Abstract
After decades of space operations in which governments and government space agencies led the way, we are now seeing significant changes in how space activities are being conducted, with private industry playing a major role. This new way of doing business is resulting in lower costs, increased innovation, and a significant uptick in the number of launches taking place every year. Because everything that happens in space begins with a launch from Earth, spaceports are becoming more important every day as a key contributor to the global space economy. But spaceports are not limited to just being the locations from which rocket launches take place. Instead, they can also serve as focal points and technology hubs, with a wide range of aerospace activities that significantly benefit economic growth. With the appropriate changes to law, regulation, and policy, spaceports can enable and even accelerate the ongoing growth in the global space economy.
BACKGROUND
We are currently undergoing a major transformation when it comes to how we operate in space. Ever since the Soviet Union launched Yuri Gagarin into orbit more than 60 years ago, making him the first person to leave the planet, almost all of the major milestones and historic achievements in space have been accomplished by governments. Whether we are talking about the X-15 program, Project Mercury, Project Gemini, the Apollo moon landings, 30 years of operating the Space Shuttle, or building, living, and working onboard the International Space Station, it was the government that was responsible for planning, developing, and carrying out those programs. In the future, that is not necessarily going to be the case, because private industry has begun playing an increasingly important role.
There are a number of reasons for this transformation, including, at least in the last 10 years or so, a recognition that increased commercial involvement has the potential to lead to:
Lower costs. Without the bureaucratic processes that are often associated with government programs, industry is frequently able to perform a given set of activities less expensively than would be possible if they were being done by the government. Increased innovation. Although government organizations can sometimes get into the habit of doing things the same way they have always done them, industry is often more open to the use of advanced technologies and new ways of doing business. Greater risk tolerance. Governments today are often quite risk averse. Most companies, on the contrary, will attempt to manage risk by assessing potential benefits along with the corresponding costs. New products, services, customers, and markets. Although it is typically not the government’s job to seek out new products, services, customers, and markets, that is exactly what business is all about. Additional sources of funding and investment. Most government programs are funded by taxpayer dollars that are provided as part of the government appropriations process. The private sector has the opportunity to seek revenue from both customers and investors.
COMMERCIAL SPACE AND THE GLOBAL SPACE ECONOMY
Although there are certainly cases where an increased industry involvement would not be appropriate, the new approach does appear to be making quite a difference. As just one example, the number of commercial launches taking place every year has been growing exponentially. In the United States, those launches are licensed by the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), and they have increased from a total of 9 launches in 2015, to 117 launches in 2023. 1
Most of those launches are for the purpose of putting satellites in orbit. But many of the missions that are attracting the most attention from the public are the ones carrying people, and we are starting to see changes in the kinds of people who are flying to space. If we look at the human spaceflights from the United States that took place between July 11, 2021 and March 4, 2024, there were a total of six flights conducted for the government (in support of NASA’s Commercial Crew missions to the International Space Station), carrying a total of 24 people. During that same time period, there were 18 flights conducted for nongovernment customers (the Inspiration4 mission, 3 flights by Axiom, 8 flights by Virgin Galactic, and 6 flights by Blue Origin), carrying a total of 96 people. 2
The number of spaceports is also continuing to grow. In addition to government launch and landing sites and privately owned and operated sites, there are currently 14 FAA-licensed spaceports in the United States, plus at least 12 other sites that have announced their intention to apply for a license in the future. 3 Of course, the interest in spaceports is not limited to the United States. There are currently dozens of spaceports all around the world, with new sites being proposed on a regular basis.
Another important measure of success is the impact that space is having on the economy. According to the Space Foundation, in 2022, the global space economy totaled $546 billion. 4
Interestingly, less than a quarter of that total is spending that is included in government space budgets, whereas more than three-quarters is nongovernment spending, either for commercial infrastructure and support industries, or for commercial space products and services.
Even more exciting is the fact that there seems to be a consensus among economists and financial analysts that the global space economy is going to continue to grow at a very rapid pace. UBS, a Swiss financial services provider, estimates that the total could equal $805 billion in 10 years, 5 and reach $1 trillion in 20 years. 6 Morgan Stanley projects that it could reach $1.1 trillion by 2040. 7 Bank of America Merrill Lynch believes it could amount to $2.7 trillion by 2056. 8 Most recently, the World Economic Forum, in partnership with McKinsey & Company, published an Insight Report that forecasts the space economy will reach $1.8 trillion as early as 2035, with a growth rate significantly greater than the global gross domestic product. 9
Much of that economic growth could take place at or near spaceports. At the same time, it is important to recognize that not all spaceports are alike. As the launch frequency continues to increase, we may start to see greater specialization in the kinds of operations being conducted from each site. For example, some spaceports may choose to focus more on suborbital missions, either for space tourism or for scientific research. Others may specialize in launching crew and cargo to low-Earth-orbiting space stations. The need to launch satellites will certainly continue, and mission requirements for particular orbital inclinations may impose some constraints on the best place to launch. Payload size can also be a driver, with the opportunity for CubeSats or other small satellites to be launched using relatively small launch vehicles, whereas larger telecommunication satellites or similar systems may require much larger rockets and correspondingly larger facilities. Launches will also be required in support of nontraditional missions, including satellite servicing, in-space manufacturing or production, on-orbit propellent depots, the development of solar power stations, asteroid mining, or missions to the Moon and Mars.
THE IMPORTANCE OF SPACE AND SPACEPORTS
Space has become extremely important in achieving and maintaining our current standard of living, whether for ensuring national security, technological leadership, international competitiveness, scientific curiosity, or as an inspiration for students. We have also grown dependent on space for our everyday activities, including communication, navigation, financial transactions, weather forecasts, agriculture, and even entertainment. At least for now, all of the systems that provide those capabilities need to be launched from Earth, which means they will be departing from a spaceport.
Unfortunately, our current spaceport infrastructure is not very robust or resilient. Most U.S. launches today take place from the Kennedy Space Center or Cape Canaveral Space Force Station in Florida, the Mid-Atlantic Regional Spaceport in Virginia, or Vandenberg Space Force Base in California. However, because of the possibility that a natural disaster (such as a hurricane, tornado, earthquake, or wildfire), a launch pad accident, or a terrorist attack could significantly damage one of those facilities, the nation’s access to space is not guaranteed. In fact, the recovery time after such an event could be many months, or even years.
General B. Chance Saltzman, Chief of Space Operation for the U.S. Space Force, has noted that, “One way to make sure the Pentagon can launch anytime, anywhere is by increasing the number of launch providers and pads available to the Defense Department.” 10
Adopting a National Spaceport Policy could make it more likely that General Salzman’s concerns could be addressed. The policy could be a brief and relatively simple statement of encouragement, such as “The U.S. Government strongly supports the development of a National Spaceport Network, consisting of commercial, government, and privately operated launch and reentry sites, that will allow assured access to space for all users, while enabling the United States to:
satisfy national security requirements, maintain technological leadership, enable international competitiveness, and provide inspiration for students and the development of a robust aerospace workforce.”
Such a policy could be issued by the President as an Executive Order; it could be adopted via a Congressional Resolution; or it could be put forward by the National Space Council and published as a Space Policy Directive. Once adopted by the United States, a follow-on step could involve working with the international community to formally or informally begin development of a global spaceport network that would increase access to space while facilitating continued growth of the space economy.
GROWING THE GLOBAL SPACE ECONOMY
Given the large (and expensive) facilities already in existence at the Kennedy Space Center/Cape Canaveral and Vandenberg, some have asked how many spaceports we really need, either in the United States or elsewhere. To provide some context, we could use an analogy from aviation and ask, “How many airports do we really need?” It turns out that there are currently 19,969 airports in the United States 11 and 45,527 airports worldwide. 12 Congestion at existing facilities may be one factor in assessing the need for additional airports, but it is also driven by where people want to go and the basic purpose of the flight. In addition, many of the people who work in airport terminals, such as in restaurants, apparel shops, books stores, and at jewelry counters, clearly have nothing to do with preparing aircraft for upcoming departures or servicing them after arrivals. Spaceports may someday provide a similar diversity of business opportunities, some of which are directly related to launching rockets, including inspecting and maintaining the vehicles, supplying propellants, and processing payloads; and some of which may have a more tangential connection, including hotels, restaurants, or spaceport tours for those who would love to personally experience seeing a rocket fly to space.
It is important to recognize that spaceports are not just locations from which launches are conducted. Rather, they can also serve as focal points and technology hubs to support aerospace manufacturing, testing, research and technology development efforts, education and training, workforce development, and, in the not too distant future, point-to-point transportation through space.
There are a number of areas where changes to law, regulation, and policy would enable spaceports to greatly accelerate their impact on the overall space economy. Examples include:
Commercial Space Transportation Research, Commercial Human Spaceflight Training, Spaceport Infrastructure Funding, and Point-to-Point Transportation through Space.
Commercial Space Transportation Research
In 2010, the FAA established a Center of Excellence for Commercial Space Transportation. 13 The Center consisted of 10 member universities and 36 industry partners. The program was funded for 10 years at approximately $1 million per year, with a requirement for a 1:1 match for all federal dollars spent. Research areas included Aerospace Access and Operations, Aerospace Vehicles, Human Operations and Spaceflight, and Industry Innovation. The program “timed out” in 2022, with no replacement in place to allow academia to engage in commercial space transportation research. Clearly, both NASA and the Department of Defense have robust and well-funded aerospace research programs, but those efforts are not necessarily in alignment with the needs of industry in pursuing commercial space activities.
The creation of a Commercial Spaceflight Research Alliance as a follow-on to the Center of Excellence could provide significant benefits to the aerospace community. Although many different organizational frameworks are possible, the recommended approach would be to engage with a nonprofit, nongovernmental entity to oversee and administer the program. All interested parties from government, industry, and academia would be welcome (and encouraged) to participate. The effort would be focused on research and data-sharing, not regulation. It would also be collaborative in nature and international in scope.
There are a number of research topics in which such an organization could make major contributions, but perhaps one of the most promising, especially given the potential for spaceports to be involved, is the impact of spaceflight on “civilians” (nongovernment astronauts) who fly to space. NASA has over 60 years of data on how spaceflight affects the health of its astronauts. However, at least when they are selected, NASA astronauts are typically young, in excellent health, and in outstanding physical condition. Future flyers on commercial space flights are likely to be older, with a variety of existing health conditions, and be less fit than their NASA counterparts. For example, in July 2021, when Wally Funk flew on the first human flight of Blue Origin’s New Shepard rocket, she became the oldest person ever to travel to space, at age 82. Unfortunately, her record did not last very long, since William Shatner (who played Captain Kirk on the original Star Trek series) flew on a New Shepard flight a few months later, at the age of 90. Haley Arceneaux, who flew on the Inspiration4 mission with SpaceX, is a childhood cancer survivor. And Jon Goodwin, who flew on a Virgin Galactic mission at age 80, had been previously diagnosed as having Parkinson’s. There is no way that any of those people would have had an opportunity to travel to space as a NASA astronaut. But they are likely to be quite typical of those who will be living and working in space, or visiting space, as part of future commercial missions.
The “Standard Guide for Medical Qualifications for Suborbital Vehicle Passengers” (ASTM F3568-23), a recently published industry consensus standard, notes that “Companies currently are required under 51 USC § 80905 (b) (5) to inform spaceflight participants about the mission-related risk, but the specific risk of certain medical conditions has yet to be determined.” 14
Figuring out how to understand those risks was the focus of a Workshop on the Human Research Program for Civilians in Spaceflight and Space Habitation, which was held at Oklahoma State University (OSU) on January 23–24, 2024. 15 The event was sponsored by the International Association for the Advancement of Space Safety, the Aerospace Corporation, the Global Spaceport Alliance, and OSU, and included a review of the proposed research program. The objective will be to develop the appropriate training, preparation, medication, and treatments that will allow anyone who wants to travel to space to be able to do so safely and successfully. Potential partners and collaborators for the effort include commercial spaceflight companies, spaceports, government space agencies, universities and educational institutions, insurance companies, health and life science companies, venture capital companies, and industry associations.
Commercial Human Spaceflight Training
NASA is generally viewed as the “gold standard” when it comes to human spaceflight and human spaceflight training. Even though the winged Space Shuttle flew its last mission more than 10 years ago, NASA still maintains a fleet of T-38 jet training aircraft at Ellington Airport in Houston and has its astronauts fly in them regularly. The experience includes being strapped into a relatively small cockpit with a helmet, oxygen mask, and parachute, undergoing rapid acceleration (“pulling g’s”) and unusual attitudes, having to follow checklists, monitor instruments, think quickly, and multitask by flying the aircraft, navigating, and talking on the radio, while safely avoiding other traffic. NASA believes that this type of activity provides excellent preparation for flying in space, even for missions using capsules, like the spacecraft developed for the Commercial Crew Program by SpaceX and Boeing.
Many companies and individuals own high performance aircraft that are similar to the T-38, and for the most part, they are allowed to fly them whenever and wherever they want. What they are not allowed to do is to sell a ticket to someone and let them ride in the back seat. That is because these aircraft, most of which are former military aircraft, are not type-certificated by the FAA. Instead, they are operated under an Experimental Airworthiness Certificate, which means that they cannot be flown for compensation or hire.
Congress recently approved the use of “Space Support Vehicles” for training, testing, or research and development; however, the current definition is limited to launch and reentry vehicles or components thereof. Expanding the definition to include high-performance or former military aircraft, and allowing their operation in accordance with a license or permit from the FAA Office of Commercial Space Transportation, would immediately enable human spaceflight training to be conducted at interested commercial spaceports. Such operations could take place under an “informed consent” regime, just like commercial human spaceflights.
Other kinds of human spaceflight training that could be conducted at spaceports include classroom training, to learn about aerospace physiology, the space environment, orbital mechanics, vehicle systems and capabilities, and emergency procedures; simulators, to become familiar with vehicle systems and procedures; altitude chamber runs to experience rapid decompressions and to learn to recognize the symptoms of hypoxia; riding in a centrifuge, to allow people to undergo the high accelerations that are encountered when flying to space; and participating in parabolic aircraft flights, that can provide the opportunity to experience “weightlessness” for about 20 s at a time, or to practice operating experiments under microgravity conditions.
Providing these kinds of activities at spaceports around the world would allow commercial spaceflight crewmembers and spaceflight participants to be better prepared for their eventual spaceflights, thereby increasing safety. The high-performance aircraft flights in particular could be extremely helpful in determining whether a person might have a panic attack or get violently ill during a potential space mission. Because it is currently so expensive to fly to space, giving potential customers the opportunity to go through these training experiences and understand what the actual spaceflight will be like, even if they are not required to do so by the launch operator, may help them to make a better decision on whether to go ahead and buy a ticket. There may be others who know that they are not able to afford to buy a ticket to go to space, but they would love to go through the training in order to have the opportunity to fly in high performance aircraft, ride in a centrifuge, or see what “weightlessness” feels like. Finally, offering spaceflight training programs would provide a significant revenue opportunity for spaceports, completely separate from whatever launches may be taking place from that location.
Spaceport Infrastructure Funding
The federal government has traditionally provided substantial funding to develop, repair, or upgrade all forms of transportation infrastructure. Examples include roads, bridges, and the interstate highway system; railroads; seaports; and airports. Today, there is no comparable federal program to provide funding for space-related infrastructure, such as for spaceports. Given the importance of space operations to national security, technological leadership, and economic competitiveness, it is vitally important that programs be established for the development, enhancement, and maintenance of spaceport infrastructure.
As background, financial support for airport infrastructure by the federal government began shortly after World War II. The Federal Airport Act of 1946 created the Federal Aid to Airports Program, which called for a national plan to create a system of public airports to meet the needs of civil aeronautics, including both air commerce and private flying. Appropriations were authorized from the general fund, at a level not to exceed $100 million per year (the equivalent of more than $1.1 billion today).
The Airport and Airway Trust Fund was created in 1970, using assessments on aviation users and fuel to operate the Trust Fund. The current Airport Improvement Program was established in 1982, along with the requirement for the Secretary of Transportation to develop and publish biannually the National Plan of Integrated Airport Systems. The 2018 FAA Reauthorization Act authorized $3.35 billion per year from FY2019 to FY2023, with an additional $1 billion in discretionary funding.
In June 2020, the Global Spaceport Alliance prepared a National Spaceport Network Development Plan for the FAA Office of Spaceports.
16
Several existing options were identified that could be used to provide financial support for space transportation infrastructure, including:
Airport Improvement Program, Space Transportation Infrastructure Matching Grants Program, DOT Discretionary Grants Program, and Joint DoD/FAA Infrastructure Program.
Although a decision could be made to implement any of the identified options, all would require significant changes to meet current and anticipated spaceport needs. As a potential alternative, a Spaceport Network Improvement Program was proposed that would incorporate lessons learned from previous programs and address the limitations of existing options to create a comprehensive, time-phased, and sustainable approach. Such an approach would involve establishment of a Spaceport and Spaceway Trust Fund, potentially supported by a cargo tax (for satellites, payloads, and experiments), plus a Spaceflight Participant Ticket Tax. If this approach were to be implemented, it would be important to ensure that the charges, taxes, and fees are not set so high that they would significantly impact industry’s growth in these early years. One option would be to hold off on implementing the charges until the global space economy reaches a specific level, perhaps $1 trillion per year, which could occur in the next 10–15 years. Another option would be to start collecting the charges earlier, but have them initially set at a very low level, and then adjust them upward as the industry grows and matures.
In the near term, the fastest, most straight-forward, and most effective method of providing spaceport infrastructure finding would be to make minor modifications to the existing Space Transportation Infrastructure Matching (STIM) Grants Program and provide adequate funding to support identified facility needs.
As part of a survey of U.S. spaceports conducted in support of the National Spaceport Network Development Plan, 10 spaceports submitted infrastructure project requirements, and 44 different projects were identified. Examples included a rocket engine test stand, a payload processing clean room, an automated weather balloon launcher, and telemetry tracking instrumentation. The total estimated cost was over $382 million.
During its meeting on April 23, 2024, the Commercial Space Transportation Advisory Committee (COMSTAC) recommended that the STIM Grants Program should be updated by changing the maximum Federal share from 50% to 90% (to be consistent with what is done for Airport Grants), and by deleting the requirement for a 10% private sector match (again, to be consistent with Airport Grants). Note that some spaceports are currently operated by states and local communities, and in those cases, the spaceport would still need to come up with at least 10% of the project cost; however, that portion of the funding should not necessarily have to be provided by the private sector. COMSTAC also recommended that the program funding level should be increased to $100 million per year, and that grant awards should be prioritized based on the project benefit to the National Spaceport Network in terms of safety, capacity, efficiency, and resiliency. 17
Point-to-Point Transportation Through Space
The ability to fly from one point on Earth to the opposite side of the planet in just an hour or two will be a major game changer for both national security and for economic competitiveness. Successfully implementing such a capability will require a number of different ingredients:
Vehicles that can safely, reliably, and cost-effectively accomplish the point-to-point mission, Concepts of operations that have an acceptable impact on the environment, Locations to fly to and from (such as spaceports), Customers willing and able to cover the costs, and A supportive regulatory framework.
Although there has not been a lot of recent discussion by the general public (or even within the aerospace community) about the development of point-to-point transportation capabilities, it appears that significant progress is being made with all of the basic ingredients, which may allow systems to begin operations much sooner than most people would expect. The poster child for delivering near-term point-to-point capabilities is the Starship being developed by SpaceX. Starship was designed to be used to colonize Mars and to support NASA’s Artemis Program to land astronauts on the Moon, but the very same vehicle could be used to revolutionize high-speed, long-distance transportation. SpaceX has projected that the Starship could reach most destinations in <30 min, or anywhere on Earth in less than an hour. It has a pressurized volume greater than an Airbus 380, and it could carry several hundred passengers or 100 metric tons of cargo on a single mission. 18
There are actually a number of other companies that are working on systems that could be used for point-to-point missions. U.S. companies include Hermeus, Stoke Space, New Frontier Aerospace, Radian Aerospace, Venus Aerospace, and Rocket Lab. International efforts include Destinus (Switzerland), Dawn Aerospace (the Netherlands), Polaris (Germany), and Space Engine Systems (Canada). Some of these concepts are vertical takeoff and landing (like Starship), and some takeoff and land horizontally, on a runway. All are significantly smaller than Starship, and several are being designed to fly at speeds of from Mach 5 to Mach 10 and altitudes of from 100,000–150,000 feet, rather than at near-orbital speeds and altitudes.
The military is starting to show interest in the point-to-point mission. Specifically, the Air Force Research Laboratory (AFRL) has initiated an activity known as the Rocket Cargo Program, which is intended to evaluate how the military could benefit from having this type of vehicle. AFRL has signed cooperative agreements with several companies to share information, and it has issued a $100 million contract to SpaceX for a future flight demonstration. 19 But point-to-point should not just be considered as a military mission. A company that can successfully develop this type of vehicle would significantly disrupt the commercial marketplace for transportation.
According to UBS, there are currently more than 150 million passengers each year who take airline flights lasting more than 10 h. 20 Capturing 5% of them at a ticket price of $2,500 each would result in $20 billion per year in revenues, which dwarfs the amounts that are currently being spent to launch satellites.
Once developed, it is likely that these vehicles would first be used for cargo delivery, with the possibility that they could eventually carry people. Potential customers include military and national security forces; businesses needing rapid delivery of their products; shipping, package delivery, and logistics companies; government agencies and other organizations involved in disaster relief, humanitarian crisis response, and medical emergencies; business travelers; and long-distance travelers from the general public.
NASA recently selected two teams to perform Commercial Hypersonic Transportation Market Studies. One team included SAIC and BryceTech and the other consisted of Deloitte and Space Works. Both teams performed trade studies of vehicles with varying size, speed, and range, and conducted extensive surveys of potential customers to assess how much people were willing to pay in order to shorten delivery times for packages, or travel time for long distance passenger flights. One conclusion was that with an appropriately sized hypersonic vehicle and reasonable ticket prices, there should be dozens of transoceanic flight routes that would allow an operator to be profitable. 21
That type of scenario provides a significant opportunity for spaceports who are interested in playing a leadership role in the adoption of these new technologies. Now is the perfect time to be forming partnerships with vehicle developers, operators, regulators, researchers, economic development committees, and customer groups, in order to be able to benefit from the changes that lie ahead.
CONCLUSIONS
Space has become a vital element of our efforts related to national security, technological leadership, international competitiveness, responding to our scientific curiosity, and as an inspiration for students. As the place where missions to space begin, spaceports are definitely a key enabler of those activities. But they can also be much, much more, serving as focal points and technology hubs that would feature aerospace manufacturing, testing, research and development, education and training, workforce development, and in the not too distant future, point-to-point transportation through space.
Footnotes
AUTHOR DISCLOSURE STATEMENT
No competing financial interests exist.
FUNDING INFORMATION
No funding was received for this article.