Slashdot Mirror


Spaceport America Loses $1.7 Million Due To Virgin Galactic Delays

An anonymous reader writes "Officials of New Mexico's Spaceport Authority were grilled by lawmakers about the now vacant Spaceport America following the deadly crash of Virgin Galactic's SpaceShipTwo. The spaceport was built as a hub for commercial space flights. Its immediate future is uncertain since Virgin Galactic has indefinitely pushed back the launch date of its space tourism flights. From the article: "Christine Anderson, the authority's executive director, learned last week that she might have to do so one legislator at a time. Anderson was called out by Rep. Patricia Lundstrom, D-Gallup, for handing members of an interim legislative finance committee a presentation filled mostly with photographs. Lundstrom and other lawmakers wanted hard numbers and more details about what plan the authority has to get past the Virgin Galactic mishap and get the taxpayer-financed spaceport off the ground. 'It just made all of us look like idiots, like we don't do our homework,' Anderson said. 'That's not the case whatsoever.'"

46 comments

  1. If you work on the bleeding edge... by TWX · · Score: 2

    ...you get sliced from time to time.

    While I commend New Mexico for their efforts toward making it possible to push the limits, this was bound to happen. On top of that, if they're balking at $1.7 million , how do they feel about their other budget line-items, like their schools that probably exceed a couple- billion dollars spent?

    I don't know New Mexico's budget off the top of my head, but I do know that in my state, the largest school district's budget is somewhere between $600 and $700 million dollars, for about 65,000 students. There are upwards of a hundred school districts, and the education budget is something like 70% of the state's annual expenditure. $1.7 million dollars on the scale of a state budget is almost down to rounding-error money.

    --
    Do not look into laser with remaining eye.
    1. Re:If you work on the bleeding edge... by ottawanker · · Score: 1

      I'd rather have the $9,230.77 to $10,769.23 a year spent per student. A nice little $200,000 nest egg when I was 16 wouldn't have been too bad.

    2. Re:If you work on the bleeding edge... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      A nice little $200,000 nest egg when I was 16 wouldn't have been too bad.

      I live in an austere little two bedroom apartment with my wife and daughter and don't even own a car. But the cost of living where I live is high enough that my family and I burn through about $100K per year. You'd have to increase that nest egg by an order of magnitude to give my family and I any kind of financial security. Otherwise I'd prefer the education - which allows me to earn $200K every two years.

    3. Re:If you work on the bleeding edge... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      ...their schools that probably exceed a couple- billion dollars spent?

      Heh heh. Compared to the cost of the Iraq war, even a billion is a rounding error: a trillion over ten years is a billion every three days.

  2. Lol by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    This is funny. So is this!

  3. taxpayer-financed spaceport ??? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    So much for the great Private Space Migration that's to come, eh you space whackjobs?

    1. Re:taxpayer-financed spaceport ??? by TWX · · Score: 1

      You really have no idea how governments solicit corporations to their areas, do you?

      Nowadays, corporations look for the most favorable places to operate. That could be a place that's desirable to live in, a place with a large population that's qualified to do the work, a place with favorable laws that make land-use or permitting easier, or a place with favorable tax laws that make it inexpensive.

      New Mexico has some really beautiful places like Ruidoso, but it also has a lot of land that can't even be used for ranching, and short of mineral extraction there's no interest in economic development there. There's a reason why the Manhattan Project tested the first nuclear bomb there; it directly impacted only one family whose land and ranch house were taken from them during the project and couldn't be returned afterward due to the contamination.

      On the flip side, Virgin Galactic needs someplace to play with their vehicles. There's a certain, higher than average risk associated with these vehicles. There's also the possibility that future vehicles might not be mothership-dropped and instead might launch from the ground, which would further increase the risk associated with them. This means that they need land, land far enough away from others that the risk to the population is low, land as a buffer in case of accidents. This is the same problem that modern air force and navy air bases face; they're built a distance from a supporting city to try to minimize the impact on the city, but the city grows to the base's edge then gets upset that the base is there. So the solution is to look for someplace to build the facility where it won't impact anyone.

      Now, the downside, it's hard to attract talented people whose ability will let them write their own check to places that aren't terribly desirable to live. New Mexico has harsh climate, its cities aren't exactly known for being centers of modern popular culture, it lacks world-renowned education, and it doesn't even have major sports teams. That means staff need even more compensation to come there.

      If New Mexico wants both the immediate business and wants the longer-term infrastructure that could make it a hub, that means they have to find a way to attract it. The only major means at their disposal are tax relief and easy permitting. That costs them and doesn't guarantee that it'll work, but the payoffs for the risks are generally pretty favorable.

      --
      Do not look into laser with remaining eye.
    2. Re:taxpayer-financed spaceport ??? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Then stop with all this individualistic, socialism is bad, government can't do anything, private space mythology already.

    3. Re: taxpayer-financed spaceport ??? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The difference in this case is that the city paid for the station. It is extremely rare for a city to pay for a private construction project and it turn out as a beneficial for the city. This is simply a prime example of why public funds paying for private facilities is a bad idea. If a company wants to build, the company should pay for it.

    4. Re:taxpayer-financed spaceport ??? by serviscope_minor · · Score: 1

      its cities aren't exactly known for being centers of modern popular culture,

      Alburquerque maybe not, but Santa Fe is pretty nice. And there's skiing a short drive in winter from the town centre. And there's the chile. Once you taste that you can never leave again. Unless you wind up in Espanola by mistake, in which case you'll leave in a coffin.

      --
      SJW n. One who posts facts.
    5. Re:taxpayer-financed spaceport ??? by savuporo · · Score: 1

      I think your reply missed the point.
      In this case, NM government tried to attract a class of businesses that doesn't really exist. After X-Prize win everyone was high on suborbital tourism and regular passenger services from multiple providers appeared to be magically around the corner to many, mostly to a bunch of talking heads that have never built a real business by themselves.
      10 years later, "suborbital industry" does not exist, apart from the sounding rockets that have always been flying. Every would be entrant either folded, failed or in the case of VG keeps overpromising and underdelivering. Branson starts to sound like Paul Moller after a while.

      This is not a statement whether there is a market potential and would be customer, or technological and economical feasibility of the industry. This is a statement about every entrant in the field abysmally failing to deliver.

      --
      http://validator.w3.org/check?uri=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.slashdot.org Errors found while checking this document as HTML5!
    6. Re:taxpayer-financed spaceport ??? by TWX · · Score: 1

      I didn't miss the point at all. The point is, New Mexico decided to play venture-capitalistsocialist after a fashion, and like lots of venture capital projects, this one hasn't panned-out. Now people are complaining over what's a fairly insignificant amount of money that might have paid-off had Virgin Galactic succeeded before now, and could have attracted more space-faring business. New Mexico wanted the American version of the Baikonur Cosmodrome to be in their state; they've got the land for it and for terrestrial recovery (as opposed to ocean splash-down), but some didn't account for the possibility of the project failing to meet its goals.

      I think they should keep at it a bit longer. It's already built, now it just needs to be maintained.

      --
      Do not look into laser with remaining eye.
    7. Re:taxpayer-financed spaceport ??? by savuporo · · Score: 1

      You generally aren't supposed to play that much of a VC or blackjack with public money. Could as well build a unicorn zoo and cold fusion powered monorails with the expectation that someone will eventually bring unicorns and cold fusion.

      Creating business incentives like tax breaks is one thing, because real money gets involved if there is actual business happening. Massive infrastructure investments for business and technology that doesn't exist yet is a whole different level.

      --
      http://validator.w3.org/check?uri=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.slashdot.org Errors found while checking this document as HTML5!
    8. Re:taxpayer-financed spaceport ??? by TWX · · Score: 1

      There's a college and city partnership "Research Park", a full square-mile of business area, near me. They are used as a tech incubator, giving extremely reasonable rent to student and post-graduate business ventures and other tech ventures- significant E-ink research and the development of the screens for those old Motorola Razr V3 flip phones happened here.

      I don't look at this spaceport as being really any different.

      --
      Do not look into laser with remaining eye.
    9. Re:taxpayer-financed spaceport ??? by savuporo · · Score: 1

      I have tech parks everywhere around here ( sf bay area ). All of them have tons of business or activity happening. As a startup dude, you actually have to fight for space, its that busy. You build a tech park here, you are guaranteed to have people in there, creating businesses, making money and spurring economic development - paying everything back in taxes.

      This spaceport in NM doesn't do any of that.

      --
      http://validator.w3.org/check?uri=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.slashdot.org Errors found while checking this document as HTML5!
    10. Re:taxpayer-financed spaceport ??? by TWX · · Score: 1

      And there are several business parks around here that are empty, with fully paved streets and services in the ground waiting for buildings to hook up to. They end up being places for informal 1/4-mile drags for a couple of passes before the driver bails so to avoid the cops.

      --
      Do not look into laser with remaining eye.
  4. Typical Political Hacks by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    So...a Spaceport built essentially for SpaceShipOne is delayed because there is no more SpaceShipOne and these morons want to know what the plan is. Is the co-pilot even in the ground yet?

    Sounds like just some kind of political grudge.

  5. Not idiots? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Wait, they built a publicly funded spaceport in a time where we don't have any real space flights to speak of and none of any consequence really on the near term horizon and they claim that they aren't idiots? I mean, sure, they took a big risk that, if it paid out, could have made them more of a "space travel hub" instead of a cactus state, but that risk was akin to playing and hoping to win the lottery.

  6. aw damn by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    death, the future of space tourism, hundreds of millions of dollars

    but what really* matters here is that some state pols got a little
    egg on their faces and someone is gonna have to pay dearly

  7. Makes sense by sunking2 · · Score: 1

    Despite the typical 'government is acting bad' attitude that persists here it is a valid question. NM, one of the poorest stats in the country, levied taxes specifically to support this. Now the whole thing is in question. VGs future is in question despite what they are telling the press. And they are at least 5, probably closer to 10 years behind schedule. The question of continued costs and funding is valid.

    1. Re:Makes sense by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You've done it now. You questioned the ability for politicians and bureaucrats to direct an economy and their right to levy taxes for pet projects. Prepare to be downvoted and have insults hurled at you by the slashtards.

    2. Re:Makes sense by Required+Snark · · Score: 1
      Here's an in depth article specifically addressing this issue: Failure to Launch. It was published in March this year, five months before the Virgin Galactic crash. It painted a pretty grim picture then, so obviously things are even more dire now.

      Some quotes.

      In the absence of Galactic operations, the only passengers who have lifted off from Spaceport America are the cremated remains of people whose families have paid UP Aerospace to launch their dead loved ones on a final joyride.

      Speaking about Richard Branson:

      “What you have is one of the poorest states in the country and the taxpayers in this state subsidizing the business of a billionaire for the benefit of multimillionaires,” says Gessing.

      The actual hub of commercial US space launch development is the Mohave Air and Space Port.

      That facility recently released a promotional video calling itself “The Modern-Day Kitty Hawk,” and it may very well be right. Including Virgin Galactic, there are 17 commercial space companies using 19 rocket launch sites at Mojave. “It is the center of aerospace entrepreneurial development,” says Galactic CEO George Whitesides.

      Even for Virgin Galactic, Mojave is where the jobs are.

      Galactic job offerings announced via Twitter in the final months of 2013 were for nearly 50 positions to be based in Mojave, ranging from jobs like systems engineering lead to hydraulics systems engineer to propulsion test manager. In that same period only nine jobs to be based at Spaceport America were advertised, and those jobs were not lucrative engineering gigs but decidedly more menial positions like warehouse manager and diesel technician and manager of maintenance. ... But for every one job based at the New Mexico spaceport, there are still another five announced for Mojave.

      The whole mess sounds a lot like the scam pulled by major league sports franchises: they get cities to build billion dollar stadiums, tax breaks that make it unlikely that the cities will ever directly make money from the team, and then hire a bunch of part time workers to run concessions. Not exactly high paying jobs that will fuel economic growth in the region.

      It's another case of the ultra wealthy getting corporate welfare at the expense of people who really can't afford it. It doesn't much look like capitalism, it looks a lot more like a feudal lord starving the peasants to keep the castle in business.

      --
      Why is Snark Required?
  8. Why? by itzly · · Score: 2

    Why is the government even involved in this ?

    1. Re:Why? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I bet you think International Airports are constructed entirely with private venture capital. Sooo Adorable!

    2. Re:Why? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Why, because politicians and bureaucrats want to be important, so rather than limit themselves to providing the necessities to keep a civilization functioning and keeping taxes low, they expand their personal power at every opportunity. People in both political parties are guilty of this; the only way to control it is to limit the term that any government official (either elected, appointed, or otherwise employed) can serve in their life.

    3. Re:Why? by itzly · · Score: 1

      At least regular airports serve an economic function. This is just a hobby for rich people.

    4. Re:Why? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Uh oh, you're gonna get Space Nutters here like crocs on a feeding frenzy. First, they mod you down, then the usual Nutters come with their Space Doomsday religion and "the Species" and "this rock" and all the usual Nutter sci-fi nonsense.

    5. Re:Why? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Nice strawman, faggot.

      *returns to a better Slashdot alternative*

    6. Re:Why? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Sure, but that's what they said about regular flying too.

      Besides, this is the government we're talking about. When one of those rich people is unhappy with his pet politician he'll stop "lobbying". When you the voter is unhappy, you can stop paying taxes. Oh, wait you can't.

    7. Re:Why? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      But flying was possible with early 20th century technology and there's not even Concorde anymore. For your comparison to hold, we'd need to have had personal private space liners since the last half century, and have lost warp drive in the meantime.

      Your comparison makes no sense, Nutter.

    8. Re:Why? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      where? please! tell us!

    9. Re:Why? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Strawmen and faggots actually exist, unlike your personal space fantasies.

    10. Re:Why? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The faggots?

    11. Re:Why? by Carewolf · · Score: 1

      At least regular airports serve an economic function. This is just a hobby for rich people.

      True, but making space tech more widely used would push technology and make space research cheaper.

    12. Re:Why? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      What possible use does "space tech" have? To go to space? Nice circular reasoning.

      I think we should develop commercial trips to the center of the Earth, because the "center of the Earth tech" would push technology and make "center of the Earth" research cheaper.

    13. Re:Why? by itzly · · Score: 1

      There's barely any useful application of suborbital technology in real space. If anything, it's a big step backwards, even though they have nice new materials and a high gloss paint job.

    14. Re:Why? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      As was the case with international flights back in the days of Howard Hughes...

      Common, fess up: you can't attack the role of government in construction of space ports AND simultaneously be in support of the existence of international airports (built with government money) without being intellectually dishonest(or at-least inconsistent with your application of small government ideology) because they are literally the same concept scaled up.

      Even worse: the concept of a space port for private commercialization of space flight was a DIRECT reaction to the small government/free market advocates outrage over NASA having a near monopoly on space launches via FAA red tape! This is literally a case of advocating for Adam Smith's ideals, and then trying to say "told you so" when those ideals were less rosy in practice than in theory. It is unfortunate because the failure of the private sector to thrive at defying gravity suggests NASA does in fact serve a legitimate purpose in advancing humanities "manifest destiny" to the cosmos. Don't take my word for it:

      “As it is the power of exchanging that gives occasion to the division of labour, so
      the extent of this division must always be the extent of that power, or, in other
      words, by the extent of the market ”

      – Adam Smith, An Inquiry into the Nature and Causes of the Wealth of Nations,
      New York: Modern Library Edition, [1776] 1994, page 19.

      Sounds like Space Ports are about as American as free trade agreements and deregulation of financial markets!

    15. Re:Why? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Interesting the level of zeal you're pushing this with, one could amlost call it a religious fervour

    16. Re:Why? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      so you're saying that sub-orbital flight is impossible with current technology?

      or that the first Aerodrome didn't exist until the 1960's (about 50 years after the early airliners)

      I think you have a case of Pot calling Kettle going on here

  9. "she might have to do so one legislator at a time" by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Is this the equivalent Spacegate?

  10. Two sides.. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    So, on one side you have FAA and other aviation regulators saying it might take two years to find out what went wrong. On the other you have "legislators" demanding that the space port be used. What do they want exactly?

  11. That's too much analysis by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    See, in today's political climate here in the states, the electorate basis their opinions on soundbites spoon fed to them by the media.

    In the case of government finances, all they hear is little things that are put across as 'waste' or are told about complete myths - like the mythical welfare queen driving around in her pink Cadillac.

    In the meantime, real problems that are looming are ignored - like the fact that Social Security and Medicare are projected to increase dramatically in the next 20 or so years because of our aging population. (CBO).

    We are stuck in the Middle East because of our oil policiy - oil is a strategic resource - see Carter Doctrine. That costs us about $150 billion a year. Nobody bitches because for one, some people are getting very wealthy off of our misguded Middle East policy that will doom future generations to terrorism.

    And we have too many people who get off on "American exceptionalism" and beleive the propaganda that we are over there fighty for "Truth, Justice and the American Way" - while invading and occupying countries.

    But, our electorate just keeps the TV on and watches crap and is misinformed - sorry, but Jon Stewart falls in there.

    Until people start asking, "Who gives a shit?"; "Why?"; and "in the grand scheme of things, is this issue really that important?" we will continue with business as usual.

    1. Re:That's too much analysis by cavreader · · Score: 1

      A couple of things from the article. The lawmakers already look like idiots to anyone with a pulse. 1.7 million dollars is an insignificant rounding error when it comes to government spending. If there was a shred of real concern about the welfare of the country and it's citizens or a smidgen of honor in evidence every single congressman and representative would have turned in their immediate resignations and proposed special elections where anyone previously holding any electoral position is barred from running. The country doesn't need them. They are an embarrassment and the number one cause of the problems they all pretend to care about. They contribute absolutely nothing positive to the running of the country and have came very close to crossing the line once known as treason due to their ineptness and conscious decision making. Left, Right, or Center groups are all equally culpable in the current madness. Any idealistic individuals and freshman members in the legislative branch lose what little spine they have as soon as they assume office and shift all their efforts to getting reelected and not solving any problems. On the Judicial side of things there are already enough laws on the books to maintain order until a fresh legislature is elected and installed. The President can represent the US in international affairs and continue playing the domestic figure head role and remain commander in chief and the documented executive powers for any problems that popup during the transition. And frankly with over 6000 nuclear warheads in the US arsenal located in the continental US and deployed on various platforms across the world the "homeland" is pretty fucking safe. Let the rest of the world deal with their own problems for a change. Given enough time the ME will burn itself to the ground. Especially if the US no longer attempts to prevent Israel from finally putting an end to threats surrounding them once and for all. Threats the US would and actually have squashed since it's founding. Russia can reclaim it's eastern European protectorates and the western European countries can get by the best they can which judging by the last 1500 years of history does not present a rosy future. As to your statement of being stuck in the ME because of oil you might want to come out of the basement and get some fresh air. US reliance on ME oil supplies have been shrinking drastically for over 20 years. Most of the US involvement in the ME was on trying to maintain stable global market pricing which not only was good for the US but for all the other countries familiar with the internal combustion engine. Now the US can influence and stabilize global energy prices by managing it's own domestic production. US imports from SA were severely but not totally eliminated in order to sell military hardware to SA and be in a position to retain some influence in the region. The US can more than survive on it's own energy resources bolstered by imports from countries such as Canada and Mexico. It is Europe and the South East Asian countries who are almost 100% dependent on the ME for their energy needs not the US. And it is the ME countries who are 100% dependent on their oil exports to sustain their countries such as they are. Without profitable oil sales they will be back to sharing tents with their camels in the desert and start running dangerously low on AK-47 ammunition.

  12. Delays? by joh · · Score: 1

    Not unheard of in such things, really. If you're not prepared to push through some bad times, forget about it. Either push on or leave it. I still think VG is hardly more than a stunt for the rich (and a dangerous one too) but you're not going to dunk even your toes into space without running into problems now and then, often producing lots of debris... and costs.

  13. single source company town by k6mfw · · Score: 1

    Seems to me obviously Spaceport has only one company. If Dallas Airport had only one airline that flew only one type of airplane, and if structural failure accident occurred, the entire airport will be shutdown for a long time.

    --
    mfwright@batnet.com