Earth , this situation becomes perfectly clear… mile after mile of sprawling unused military and civilian space facilities as Keith describes it …and perfectly opaque as Stephen C. Smith flaunts it. I’ll go with Keith and the obvious here. Smith’s construct from Legos and old Erector Set kits , morphing up a new spaceport , is precisely as Keith describes it: Empire Building.

    Follow the money.

  4. Saturn1300 says:
    0
    0

    Space Fl. are also making a launch site at Jacksonville. They have given some money to a company that says they will launch sub-orbital off of a business jet. They gave money to a start up to do like SpaceX. Now they say they might be in over their heads. I wonder if this is the company that Penn State said they had put a deposit on for a launch of their Moon X prize rover. They said it was a start up. SpaceX can not be a start up now. They also said they have a engine maker. I said awhile back that now one had a launch contract. They do, if it means anything. I think Space Fl. are not very good at what they do and are wasting taxpayer money.
    Texas is going to spend a lot of money on Brownsville. Will they run off all the boats during a launch? Or just give notice. To start a new launch site from scratch is a lot of work. How can SpaceX afford all these sites? I would rather see them spend money on Mars.

  5. jamesmuncy says:
    0
    0

    Keith, I understand your criticism of the waste in creating a third spaceport where two already exist. But neither KSC nor CCAFS are willing to give up control over their land/infrastructure. NASA ceded launch control to the Air Force back in the 1960s. Unless a facility can be built on non-KSC land or transferred without restriction to a state entity like Space Florida, you need permission from the Range to launch. Tenants don’t like that, but Space Florida can’t undo that deal by fiat. So they are proposing to use land that doesn’t require AF permission to launch. If we could just privatize CCAS, it would solve most of these problems.

  6. NASAdude says:
    0
    0

    If bureaucracy is the issue, then bureaucracy should be addressed. Has anybody looked at changing how JSC is operated? State and federal elected officials and business could advocate to Congress to have JSC transfer its real property assets to a special purpose federal corporation with commercialization of space and supporting NASA launches as its mission. JSC could continue to operate its core mission and lease back what it needs. The fed corp could cherry pick talent from the existing JSC and then set about to set up new rules, procedures, and safety standards. There are models out there. The goal: promote commercialization, save money, and reduce NASA’s real estate footprint.

    • dogstar29 says:
      0
      0

      Bureaucracy is the issue. Even transferring KSC land to Space Florida (which I believe is already the owner of record for Cx 40 and 41) does not alter the DoD authority over range safety. DoD does some amazing things, but it is NOT a profit-making entity.