Slashdot Mirror


Spaceport America Takes Off

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."

153 comments

  1. Government Propping Up Companies by hardburn · · Score: 3, Insightful

    Great, another industry being propped up by government revenue. Because that worked so well for the telecommunications industry.

    --
    Not a typewriter
    1. Re:Government Propping Up Companies by eln · · Score: 4, Insightful

      There are plenty of states trying to get spaceports built, because a spaceport means high paying jobs. New Mexico gave Virgin Galactic a sweetheart deal, but if they hadn't this thing probably would have been built elsewhere. Commercial space flight is something that will almost certainly continue to grow, especially once we can get past the "joyrides for rich people" stage. I bet a lot of people balked at the idea of building airports at first too.

      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.

    2. Re:Government Propping Up Companies by metlin · · Score: 3, Insightful

      I doubt it's like government propping up industries - for one, the industry started taking off quite well (whatever that may entail) without any government intervention.

      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.

    3. Re:Government Propping Up Companies by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Interesting

      Secondly, isn't that part of the role of the government? To create and maintain basic infrastructure that people can use?
      Careful, there... according to a surprisingly large portion of active posters on slashdot, the sole purpose of government is to keep individuals from infringing on the rights of other individuals -- in short, to keep people from killing you or stealing from you. Infrastructure should be paid for by the people directly benefiting from it, as there is no recognition of a public good -- this includes roads, ports, etc.
    4. Re:Government Propping Up Companies by Volante3192 · · Score: 2, Funny

      Seriously! What have the Romans done for us?!

    5. Re:Government Propping Up Companies by burning-toast · · Score: 5, Informative

      What I am all for:
      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)

    6. Re:Government Propping Up Companies by Loadmaster · · Score: 0, Offtopic

      Life of Brian is a great movie. http://www.mwscomp.com/movies/brian/brian-09.htm

    7. Re:Government Propping Up Companies by Red+Flayer · · Score: 1

      Methinks it worked very well for the telecommunications industry -- maybe not so well for the general public.

      --
      "Trolls they were, but filled with the evil will of their master: a fell race..." -- J.R.R. Tolkien on Olog-hai
    8. Re:Government Propping Up Companies by GooberToo · · Score: 2, Interesting

      While I agree with your grumblings, I also believe it is the job of a government to prop up critical infrastructure. Items such as telephone, roads, railways, and even plane travel deserve some loving...if needed. Believe it or not, even commercial aviation is frequently used for military purposes (transport) because they can do it cheaper and faster than the military can. So which would you rather pay, the goverment to do it slowly and cost 20x more than it should or for the government to pay for a commercial entity to do it cheaper and faster?

      One way or another, you're going to be paying for it.

    9. Re:Government Propping Up Companies by Ngarrang · · Score: 2, Informative

      Earth to Major Tom, we have a problem.

      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 Trenton, Ohio, they didn't produce any bear at it for a decade. It wasn't until the local government threatened to pull the exempt status that Miller opened the factory and, thus, local workers.

      Wal-Mart in Oxford, Ohio moved its store location to outside the city limits after its tax-exempt status expired. This, after a lot of money was spent to restructure the road their old building was locating within the city, AND the fact that Wal-Mart didn't even build the building, but only leased.

      NM did a good thing. This deal puts them on front of a wave of cutting-edge travel, even if it starting as entertainment for the rich.

      --
      Bearded Dragon
    10. Re:Government Propping Up Companies by geekoid · · Score: 1

      The deal was the same they could of got anywhere. Maybe better.
      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.

      --
      The Kruger Dunning explains most post on /. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dunning%E2%80%93Kruger_effect
    11. Re:Government Propping Up Companies by j.a.mcguire · · Score: 0

      Why will it grow past a joyride for the rich?

      Where will people go, what will they do?

    12. Re:Government Propping Up Companies by AeroIllini · · Score: 4, Informative

      We could even get to the point where we could economically use LEO for quick trips to places halfway around the world. I agree with your whole comment, but as a space geek I have to take exception at this statement.

      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.
      --
      For security, the MD5 hash of this message and sig is 09f911029d74e35bd84156c5635688c0.
    13. Re:Government Propping Up Companies by louks · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Our city and state governments in Indiana are spending hundreds of millions of dollars building a new stadium for the Indianapolis Colts to continue to play football here. We will still owe tens of millions on the old stadium when we tear it down. Did I mention the tax hike on each stadium, too?

      The spaceport actually slightly more acceptable, especially if it translates into high-speed, intercontinental travel.

    14. Re:Government Propping Up Companies by Gilmoure · · Score: 1

      Peace? You couldn't walk the streets at night!

      --
      I drank what? -- Socrates
    15. Re:Government Propping Up Companies by ParaShoot · · Score: 2, Interesting

      When Miller Brewery built their facility near Trenton, Ohio, they didn't produce any bear at it for a decade. I love the idea of a bear factory. Great mental images.
    16. Re:Government Propping Up Companies by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      While I agree with your grumblings, I also believe it is the job of a government to prop up critical infrastructure.

      I disagree. I'd rather the government do trivial things that are hard to mess up, so that it can leave the critical things to the free market. The New Orleans disaster (and the aftermath) is what happens when we leave critical infrastructure to the government:

      Katrina and Two Bridges

      "In August, 2005, Hurricane Katrina flattened two bridges, one for cars, one for trains, that span the two miles of water separating this city of 8,000 from the town of Pass Christian. Sixteen months later, the automobile bridge remains little more than pilings. The railroad bridge is busy with trains."

      "The difference: The still-wrecked bridge is owned by the U.S. government. The other is owned by railroad giant CSX Corp. of Jacksonville, Fla. Within weeks of Katrina's landfall, CSX dispatched construction crews to fix the freight line; six months later, the bridge reopened. Even a partial reopening of the road bridge, part of U.S. Highway 90, is at least five months away."

    17. Re:Government Propping Up Companies by endikos · · Score: 1

      I agree. Within a reasonable distance of the spaceport you have White Sands Missle Range with all its facilities, NASA Johnson Space Center with its facilities and talent, Holloman Air Force base which has several semi-related research programs, and New Mexico State University's Physical Science Lab which has long contracted with NASA and others to build antennas, telemetry systems, and provides launch and logistical support.

    18. Re:Government Propping Up Companies by doggod · · Score: 1
      I totally agree. The fact that anyone would even label a state-sponsored enterprise as "private" speaks volumes about the extent to which the public consciousness about the difference between private and public has been corrupted. We now think nothing of politicians spending taxpayers' money to prop up their pet projects (and of course line their pockets). It's become so common we now blur the distinction and call it "private" just because it emulates in some way what private money does properly.

      What's tragic is that every now and then one of these other-peoples'-money ventures actually succeeds -- as would be expected just by the luck of the draw -- and then it becomes a model for future politicians to dig even deeper into taxpayers' pockets to fund the next 100 failures (while skimming plenty into their own pockets).

    19. Re:Government Propping Up Companies by DerekLyons · · Score: 1

      There are plenty of states trying to get spaceports built, because a spaceport means high paying jobs.

      That's the theory - but it's unsupported by reality. Plenty of states are trying to build spaceports because they are latest and greatest penis size increaser among the various states.
       
       

      I bet a lot of people balked at the idea of building airports at first too.

      Actually - no. There was a massive wave of airport building - because airports meant transport, and transport means commerce. Space'ports' mean niether.
       
      [Rant]
      The real problem is that these space'ports' aren't actually ports in any useful sense of the word. Currently, and for the forseeable future, these 'ports' are in reality just amusement parks. Folks enthusiatic about these ports should really read these posts from the Space Cynic blog.
      [/Rant]
    20. Re:Government Propping Up Companies by DerekLyons · · Score: 1

      Secondly, isn't that part of the role of the government? To create and maintain basic infrastructure that people can use?

       
      It is. But amusement parks aren't basic infrastructure.
       
       

      I don't see how this is different from building an airport or from building roads.

      Airports, highways, spaceports. Two enable transportation and commerce. One provides support for glorified joy rides. The difference should be obvious.
    21. Re:Government Propping Up Companies by Nefarious+Wheel · · Score: 1

      Read the sig...

      --
      Do not mock my vision of impractical footwear
    22. Re:Government Propping Up Companies by El+Torico · · Score: 1
      Where will people go, what will they do?

      Some sightseeing, some shopping, and, of course, dinner at the latest trendy restaurant.

      --
      In the land of the blind, the one-eyed man is usually crucified.
    23. Re:Government Propping Up Companies by that+this+is+not+und · · Score: 1

      Humanity needs off-site backup

      'Backing up' the human race involves a lot more than a rocket ride.

      Humans are organisms that are part of a biosphere. The entire biosphere (or a large, complex subset of it) needs to be brought along. You can't live on Space Food Sticks forever, ya know.

      So there's a lot of study that has to be carried on here, for many more years, before we understand our world enough to jaunt off and replicate it somewhere else.

      Save your 'Star Trek' dreams for when you're watching television.

    24. Re:Government Propping Up Companies by that+this+is+not+und · · Score: 1

      Plenty of states are trying to build spaceports because they are latest and greatest penis size increaser among the various states.

      The only good thing about that is that these spaceports will probably be more interesting to look at than yet another, bigger, sports arena.

    25. Re:Government Propping Up Companies by Nefarious+Wheel · · Score: 3
      I find your dismissive attitude disturbing. I'm 57 years old and I've developed spacecraft systems for NASA and I don't watch television at all. My understanding goes a little beyond Star Trek fantasies -- I'm aware there's much more than a "rocket ride" involved. I develop large-scale networks for a living (scope of the current infrastructure refresh is about $3B) so I think I can stand as having a fairly mature and logical point of view on the subject.

      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.

      --
      Do not mock my vision of impractical footwear
    26. Re:Government Propping Up Companies by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Traveling between points on the Earth's surface will almost always be suborbital.

      How about orbital velocity in an evacuated subterannean tunnel? The infrastructure costs are high, but it's faster than any conceivable exo-atmospheric ballistic trajectory.

      (I know, I know - this is a rather obscure case. Fun to speculate about, though.)

    27. Re:Government Propping Up Companies by blane.bramble · · Score: 1
    28. Re:Government Propping Up Companies by ParaShoot · · Score: 1

      We have one of those in my home town - it's just not the same. I had envisaged a load of angry grizzlies rolling off a conveyor belt into the woods, ready to maul any passing tourists.

    29. Re:Government Propping Up Companies by StringBlade · · Score: 1

      Shouldn't we have a plan on where to go though first? I'm all for exploration and finding a way off this planet for the survival of the species, but shouldn't we send probes to promising galaxies and get an idea of what's even close to habitable or terraformable?

      What purpose do these spaceports that are being built serve beyond joy rides for the wealthy? Perhaps we'll get some technological advances, but I would guess not because they can't afford to take those kinds of mortal risks on new spacecraft. They'll just keep using proven methods of propulsion and such to get their customers safely up and down. NASA will still be left with the bulk of the research into new propulsion systems and environmental systems.

      Also I think it's premature to give up on the Earth altogether. We can control population and even create a negative growth. We can clean up our processes and avoid spewing caustic chemicals into our air and water. We can do a lot of things to reverse the trends of the past and we can do it a lot faster than we can develop space technology to take us somewhere else to destroy that place.

      Space travel and exploration has its place, but it's not a very feasible solution for escaping the problems we have here on Earth right now, and as such these spaceports are essentially expensive amusement parks. I'd rather see the money put into cleaning up our manufacturing processes, finding eco-friendly solutions to eco-unfriendly products, and educating the world's population about the problem and how they can help reduce their negative impact.

      --
      ...and that's the way the cookie crumbles.
    30. Re:Government Propping Up Companies by BBandCMKRNL · · Score: 1

      Wal-Mart in Oxford, Ohio moved its store location to outside the city limits after its tax-exempt status expired.

      Oxford has/had a Wal-Mart??? When I went to school there, I think the only national chain there was Dominos Pizza.

      --
      Without the 2nd Amendment, the others are just suggestions.
    31. Re:Government Propping Up Companies by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Insightful

      Secondly, isn't that part of the role of the government? To create and maintain basic infrastructure that people can use?

      NO NO NO! That is not the proper role of government. The proper role of government is to provide a legal framework which facilitates the protection of our natural rights. The government is to protect individuals from force and fraud. Spaceports, airports, roads, etc should be built by people freely and peacfully interacting, not by armed thugs who take half your income and spend it on stuff you will never use.

    32. Re:Government Propping Up Companies by Fred_A · · Score: 1

      There are plenty of states trying to get spaceports built, because a spaceport means high paying jobs.
      Especially with all those orbit flights and all the people lining up to get off system.

      I mean we Europeans feel really left behind with no spaceport to speak of. I was planning to go visit my cousin in Epsilon Eridani and now I'm going to have to waste hours by going to in New Mexico ? This sucks.

      Wait, what year is this again ?
      --

      May contain traces of nut.
      Made from the freshest electrons.
    33. Re:Government Propping Up Companies by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You realize that if we waited for free market to take place, we would still not have interstate highways, electricty is most rural areas, railways, telephone service, or airports across the country. But hey, none of those are important!

      If you fail to understand the differences between a bridge that generates revenue and provides jobs for people across the country and a bridge that effects locals...well...that's your own problem. Seriously, you don't see the obvious difference? One generates income, included taxes. The other costs tax payers when they are already paying huge amounts for recovery across multiple states AND fight a war? You really don't see the obvious?

    34. Re:Government Propping Up Companies by that+this+is+not+und · · Score: 1

      Point is, we live on the Earth, and we're using it up.

      Well, one point that can be made is that 'Space Exploration' enthusiasts are 'using it up' at a far greater rate than the rest of us. Every shuttle launch is an environmental catastrophe, if you note the incredible emissions that result.

      Maybe you want to flit off and leave the earth behind. Maybe some of the rest of us will say 'wait a minute, now.' And that is NOT a reactionary attitude.

    35. Re:Government Propping Up Companies by Nefarious+Wheel · · Score: 1
      Dreams! Control population how? And by whom? Who's baby do we shoot, which prospective mothers' hearts do we break? All of them? Or just the intelligent and moral ones with sufficient self-control to replace only themselves? Do we include Catholics too, or do we exempt people on religious grounds?

      We'll be out-bred by people who don't care about the greater good. And it won't be just our numbers that diminish, it will be our aspirations as well. If we force people to stop having families, the reality is there will be either revolt or steadily increasing repression followed by an even more unpleasant civil reaction.

      I'd rather we had a working escape valve than simple dreams of a better life for more and more of us on less and less. I don't like to fool myself any more than you do. If there's a way to continue to feed an expanding population indefinitely we have to find it. I would much rather we found a technological solution than solve the problem passively in a way that ends up killing people.

      Probes to promising galaxies? How many thousands of years do you think we have at our present rate of growth? I'd be more inclined to think O'Neill colonies rather than terraforming. We need that steady supply of space food sticks first.

      --
      Do not mock my vision of impractical footwear
    36. Re:Government Propping Up Companies by Nefarious+Wheel · · Score: 1
      Imagine we stop sending shuttles or other spacecraft up, then fast forward a couple hundred years.

      We've slowly converted all our methane and petroleum into CO2 and other products. We've used up all our petroleum reserves on fuel, leaving none for the polymers we need to build insulation we'd need for solar cells, fertilizers for biofuels (fertilizers are a huge consumer of petroleum -- why else do the oil companies end up owning so many farms?), synthetic fibres for clothing and rip-stop tents, you name it -- if it used petroleum, it's a few hundred years since the origin of Slashdot and we've run comprehensively out. We are running low on uranium now, and we're running out of steel (uses fossil fuel do do anything with -- even my friend the blacksmith uses coal to recycle old auto parts) so we can't build the alternative structures we need. If you think we have enough, well, fast forward a couple hundred more years. But it won't be that long, I think.

      We will have run out, as in have no more, and can't get any and exhausted the alternatives. We will, as a civilisation, die.

      Isn't it worth spending some of our free carbon to reach for save civilisation?

      Definitions of reactionary on the Web

      extremely conservative

      an extreme conservative; an opponent of progress or liberalism (wordnet.princeton.edu/perl/webwn)

      A reactionary (sometimes: reactionist, or regressive) is someone who seeks to restore conditions to those of a previous era.

      en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reactionary

      --
      Do not mock my vision of impractical footwear
    37. Re:Government Propping Up Companies by Nefarious+Wheel · · Score: 1

      Erk. Sorry, the clicked too soon. Should read "...free carbon to reach out for new alternatives that can save civilisation?"

      --
      Do not mock my vision of impractical footwear
    38. Re:Government Propping Up Companies by StringBlade · · Score: 1

      It's not as bad as you think.

      Wikipedia has an article on overpopulation that shows the trends are leveling off. An Inconvenient Truth (in the update on the DVD) also talks about how the world's population is expected to level off at about 9.2 billion people in the next 50 years. Overpopulation is mostly a problem in less developed countries but even their birth rates have declined in the past 20 years.

      Escape is never the safest path
      -- Eddie Vedder (Dissident)

      Probes to promising galaxies? How many thousands of years do you think we have at our present rate of growth? I'd be more inclined to think O'Neill colonies rather than terraforming. We need that steady supply of space food sticks first.

      I think we'll need a much faster propulsion system as well first. With a propulsion system, you can send the probe out and send radio (or perhaps some not-yet-discovered type of signal) back as it travels away - not thousands of years. Alpha Centauri is only 4 light years away and we haven't explored that at all. All I'm saying is that piling a bunch of people on a space ship with a limited amount of food and no destination might work on Babylon 5, Star Trek, or Battlestar Galactica, but it won't work in real life. These spaceports are entrepreneurial adventures plain and simple -- they're not going to advance the science of space travel if they're not even really traveling into outer space (just low orbit "hops").
      --
      ...and that's the way the cookie crumbles.
  2. Re:Dont know when ... by Bluesman · · Score: 1, Funny

    Study your history.

    GNU/America took off years ago, and didn't work out.

    --
    If moderation could change anything, it would be illegal.
  3. Commerical/Government by jwiegley · · Score: 4, 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.

    --
    I will never live for sake of another man, nor ask another man to live for mine.
    1. Re:Commerical/Government by metlin · · Score: 4, Interesting

      Ummm, if you'd read the article you'd know that Virgin Galactic is leasing out parts of the space port.

      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.

    2. Re:Commerical/Government by Darth_brooks · · Score: 3, Funny

      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.

      Because South-Central New Mexico is such a hotbed for Hurricane & Tornado activity......

      +1 for observation
      -1 for geography & meteorology

      --
      There are some people that if they don't know, you can't tell 'em.
    3. Re:Commerical/Government by Red+Flayer · · Score: 3, Informative

      I think if you check out the definitions of commercial available from a quick googling, you'll see that the definition typically has nothing to do with whether it's publically or privately funded. What's important is whether the facility will be used to buy or sell commodities (or services) or not.

      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.

      --
      "Trolls they were, but filled with the evil will of their master: a fell race..." -- J.R.R. Tolkien on Olog-hai
    4. Re:Commerical/Government by RealGrouchy · · Score: 1

      Whether it's a commercial or government spaceport isn't based on who pays for it, but rather on who collects the profits.

      - RG>

      --
      Hey pal, this isn't a pleasantforest, so don't waste my time with pleasantries!
    5. Re:Commerical/Government by AK+Marc · · Score: 3, Interesting

      And what defines a commercial spaceport? I've visited the first non-federally owned facility (verified for the US, presumed for the world). Like this one, it will be linked to state funding, but isn't owned or run by them directly. So I'm thinking that the first commercial spaceport is the Alaska Aerospace Development Corporation's Kodiak Launch Complex. You give them money and a rocket, and they put it in space. And with their latitude, they are the best launch facility in the world for polar orbits.

    6. Re:Commerical/Government by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      well, gotta say, Las Cruces could really use the jobs (Median household income in 2005: $29,363, Percentage of residents living in poverty in 2005: 27.5%) , but not sure how many have the technical chops to swing a decent job there...potential local labor force is largely unskilled - although it is near White Sand Missle Range, Los Alamos, and NMSU-Las Cruces. Could pick worse locations.

      http://www.city-data.com/county/Dona_Ana_County-NM .html
      http://www.city-data.com/city/Las-Cruces-New-Mexic o.html

    7. Re:Commerical/Government by cyber-vandal · · Score: 1

      http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/commercial

      So in what way does building something and then charging the people that use it not qualify as commercial?

    8. Re:Commerical/Government by eln · · Score: 1

      NMSU has a very good engineering school. With this spaceport here, more engineering graduates may actually stay in the state rather than taking off to places where they can get real work like they do now.

    9. Re:Commerical/Government by adamanthaea · · Score: 1

      Hurricanes, obviously not. Tornadoes don't often occur in that part of New Mexico, but it is possible. (There was a near-tornado in Las Cruces last summer.) Heck, if we're considering low-probability events, I suppose there could be a massive earthquake from the Rio Grande Rift. There was a 5.8 earthquake in the Soccoro area back in 1906, after all.

    10. Re:Commerical/Government by Chr0me · · Score: 1

      although it is near White Sand Missle Range, Los Alamos, and NMSU-Las Cruces You forgot NM Tech in Socorro, UNM, Kirtland, Holloman, Ft. Bliss, and Sandia National Labs.
    11. Re:Commerical/Government by Kemanorel · · Score: 1

      Last I checked, airports are built using public funds, just as roads, highways, and freeways are. The only exceptions are totally private airstrips. Of the publicly funded airports, they are generally either municipal (smaller private planes, usually Cesna or Lear-type planes and jets, only limited by size of runways) or commercial (larger passenger and cargo planes of varying classifications). In both cases, fees are collected from those who use the facility as well as local taxes from the neighboring communities to pay for the operation of the airport.

      There is no reason why a spaceport should operate any differently.

      --
      Mess not in the affairs of dragons, for you are crunchy and good with ketchup.
    12. Re:Commerical/Government by C0y0t3 · · Score: 1

      Pan Am didn't build LAX. This is a port, and they are not built by commercial interests - they facilitate commercial and thereby public interests. It is an investment of exactly the same nature as a highway, also pretty hard to charge the cost of to its users directly, but it could be argued that taxes from subsequent revenue do indeed recoup public investment.

      Ideally, businesses who use the service alone should be taxed to foot the bill, hence the obvious argument here should be against personal income tax - not really against a spaceport. But if the port eventually facilitates personal tranportation, the consumer is eventually even more directly served by the investment, but its kind of difficult to get the taxes out of the future ticket sales in advance.

      It may also interest you to know, your tax revenue supports the Post Office, Homeland Security, and a plethora of acronymic agencies within the federal and local governments under whose purveyance you reside, which also do not directly benefit your singularly consumer type interests.

    13. Re:Commerical/Government by Bat+Country · · Score: 1

      It's worth noting that airports, despite being used almost exclusively by commercial interests, are built using taxpayer funds as well.

      --
      The land shall stone them with the bread of his son.
    14. Re:Commerical/Government by vertinox · · Score: 2, Insightful

      This is a government spaceport.

      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 wants a Boeing 747 or Multi-Stage rocket crashing in their neighborhood.

      --
      "I am the king of the Romans, and am superior to rules of grammar!"
      -Sigismund, Holy Roman Emperor (1368-1437)
    15. Re:Commerical/Government by AeroIllini · · Score: 1

      Chicago O'Hare is a government airport. Possible deployed for use by commercial airplanes 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 airports. But if United Airlines wants a facility then United Airlines should foot the bill for it.


      Not sure I see the distinction here. Governments build facilities and then charge fees to commercial interests (in the form of runway fees for an airport, maybe launchpad fees for a spaceport) to use them. It spurs commercial investment, creates jobs, and allows more travel options for the residents of the area. Seems good to me.

      --
      For security, the MD5 hash of this message and sig is 09f911029d74e35bd84156c5635688c0.
    16. Re:Commerical/Government by jwiegley · · Score: 3, 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.)

      --
      I will never live for sake of another man, nor ask another man to live for mine.
    17. Re:Commerical/Government by GooberToo · · Score: 1

      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,

      Makes as much sense as county and state funded football fields. At least this can hope to further the interests of all men.

    18. Re:Commerical/Government by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      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,

      I don't see an oxymoron but I think I may be seeing a moron. Who do you think builds commercial airports?

      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 am glad my tax dollars are going to this. I live in Dona Ana County and I have no beef with a 0.25% increase of sales tax. The place the spaceport is being built very rarely has any tornado activity. It is pretty much going to be in a large flat spot between two mountain ridges. I don't even know how to respond to hurricanes in New Mexico. Retarded maybe?

      I'm not against space ports. But if Virgin Galactic wants a facility then Virgin Galactic should foot the bill for it.

      I know reading the article is hard but if you had read it you would have found that Virgin Galactic has already put $250 million into the project.

    19. Re:Commerical/Government by OvermindDL1 · · Score: 1

      I live here in NM, and my town has very recently been partially destroyed, that is only because we live on the Tx/Nm border, edge of tornado alley. Los Cruces (heck, any place west of me) never gets tornado's, too high for them to form well.

      And Bill Richardson is known for taking projects like these (well, not quite of this scale before), he seems to love creating and setting up new things then seemingly donating them to the area where they exist when done, he has done so in my city as well.

    20. Re:Commerical/Government by FleaPlus · · Score: 1

      I'm not against space ports. But if Virgin Galactic wants a facility then Virgin Galactic should foot the bill for it.

      How do you feel about the many commercial airports which receive government funding (in many cases orders of magnitude more money than this spaceport is getting)?

    21. Re:Commerical/Government by jwiegley · · Score: 1

      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/funded spaceport" and is used as a deceptive marketing ploy to lead the public to believe that it isn't being funded by themselves.

      Just because a definition list encompasses an alternate meaning does not change the fact that most slashdot readers will read that headline and say "Finally a private effort for space launch!" (similar to X-Prize efforts.) And I would wager slashdot readers are a lot more astute at wordsmithing than the NM public on voting day.

      with apologies to NM for the implied insult. I could have more accurately substituted "earthlings" for "the NM public"

      --
      I will never live for sake of another man, nor ask another man to live for mine.
    22. Re:Commerical/Government by Orange+Crush · · Score: 1

      more engineering graduates may actually stay in the state rather than taking off to places

      Your choice of words amuses me.

    23. Re:Commerical/Government by danbert8 · · Score: 1

      Do you live in a city with a sports team? More likely than not, if you do, the government funded (at least partially) the building of their arena/stadium/field/park/whatever. Yet these pro teams are also privately held. Why does government do this? Because it benefits both parties. The private company gets a cheaper building, and the government gets increased revenues in time from several things including, income tax from new jobs, sales tax from memerobilia, and hotel taxes from people visiting.

      --
      Yes it's an anecdote! Were you expecting original research in a Slashdot comment?
    24. Re:Commerical/Government by SEE · · Score: 1

      but I fully expect that when a tornado or hurricane wipes it out I will have to foot the FEMA bill for it.

      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 mountain range. If that happens, your FEMA bill is going to be so high you're not even going to notice the extra charge for repairing a spaceport.

    25. Re:Commerical/Government by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
    26. Re:Commerical/Government by Gilmoure · · Score: 1

      Hell, we moved out here from Florida, after the 2004 hurricane season. Damn glad to live where we only have to worry about bears or mountain lions coming down from the Sandias and maybe the earth opening up and swallowing Albuquerque.

      As for taxes, so far, it seems pretty much a local thing; just state and county. If the voters don't want it, they can vote against it and vote the governor out of office. Or they can move. Vote with your feet.

      --
      I drank what? -- Socrates
    27. Re:Commerical/Government by SEE · · Score: 1

      Well, he's got an Ayn Rand quote as his .sig. How do you think he feels about it?

    28. Re:Commerical/Government by soft_guy · · Score: 1

      Because South-Central New Mexico is such a hotbed for Hurricane & Tornado activity...... The climate is changing, so anything is possible.

      Whatever, if the people of new mexico want to be ripped off funding an obvious fraud, then they are idiots.
      --
      Avoid Missing Ball for High Score
    29. Re:Commerical/Government by servognome · · Score: 1

      the same way that the US government turns a tidy profit these days from the airfields/airlines that it subsidized?
      The US government does receive a lot of revenue on the airfields it builds. Its just like spending on public highways, there is no direct revenue, but the indirect revenue of enabling commerce far outweighs the cost.

      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.
      You're right, government isn't designed to be an efficient profit making machine. It can, however, do a good job of investing to enable more efficient trade & commerce. Research done in the university ultimately has to be used by private business in order to effectively serve the public. The internet really didn't take off until commercial ventures became involved.

      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
      The sales tax is to raise money to build the facility in the first place. And if the spaceport does take off, the city stands to gain more than just the 6.5M from the lease. There will be more jobs, more businesse, and more money flowing through the local economy that the city can tax for revenue.
      --
      D6 63 0D 70 89 81 BB 8E 7B 7C 5F 5D 54 EA AB 73
    30. Re:Commerical/Government by geekoid · · Score: 1

      " I think the most widely accepted connotation of that is "private industry run/managed/funded spaceport" "

      Well, your wrong.

      The state it will be tax dollars that help get this giong, and the state there may be a tax raise. So nobody but you seem to think this is some kind of 'trick the public' conspiracy.

      "Just because a definition list encompasses an alternate meaning does not change the fact that most slashdot readers will read that headline and say "Finally a private effort for space launch!" (similar to X-Prize efforts.)"

      Most /. readers have no commons sense, and have no idea how the government works.
      Anyone who thinks any new large commercial enterprise doesn't ahve government backing is eaither a liar, or intentionally obtuse.

      Of course you people who are totally blinded to the way the government works have no clue, don't want a clue, and somehow think corporations would set everything right.

      --
      The Kruger Dunning explains most post on /. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dunning%E2%80%93Kruger_effect
    31. Re:Commerical/Government by drewson99 · · Score: 1

      True - this is why www.usps.com is not a .gov address. It is a governmental commercial entity.

    32. Re:Commerical/Government by SeaDour · · Score: 1

      Perhaps the Kodiak Launch Complex is not being referred to as the first commercial spaceport because it may not really be a spaceport. I think the term "port" implies that vehicles can both leave and arrive at the same destination, but Kodiak just puts payloads into orbit. I only know of three true spaceports that exist in the United States (Edwards Air Force Base, White Sands Space Harbor, and Cape Canaveral) and they are all run exclusively for government vehicles.

    33. Re:Commerical/Government by DerekLyons · · Score: 1

      This is a government spaceport.

      Isn't that the same for most FAA airports? Basically, the airports are run by the federal agency and leased by private corporations?

       
      No. The FAA doesn't own, or operate any (commercial) airports. Typically they are run by either a state or (more commonly) local (city/county) goverment, or by a semi-independent quasi-govermental organization beholden to a local goverment.
    34. Re:Commerical/Government by El_Oscuro · · Score: 0

      They can get hurricane force winds there this time of year, without the actual hurricanes. Blew my 600 pound motorcycle off the centerstand once, sandblasted the paint off the side of a Jeep, and blew the roof off one of our buildings. Might make for some weather delays and pissed off passengers. I hope those rockets don't have vulnerable O-rings, becuase it gets COLD in the winter.

      --
      "Be grateful for what you have. You may never know when you may lose it."
    35. Re:Commerical/Government by AK+Marc · · Score: 1

      Bah, you can just splashdown in the ocean next to it. Or, more practically, you can do what is done with shuttle launches. You launch from one place and land in another. That's most practical when the launch facilities are independent from the landing facilities, as they are with a vertically launched vehicle that lands horizontally. But it would be convenient to have landing near the launching site.

    36. Re:Commerical/Government by smallpaul · · Score: 1

      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.

      The people of Dona Ana county want their county to be the "Silicon Valley" or "Hollywood" or "Wall Street" of the commercial space business. It's a gamble, but on that they have a right to make. Governments all over the world are making similar investments and sometimes they work and other times they do not. It would be foolish for the people of New Mexico to declare that other states and countries are making targeted investments to build future-oriented businesses but New Mexico is above that sort of thing.

  4. 27 million over 20 years? by stratjakt · · Score: 0, Flamebait

    Sounds like cheap rent.

    When Virgin Galactic needs a space port, they can build one. Why is tax money building this?

    PURE PORK BARREL BULLSHIT.

    --
    I don't need no instructions to know how to rock!!!!
    1. Re:27 million over 20 years? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Funny

      Ouch! Your knee jerked right into my shin!

    2. Re:27 million over 20 years? by Red+Flayer · · Score: 3, Insightful

      PURE PORK BARREL BULLSHIT.
      Seeing as the state government (who is paying for it, BTW) stands to gain more in revenues than it's spending on the spaceport, I fail to see your logic.

      If this were funded federally, then your point makes sense. But it's not, and so it doesn't.

      PURE LACK-OF-COMPREHENSION BULLSHIT
      --
      "Trolls they were, but filled with the evil will of their master: a fell race..." -- J.R.R. Tolkien on Olog-hai
    3. Re:27 million over 20 years? by xero314 · · Score: 3, Insightful

      When Virgin Galactic wants a space port they have some decisions to make. They can either spend $27 million now and lose out on the interest over the next 20 years, Borrow $27 million with interest to be payed over the next 20 years or Rent space which allows them to maintain their assets in high yield investments with no additional interest costs.

      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.

    4. Re:27 million over 20 years? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      How many airports do you think delta airlines has built? As another poster said, its the governments job to build infrastructure.

    5. Re:27 million over 20 years? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      A Faggot comment plus a Faggot response.

    6. Re:27 million over 20 years? by geekoid · · Score: 1

      even if it was Federal, it doesn't mean pork barrel.

      Therea re very good reasons for supporting a new industry.
      If 30 million in means starting a billion dollar industry, the the government will easily recoup its expense.

      Hell, the technology NASA has developed, or been developed to meet a NASA request, as returned about 10 bucks for every tax dollar they spent.

      --
      The Kruger Dunning explains most post on /. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dunning%E2%80%93Kruger_effect
    7. Re:27 million over 20 years? by mdfst13 · · Score: 1

      Seeing as the state government (who is paying for it, BTW) stands to gain more in revenues than it's spending on the spaceport, I fail to see your logic. More? $198 million for space port (see the http://www.space.com/news/ap_070327_branson_spacep ort.html link); $27.5 million lease. Where's the other $170.5 million? OK, count off $25 million from the feds; that's still $145.5 million short. Even just the $33 million piece that they're financing now would be $5.5 million short. That's why they need a $6.5 million per year sales tax -- to make up for the shortage.
    8. Re:27 million over 20 years? by Red+Flayer · · Score: 1

      1. $27.5MM lease -- but that doesn't include the user fees and ground rent they'll be paying. Nor does it include the lease payments, user fees, and ground rents other lessees will be paying.

      2. State income tax.

      3. Sales tax increase -- so what if they raise the ST in the region to get them into the black; that doesn't discount the fact that they'll be in the black.

      $198MM. Additional revenues of $7.5MM/yr discounting 1 & 2 from above. 26 years to pay back the principal, even without those revenues...

      Maybe you're missing the point that because they are making up the shortage, the shortage won't exist.

      --
      "Trolls they were, but filled with the evil will of their master: a fell race..." -- J.R.R. Tolkien on Olog-hai
    9. Re:27 million over 20 years? by mdfst13 · · Score: 1

      The original comment was "When Virgin Galactic needs a space port, they can build one. Why is tax money building this?" Your response is (essentially) that they are using tax money to build this. In particular, the bulk of the funding is from tax money. There's no shortage (except in the wallets of the people paying the tax), but no one has claimed a shortage. The claim is that tax money shouldn't finance other people's business schemes.

      Companies like Virgin claim they're privatizing space, but they're still on the government dole.

      It's also worth noting that with financing, the cost will be higher than $198 million. If it's being paid over thirty years, even modest interest rates would put it over $400 million. Yes, the tax revenues will increase too, but generally not as fast as the interest (revenues go up about 3-4% a year; interest is more like 6-8%). Unless they can bring in other tenants, they will probably have to raise taxes before the end of Virgin's lease.

      Since Virgin is spreading its $27 million across twenty years, it is likely that the federal money ($25 million) is actually worth more.

  5. i wish i lived there by mastershake_phd · · Score: 1

    1: Build Space port for $33 Million
    2: Lease to Richard Branson for $27.5 million for 20 years.
    3: Raise taxes!

    1. Re:i wish i lived there by geekoid · · Score: 1

      3. Draw more tax revenue from the new jobs and the business support

      The people will profit from having a commercial center, and a big high tech draw.

      --
      The Kruger Dunning explains most post on /. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dunning%E2%80%93Kruger_effect
  6. How big is this place? by BunnyClaws · · Score: 1

    Branson, is going to lease 83,000 square feet for $1 million a year. Does anyone know if this is only a small part of the space port or will he be taking the biggest spot?

    --
    "Anything tastes good if you deep fry it."
    1. Re:How big is this place? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      How fucking hard is it to read the article?

      Bloody karmawhores.

      Under the agreement, Virgin Galactic pledged to lease about 83,000 square feet of hanger and terminal space. The company will pay $1 million per year for the first five years of the lease and $1.5 million per year for the remainder of the term. It also will pay user fees and ground rent.

      Gee. Fucktard.

    2. Re:How big is this place? by tompaulco · · Score: 1

      I wish I could find industrial space for lease for $1/SF/month. In my part of the U.S., industrial space is very cheap compared to other markets. Around here, it is between $7-$15/SF/month.
      If Branson is getting it for $1, that pretty much shouts "government subsidy" to me.
      The good citizens of the town in New Mexico may be smart to allow this tax raise though. If commercial space travel takes off (excuse the pun), their town will reap huge benefits in jobs, tourism, commerce and industry.

      --
      If you are not allowed to question your government then the government has answered your question.
    3. Re:How big is this place? by Overzeetop · · Score: 1

      Actually, that's not uncommon in non-major markets. You can find industrial space in S/W Virginia for under $10/sf/yr. You can buy land and build your own facility for $50/SF. And they'll probably give you some tax breaks - or lease you the land for $1 - if you plan on brining in 50 or more jobs.

      My professional office is about $8/sf/month, though going rates are closer to $12-15 in buildings with a bit more curb appeal.

      I would have expected a more targeted increase on taxes, though. Usually the hospitality industry takes it on the chin - restaurants and hotels - so that the increase isn't felt by the locals too badly. Heck, I think locally we're up to 10% on prepared meals and 12% on hotels, and we're not really a destination place, nor is the money going for anything in particular like a spaceport.

      --
      Is it just my observation, or are there way too many stupid people in the world?
    4. Re:How big is this place? by eln · · Score: 1

      The land being used is in a large patch of desert between Las Cruces and Truth or Consequences, New Mexico. The land is too arid and rocky to be of any use for farming, and none of the surrounding communities are expanding fast enough to use this space in the foreseeable future.

      It's not like they're taking high quality land and giving it away here. They're taking otherwise useless land and building something that could possibly pay off big for the whole state.

    5. Re:How big is this place? by SEE · · Score: 4, Informative

      This is Doña Anna County, New Mexico. The land we're talking about is scrub desert too far from anywhere to be of any use for industry, and too dry to be of any use for any form of agriculture. There's lots of land just like it next door. What's getting government-subsidized is the cost of building the utilities and roads, because the land itself is the next thing to free.

    6. Re:How big is this place? by mypalmike · · Score: 1

      The land we're talking about is scrub desert too far from anywhere to be of any use for industry, and too dry to be of any use for any form of agriculture.

      That's what they said about Las Vegas!

      (BTW: I'd put this argument in the "pro-spaceport" column.)

      --
      There are 0x40000000 types of people: those who understand 32-bit IEEE 754 floating point, and those who don't.
    7. Re:How big is this place? by tompaulco · · Score: 1

      No arguments about the general uselessness of the land, but as soon as you build an infrastructure of any sort on the land, it is worth far more than $1/SF/month.
      The same thing happens here in Oklahoma. A developer buys 100 acres for $150k, puts in some roads and utilities, zones it into individual lots and sells the lots for $40k each. However, the Branson deal is almost as if the government went in and put in the roads and infrastructure and sold him his lost at less than his apportioned cost of the infrastructure and stuff that they put in.

      --
      If you are not allowed to question your government then the government has answered your question.
    8. Re:How big is this place? by SEE · · Score: 1

      Industrial land in El Paso, which actually has people living in it that you'd be able to hire to work for you, runs in the range $2.75-$6.00 a square foot. The spaceport is in the middle of nowhere compared to El Paso. While the land is being subsidized relative to the costs, it's not being highly subsidized relative to the value; a private developer who installed utilities wouldn't find customers for the land at $2/SF.

    9. Re:How big is this place? by jbattin · · Score: 1

      I've been to the gate of the facility, traveling on 27 miles of graded dirt roads. The actual facility is on the edge of government land and across a small mountain range from White Sands Missile Range. I've not seen mention of the size of the total area, but I can attest that there is nothing there but mesquite and sparse grass. There is a farmhouse about a mile from the main gate. Here's the location: Latitude: 32.868727 Longitude: -106.907881

    10. Re:How big is this place? by jbattin · · Score: 1

      Roads and infrastructure? The roads, dirt and mostly smooth, were there long before Branson. Most of this land is used for cattle grazing and crossed by dirt roads every few miles. Again, the roads are used by the ranchers to access their leased lands. I believe that the land that has been proposed for the Spaceport is actually owned by either the state or federal government and leased by the ranchers.

    11. Re:How big is this place? by that+this+is+not+und · · Score: 1

      That's what some of us are still saying about Las Vegas. And when the water runs out, I get dibs on some of the building materials from some of the abandoned structures.

  7. A commercial space port won't be complete... by hellfire · · Score: 1, Redundant

    ...unless it has a Starbuck's.

    --

    "All great wisdom is contained in .signature files"

    1. Re:A commercial space port won't be complete... by johncadengo · · Score: 1

      ...unless it has a Starbuck's.

      Which completes it, reaching for the stars
      Or making the buck?

      Ha. Corny, I know. =(.

      --
      My page.
  8. One small question.. by Rob+T+Firefly · · Score: 2, Funny

    ..will there be lemon-soaked paper napkins?

    1. Re:One small question.. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
      This is a reference to The Hitchhiker's Guide

      ...trying to catch a plane from London to Leeds, delayed because in-flight snacks (first a bar, and then coffee and biscuits) had not been delivered, similarly inspired the story of the space liner delayed for 900 years because it lacked a supply of "lemon soaked paper napkins".
    2. Re:One small question.. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Eventually.

  9. Two thoughts on this by haaz · · Score: 2, Funny

    And my two thoughts are:

    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?

    --
    -- haaz.
    1. Re:Two thoughts on this by Paulrothrock · · Score: 2, 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 vehicles, and will probably also host the launches of various space prize competitions and commercial launch companies.

      If they can provide a cheaper service than ESA or NASA, I don't see why it won't be profitable for the state.

      --
      I'm in the hole of the broadband donut.
    2. Re:Two thoughts on this by elcid73 · · Score: 4, Funny

      what would a spaceport be for?

      Well obviously... where else would you put the space cantina?
    3. Re:Two thoughts on this by Zontar_Thing_From_Ve · · Score: 2, Funny

      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?

      Basically, it's so a special plane can take people up very very high off the ground just barely into what could be called "outer space" but without going into orbit or beyond. It's a way for tourists to go to "outer space" without having to have the months of training and the multi-millions of dollars required to hitch a ride with the Russians because you just barely get into what is known as "outer space". Whether such a ride would meet what most people would define as "being in outer space" is a very good question. The plane is nothing like the Space Shuttle and it certainly can't go to the International Space Station. I have no idea what the duration of such a ride would be, but I would make a guess at an hour or two at most. Maybe less.

    4. Re:Two thoughts on this by Bat+Country · · Score: 1

      Companies are right now racing to get to space. They're doing this for a number of reasons, some for industrial and scientific purposes (putting satellites in orbit, sticking experiments up there without paying the fees to get stuff on the space shuttle), some for commercial purposes (for only $500,000 you too can experience zero gravity).

      Since most rocket launches produce a ridiculous amount of noise, heat and damage to the surrounding environment, they can't launch from airports or private land (unless it's very very big private land far away from cities). Therefore they need a space port, and Cape Canaveral is pretty badly over-booked.

      Companies want to put stuff in the air using rockets, and they're willing to pay for the privilege of doing so.

      This is no different than building an airport at the dawn of aviation - sure there may be no widespread commercial use for it right now, but companies need a place to do their thing in order that there can be a commercial use for it in the future.

      --
      The land shall stone them with the bread of his son.
    5. Re:Two thoughts on this by Coraon · · Score: 1

      Why on earth would you want a comerical space port?! 1. Sattlie placement, there are tones of business that would love to have a cheeper way to get their junk in orbit. I know I would 2. Space tourism, when it gets cheeper is something alot of people are going to want to do. I know I would. 3. Its the start of bringing space to the people, to allowing the common man to leave the planet, which considering how bad we have messed up the planet we need to be thinking about doing...alot.

      --
      -Ours is the wisdom of Solomon, the magic of Merlyn, the fall of Icaris.
    6. Re:Two thoughts on this by kabocox · · Score: 1

      And my two thoughts are:
      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?


      Tourism. Instead of going NASA space camp, the NM space interested can just go visit their nice, nifty space port. If aliens ever come and visit, they'd have a "space port" ready for them.

    7. Re:Two thoughts on this by rufty_tufty · · Score: 1

      "What on earth would you use a spaceport for?"

      Take wife into outer space where normal earth laws don't apply. Saves on divorce proceedings.

      Ok that would explain why I'm single then, I'm proposing space travel to get rid of annoying wives...
      BTW does anyone know what laws apply in outer space to ordinary citizens, is it the same as the open seas?

      --
      "The weirdest thing about a mind, is that every answer that you find, is the basis of a brand new cliche" -
    8. Re:Two thoughts on this by that+this+is+not+und · · Score: 1

      So it's basically a big-bucks carnival ride.

  10. So we built a spaceport... now what? by physicsboy500 · · Score: 0

    Am I the only one that sees the lack of utility in this? There's the aspect of bringing the occasional multi-millionaire into space... but spaceship two is a suborbital craft and thus would have problems launching a satellite into orbit thus nullifying a lot of its commercial use. Additionally, space is not a huge tourism industry. I'm sure it could be some day, but as is, we simply don't have the technology to safely, efficiently, reliably and comfortably cart people to any destination outside of the atmosphere. From an economical standpoint this looks to be a train wreck waiting to be unleashed.

    --
    The original generic sig.
    1. Re:So we built a spaceport... now what? by duhjim · · Score: 1

      perhaps we would be able to respond able to threats from space more quickly. perhaps their is a ton of money to be made. perhaps there are some large scale public works projects we could do up there to help little people down below. i have a hunch it will work out . trust me

  11. Low Numbers by ehaggis · · Score: 1

    The amounts of money mentioned seem rather low for a space port, they seem more in line with a cruise line port or fancy bus station.

    --
    One ring to bind them - should probably have more fiber and less rings in their diet.
    1. Re:Low Numbers by Quiet_Desperation · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Lack of major NASA involvement tends to lower the costs a tad.

  12. Summary and related stories contradict each other by Stefanwulf · · Score: 1

    I am amused that the summary says it will be the first commercial spaceport, while the "related" section points to http://science.slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=06/12/1 6/1736213, an article from last year about the mid-atlantic regional spaceport's first launch.

    This will be the first purpose-built commercial spaceport. That's a key distinction.

  13. I'd much rather have this.. by Steveftoth · · Score: 0, Flamebait

    then a war in Iraq. I'd much rather have something ten times as expensive and doomed to failure then the war on terror or Iraq. It would be much cheaper. Why can't the govenment just build something here instead of destroying a nation all the way around the world?

    1. Re:I'd much rather have this.. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      why can't you stop injecting your political views into every conversation? it's gets old fast.

  14. Will it have... by ehaggis · · Score: 1

    ... a duty free shop?

    --
    One ring to bind them - should probably have more fiber and less rings in their diet.
    1. Re:Will it have... by no_pets · · Score: 4, Funny

      Sure, unfortunately the Ferrengi will run it.

      --
      "A government is a body of people, usually notably ungoverned." - Shepard Book Quoting Malcolm Reynolds
  15. a good place to test spacecraft... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Scientists say the desert of Las Cruces, New Mexico is very much like the surface of Uranus.

    1. Re:a good place to test spacecraft... by Gilmoure · · Score: 1

      Hot and scratchy; Check!

      --
      I drank what? -- Socrates
  16. First Commercial space port? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Didn't Sea Launch beat this by a few years? Especially since Sea Launch is already built and has had multiple launches?

    <URL:http://www.sea-launch.com/>

  17. If I were in my twenties again by geekoid · · Score: 1

    I would start making contacts right now to secure a position in this space port.

    It's a risk, but the potential pay off and wow factor would be to large to ignore.

    --
    The Kruger Dunning explains most post on /. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dunning%E2%80%93Kruger_effect
  18. Who needs to be in their twenties? by mmell · · Score: 1

    I'm going to keep my eye on that little slice of Earth for awhile - frankly, they may want to hire a lot of I.T., and I find it unlikely at best that they'll settle for not having somebody around with more than five to six years of experience, tops.

    1. Re:Who needs to be in their twenties? by geekoid · · Score: 1

      Some one needs to design there IT infrastructer.
      Waiting until the last moment to begin action for the position is not the way to get there.

      --
      The Kruger Dunning explains most post on /. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dunning%E2%80%93Kruger_effect
  19. OBL: Battlestar Gallactica Reference by powerlord · · Score: 1

    Which one?

    The alcohol guzzling, cigar smoking, disobedient, hot-shot pilot ... or the one played by Dirk Benedict? :)

    --
    This space for rent. All reasonable inquiries will be entertained at proprietors discretion.
    1. Re:OBL: Battlestar Gallactica Reference by Gilmoure · · Score: 1

      The one with the nice ass.

      --
      I drank what? -- Socrates
    2. Re:OBL: Battlestar Gallactica Reference by geekoid · · Score: 2, Insightful

      You didn't answer the question.

      --
      The Kruger Dunning explains most post on /. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dunning%E2%80%93Kruger_effect
  20. Re:$33M for design, not construction by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Uh, RTFA or RTFPP (Read the F**king Parent Post)

    $33M is for the design

  21. Will there be a coach class? by Quiet_Desperation · · Score: 1

    Or will the taxpayers of that county be subsidizing the sending of dubiously talented pop stars into the really really upper atmosphere?

    Just playing devil's advocate here, but people are going to ask that question or something similar.

    1. Re:Will there be a coach class? by geekoid · · Score: 1

      I would imagine, much like aircraft, at first it will be for commercial and High Upper class. evential there will be a coach class.

      --
      The Kruger Dunning explains most post on /. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dunning%E2%80%93Kruger_effect
    2. Re:Will there be a coach class? by Quiet_Desperation · · Score: 1

      Just seems like a bigger leap. Aviation generally does not concern itself too much with the concept of gravity wells.

  22. But... by LuisAnaya · · Score: 1

    ... I thought that they already had one in Roswell.

    --
    Vi havas e-poston.
    1. Re:But... by Junior+Samples · · Score: 1

      Advanced spacecraft of the Rosswell variety don't require the use of an expensive spaceport. These craft can land in a corn field or just about anywhere without problems.

  23. Spaceport Camp for Kids! by Ageing+Metalhead · · Score: 1

    For all budding teenage wanabee gazillionaires who may be able to afford this one day.

    --
    The knack of flying is learning how to throw yourself at the ground and miss. - HGTTG
    1. Re:Spaceport Camp for Kids! by denis-The-menace · · Score: 1

      Great Idea.
      Let's send Paris Hilton on a one way trip.

      --
      Obama's legacy: (N)othing (S)ecure (A)nywhere and (T)error (S)imulation (A)dministration
  24. "startup" not "upstart" by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    The first describes a (usually innovative) new company, the other is a derogatory term for someone who is new to something and already believes themselves to be substantially better than the established players. Do submitters know how to use a dictionary or are they too busy posting badly-worded stories to bother?

  25. Re:$33M for design by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    The spaceport is actually $198M per TFA

    Spaceport America launched a rocket from a temporary launch pad last fall, and authorities expect to complete the $198 million facility in late 2009 or early 2010. The state already has appropriated $115 million for the project and expects about $25 million in federal funds over the next five years with the goal of creating a home for future public space flight.

  26. Land Price Just Went LEO by wolff000 · · Score: 1

    I'll bet all the landowners in that area have a very big smile and even bigger if all goes as planned. Wish I had some spare cash I would definitely buy a a big plot of sand.

    --
    WTF?
  27. Let be be the 42nd to say: by fireman+sam · · Score: 1

    "Spaceport America, Fuck Yeah"

    --
    it is only after a long journey that you know the strength of the horse.
  28. What about Mojave? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Mojave Airport/Spaceport already exists, is FAA certified for spaceport operations. (Remember Spaceship One?) Best part of all...Its already paid for.

  29. Where do I apply? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    My jobs boring now! Time to move to New Mexico, here I come big valley full of white sand...)

  30. New Mexico Space Port? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Full of Scum and Villainy . . .

    'These are not the slash dotters you are looking for...'