Slashdot Mirror


Commercial Spaceport In Texas

Scothoser writes "CNN has this article on a rocket that was launched on a ranch site near Stockton, Texas. Their hope is that it will become a commercial launch site for anything, as long as it is legal. The major reason for this move is that using NASA launch sites are prohibitively expensive. This way someone can launch their home-made satellites for much less than approaching NASA. Now I am just waiting for the HOW-TO on a Linux-run micro-satellite!"

33 of 194 comments (clear)

  1. Applications for launch from overseas? by RichMan · · Score: 5, Funny

    Is the launch site within 600 miles (range of Scud missle) of President Bush's ranch?

    1. Re:Applications for launch from overseas? by Vrallis · · Score: 3, Funny

      I'm sure it is, but if you use a SCUD from Fort Stockton to the ranch, it will probably hit Pheonix instead =)

    2. Re:Applications for launch from overseas? by Syncdata · · Score: 5, Funny

      Is the launch site within 600 miles (range of Scud missle) of President Bush's ranch?
      I'd just like to take this opportunity to say hello to the NSA, who are undoubtedly quite interested in any communication dealing with SCUD+"White House". Howdy fellas!

      --
      "Inattention makes clowns of us all" -Bean
  2. Legal? by Cyno01 · · Score: 5, Funny

    What wouldn't be legal? Its space, its like international waters. I didn't sign a treaty saying i wouldn't launch any space based weapons platforms. Who's gonna stop me if i wanna launch my weather control machine (evil laugh).

    --
    "Sic Semper Tyrannosaurus Rex."
    1. Re:Legal? by (startx) · · Score: 5, Funny

      you've still got those nasty crypto export regulations to deal with, and as you pointed out, space is not the US, so if your sending out your weather control system, better make sure the controls have some very weak, legal encryption.

    2. Re:Legal? by Meridun · · Score: 4, Interesting
      As funny as it is, this is actually pretty much the heart of why it costs so much to launch satellites: any rocket capable of putting something into orbit is realistically an ICBM.

      Near the anniversary of Sputnik (which I think was last week), I'd remind everyone that it was this fact that was why Sputnik was so frightening to Americans; if the Soviets could put a beeping piece of metal into orbit, they could just as easily have made it come down near us instead.

      Therefore, any company that is capable of putting cargo into space is very likely to find itself under strict regulation, due to the potential for that cargo to be miss orbit either accidentally or purposely.

    3. Re:Legal? by Meridun · · Score: 5, Informative
      Correct, yet not as dangerous.

      Very few commercial planes travel above Mach 1. In order to get a package into orbit, it has to be going quite a bit faster. For example, geostationary orbit (orbiting once every 24 hours at 22,300 mi altitude/ 35,000 mi from center of earth) requires the satellite to be moving at about 9,000 mph. Given that Mach 1 is about 750 mph, that means that our satellite is traveling above Mach 12.

      Frankly, that's the real threat of an ICBM. It's extraordinarily difficult to shoot down something moving at 12 times the speed of sound and your decision time to engage is very small. Therefore, you are correct that Commercial Aviation does have this type of hazard, but I think you'll agree that the magnitude of danger is quite different.

    4. Re:Legal? by lommer · · Score: 3, Informative

      Not at all...

      The 9,000 mph figure you're quoting is the escape velocity - an instantaneous velocity at the surface of the earth which, without any external acceleration save that of gravity, should theoretically get you into orbit.

      However, this is as ridiculously simplistic as it is stupid. In reality, one only has to achieve slightly more than 9.8m/s^2 acceleration and maintain that for the duration of the trip to space. Granted, the shuttle uses a LOT more than just 9.8 m/s^2 acceleration, but it still never reached speeds of 9,000 mph.

    5. Re:Legal? by John+Sullivan · · Score: 3, Interesting
      In reality, one only has to achieve slightly more than 9.8m/s^2 acceleration and maintain that for the duration of the trip to space.

      Actually, any positive acceleration no matter how small will do - though the higher the more efficient the launch will be. This means you have to generate a force of at least 9.8 N per kg of rocket at the surface though.

      Granted, the shuttle uses a LOT more than just 9.8 m/s^2 acceleration, but it still never reached speeds of 9,000 mph.

      Indeed, but the shuttle is not an ICBM. The difference being not the launch, but the landing. The shuttle has to land in one piece and keep its human cargo in one piece too. The ICBM may well go up at the same speed, but on the way down you want it to be going as fast as possible precisely because you want to give the target as little time as possible, so you make it aerodynamic and throw it down from low earth orbit.

      As for the figures, to maintain geostationary orbit you need to travel at just under 7000 mph. You wouldn't want the rocket to go anywhere near that on the way up - because you don't want it to reach or pass geostationary orbit, you want it to come back down again. However on the way down it it going to be going a lot faster than Mach 1.

      --
      This is my World Wide Web of Whatever
  3. Liability issues could be enormous by Ryu2 · · Score: 5, Interesting

    What if your private rocket has a malfunction and goes slamming into a major city, killing thousands? With space technology so new compared to all other forms of transportation, I'm guessing that it would be an insurance nightmare, I think, for any private individual or even single company to afford.

    --
    There's 10 types of people in this world, those who understand binary and those who don't.
    1. Re:Liability issues could be enormous by Titusdot+Groan · · Score: 3, Insightful
      Liability is probably less than for commercial airlines -- they are not "flying" over any populated areas so the risk is pretty low.

      Like most people you are forgetting that insurance is one of the few industries run entirely on logic and mathematics -- their actuaries calculate the risk and the cost and multiple it out to get your premium.

      That's why hunters in Canada can get a couple of million dollars in liability insurance as part of their OFAH membership -- it only costs the Ontario Federation of Anglers and Hunters a couple of bucks per *random* member ...

    2. Re:Liability issues could be enormous by mesocyclone · · Score: 3, Informative

      Cape Canaveral launches over water! Range safety destroys the vehicle before it can get over land.

      Vandenberg likewise launches over water.

      White Sands launches over a military area where they can prohibit entry.

      Fort Stockton, OTOH, is landlocked with no place to create a completely safe range.

      --

      The only good weather is bad weather.

  4. Old News??? by razvedchik · · Score: 5, Funny

    I just made a space station last night for $125,000 while playing Sim City 3000.

    Now if the aliens hadn't come and zapped it up in their flying saucers, I wouldn't have to rebuild it today.

    *sigh* Being mayor is hard.

    --
    I do what the voices on my console tell me to do.
  5. This isn't new by wyopittsa · · Score: 5, Interesting

    According to this article there is a spaceport in California that has been launching since the year 2000. Does anyone know anymore about it?

  6. Feature-full spaceport? by MrEd · · Score: 3, Funny
    Cost-saving measures at this new privately-owned spaceport will include an abbreviated launch sequence - no longer will T-minus start at two days, instead Joe will stand next to the launch plunger and count to three.


    No NASA frills, no NASA gimmicks! Sign up now!

    --

    Wah!

  7. A space port out in the desert! by stevarooski · · Score: 3, Funny

    Excellent! I hope they add a cantina. Also can't forget to renovate docking bay 94.

    In addition, I hope they can keep those pesky jawas out. They shouldn't serve their kind there.

    --

    - - - - - - - -
    Don't worry, being eaten by a crocodile is just like going to sleep in a giant blender.
  8. More than two spaceports in United States by WolfWithoutAClause · · Score: 3, Informative

    There's also a spaceport in Oklahoma, and the state gives tax breaks for people who move their rocketry stuff there. Launch licenses are also somewhat easier to obtain. I happen to know John Carmack was considering doing some of his stuff there.

    --

    -WolfWithoutAClause

    "Gravity is only a theory, not a fact!"
    1. Re:More than two spaceports in United States by ikluft · · Score: 3, Informative
      Yes. Some states are trying to open various spaceport concepts to attract what is currently a fledgling niche in the aerospace industry working on commercial launches.

      JP Aerospace who did Saturday's launch in Texas also did the inaugural flight at Oklahoma's spaceport (a former Air Force base at the town of Burns Flat) in March with two high-altitude balloons. One carried meteorology instruments for Oklahoma Univ to 100,000 ft. The second released at 95,000 ft about 550 paper airplanes made by Oklahoma school kids.

      I'm a JPA member. I was there as part of the crew in Oklahoma. I drove both payloads back to the launch site in my truck. Unfortunately, I couldn't get the time off work to do the Texas flight or I'd be there now too.

  9. yay for them by ehlo · · Score: 3, Interesting

    This is an excellent idea. The government controlled [nasa] launch sites want a small fortune ($1mil+) to jetisson a can of coke into space. These private foundations can only cost a fraction of that.. and im sure more of these privately owned sites will spring forth around the globe pretty quickly. And as we all know only with competition can something really be accomplished. Nasa has proven that without due such all they can accomplish is launch dates in the 3000's. A round of applause to the people of Rancho de Stockton.
    Props to Gene Lyda for letting them use the land free-of-charge!

  10. You know... by Moonshadow · · Score: 5, Funny
    I wonder if, for a certain price, you could shoot various people you don't like off into the voids of space. Now THERE's a business plan.

    "Want a certain someone to disappear? Call 1-800-ASTRONAUT - the perfect birthday or anniversary gift!"

    They'd make millions.

  11. Linux MicroSat maybe... by OmenChange · · Score: 5, Funny

    But no way I'd get on a Linux based shuttle.

    DIY Astronaut: "Houston, I'm running out of oxygen! Having trouble breathing. Why can't I get the air scrubbers to help make the air more breathable?"

    Houston: "Patches are welcome."

    1. Re:Linux MicroSat maybe... by ahooton · · Score: 4, Funny
      DIY Astronaut: "Houston, I'm running out of oxygen! Having trouble breathing. Why can't I get the air scrubbers to help make the air more breathable?"

      Houston: "Hey, you've got all the RPMs you need up there already! First, check the dependencies on air-scrubber.2.4.16-20, and be sure you have air-scrubber-lib.2.4.14-4 loaded first, which is on CD #3, and...

  12. Re:Oooh! by sconeu · · Score: 5, Funny

    No... it's

    1. Launch Lance Bass into space
    2. There is NOOOO Step 2
    3. There is NOOOO Step 3
    4. Celebrate

    --
    General Relativity: Space-time tells matter where to go; Matter tells space-time what shape to be.
  13. John Powell is a great guy by PhantomHarlock · · Score: 5, Interesting
    JP Aerospace is a great little company, partially run by volunteers. Their main specialty is extremely high altitude balloon platforms (edge of space) from which they can conduct experiments and launch rockets. John does a lot of work with kids and education, including taking up "Pong-Sats", which are ping pong balls cut open and stuffed with what ever the kids want to put in them, sans live animals. One person put some digital camera memory in it with all the bits set to zero, and then when it came back got a very accurate radiation measurement by counting all the bits that had flipped.

    I had the pleasure of meeting John at the last Space Access Society meeting in Arizona and talking to him for several hours about high altitude photography from balloon and kite platforms.

    ---Mike

  14. armadillo by Kallahar · · Score: 4, Informative

    Carmack's Armadillo Aerospace (god, I'd love to go work for them :) tried to launch in Texas but couldn't get approval. They had to drive 6 hours to Oklahoma which is launch-friendly (if you give manufacturing preference to OK companies). There are many places that are offering alternative launch locations to NASA, but it's still tough to get approval.

    Links: Armadillo Aerospace Log Entry and The Oklahoma Space Industry Development Authority

  15. You guys are about 40 years late with this story by the+eric+conspiracy · · Score: 5, Informative

    Now I am just waiting for the HOW-TO on a Linux-run micro-satellite!

    Amateur satellites are nothing new. Hams and AMSAT have been putting satellites up since the early 60's. Right now they have about 20 operational satellites in orbit. Linux based software is quite popular in the Ham community, and plays a big role in AMSAT operations. Satellite Software

    The HOW-TO's :

    Davidoff, Martin, The Satellite Experimenter's
    Handbook Newington, CT: The American
    Radio Relay League, 1984.

    Jansson, Richard, Spacecraft Technology Trends
    in the Amateur Satellite Service, Ogden, UT:
    Proceedings of the 1st Annual USU Conference
    on Small Satellites, 1987.

  16. bad location! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 4, Informative

    It's stupid to put a space launch facility in Texas. Especially a commercial one.

    If you launch from close to the equator, you get a much larger initial velocity, and it's free. Free! You can carry a larger payload or use less fuel with your rocket.

    When the French started up Ariannespace, they put it French Guyanna, very close to the equator. Ariannespace has about half of the commerical satellite business.

    1. Re:bad location! by Guppy06 · · Score: 3

      On the other hand, places like Texas and Florida have the advantages of being able to put whatever you want to have thrown up into space into the back of a truck and simply driving it down to Texas or Florida. Just about any place else and you'll have to find a ship to bring your stuff out there, and unless we're talking about Hawaii or a US posession/territory, you'll then have to deal with import/export regulations, which may or may not include tariffs/duties/etc.

      Just because it's somewhat cheaper to launch from lower latitudes doesn't mean it's also easier to reach the launch sitess down there. Name one country on the equator with a half-way modern trasportation infrastructure.

  17. When the rocket veers off course by bbc22405 · · Score: 5, Funny

    Texas is a fine choice for a launch site, if for no other reason than Louisiana, Mississippi, and Alabama being immediately downrange. In the event there is some problem keeping the launch vehicle on course, I can't think of three more deserving states. :-)

  18. CowboyNeal ? by freaker_TuC · · Score: 3, Funny

    ... So in theory we can finally shoot CowboyNeal to outer-space ? ...

    Yay!

    Sorry had to say it :)

    --
    --- I am known for the ones who want to find me on the net. Is that a privacy risk or a privilege? One might wonder..
  19. Hmm... revised Terms of Service by hackshack · · Score: 3, Funny

    To our loyal clients:

    JP Aerospace is now requiring all manned launches to carry at least one ten-gallon cowboy hat per launch. In the rare event of a guidance system malfunction, the crewmember is required to straddle the rocket (see diagram 14) and wave said hat above his/her head while letting out a steady stream of whooping as the rocket falls back to earth.

  20. Stop Blaming NASA for Everything by Detritus · · Score: 5, Informative
    The Eastern Range (Cape Canaveral Air Force Station and Kennedy Space Center) and Western Range (Vandenberg Air Force Base) are run by the U.S. Air Force. They set the safety requirements and have the responsibility for the safe operation of the range.

    When you launch a rocket, you have to be able to guarantee that in the event of a malfunction, the rocket will fall in a safe impact area. There are systems that predict the impact point based on the current position and velocity of the launch vehicle. If there is a danger that the current predicted impact point will move outside of the safe impact area, the range safety officer will send a command to the rocket to activate the flight termination system. The flight termination system terminates powered flight by using linear shaped charges to open up fuel/oxidizer tanks and solid rocket motor cases. This guarantees that the rocket, or the pieces of the rocket, will follow a ballistic trajectory and land in the safe impact area.

    --
    Mea navis aericumbens anguillis abundat
  21. insurance companies: corporate politics Vs math. by guybarr · · Score: 3, Interesting

    Like most people you are forgetting that insurance is one of the few industries run entirely on logic and mathematics -- their actuaries calculate the risk and the cost and multiple it out to get your premium.

    actually, not quite exact: I met a man whose sole livelihood depends on insurance companies NOT familiar with the law of large numbers ...

    to explain: his company is a middleman between the large insurance companies and single insurance agents.

    Now, this company's sole service is being a medium-scale repository of agents for the large companies, and for this they take 10% commision.

    Why do the agents do this ? because the large companies treat every account as a profit-making unit, so even if the single agent is very succesful, just one large insurance claim causes him to be unprofitable some fiscal year (or several years), which means this agent will be out of a job. For the medium-sized company, however, fluctuations are much smaller, hence they have little risk, they are almost allways a "profitable unit" .

    This causes the absurd situation that large insurance companies lose 10% of gross-profit (more for real profit) because they ignore the law of large numbers !!

    now, I asked this man wether they didn't know the absurdity of this, and he said of course they did, but they needed to justify every account to the board as profitable, so they did not try to change it.

    And the morals of the story: like every industry, the insurance industry is not allways run solely on math and logic ... corporate politics takes its toll here as well.

    --
    Working for necessity's mother.