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."

Comments

Government Propping Up Companies

[hardburn]

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

Re:Government Propping Up Companies

[eln]

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.

Re:Government Propping Up Companies

[metlin]

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.

Re:Government Propping Up Companies

[Volante3192]

Seriously! What have the Romans done for us?!

Re:Government Propping Up Companies

[burning-toast]

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)

Re:Government Propping Up Companies

[GooberToo]

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.

Re:Government Propping Up Companies

[Ngarrang]

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.

Re:Government Propping Up Companies

[AeroIllini]

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.

Re:Government Propping Up Companies

[louks]

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.

Re:Government Propping Up Companies

[ParaShoot]

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.

Re:Government Propping Up Companies

[Nefarious Wheel]

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.

Commerical/Government

[jwiegley]

Am I the only one that sees the oxymoron here... "the world's first commercial spaceport" vs "Governor Bill Richardson recently secured 33 million dollars from the state legislature for the final design, and a proposed 0.25% sales tax increase in Dona Ana County,

This is a government spaceport. Possible deployed to deliver commercial products into space but it should be billed corrected as a government facility. Yet another shining example of your tax dollars at work. I am glad I don't live in that state/county but I fully expect that when a tornado or hurricane wipes it out I will have to foot the FEMA bill for it.

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

Re:Commerical/Government

[metlin]

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.

Re:Commerical/Government

[Darth_brooks]

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

Re:Commerical/Government

[Red Flayer]

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.

Re:Commerical/Government

[AK Marc]

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.

Re:Commerical/Government

[vertinox]

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.

Re:Commerical/Government

[jwiegley]

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.)

One small question..

[Rob T Firefly]

..will there be lemon-soaked paper napkins?

Re:27 million over 20 years?

[Anonymous Coward]

Ouch! Your knee jerked right into my shin!

Two thoughts on this

[haaz]

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?

Re:Two thoughts on this

[Paulrothrock]

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.

Re:Two thoughts on this

[elcid73]

what would a spaceport be for?

Well obviously... where else would you put the space cantina?

Re:Two thoughts on this

[Zontar_Thing_From_Ve]

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.

Re:Will it have...

[no_pets]

Sure, unfortunately the Ferrengi will run it.

Re:27 million over 20 years?

[Red Flayer]

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

Re:27 million over 20 years?

[xero314]

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.

Re:Low Numbers

[Quiet_Desperation]

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

Re:How big is this place?

[SEE]

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.

Re:OBL: Battlestar Gallactica Reference

[geekoid]

You didn't answer the question.