I read more of the FAA EA (still 6MB) for OSIDA’s spaceport at BFV in CSIA.* The most interesting things I found were the fuel and noise calculations for concepts X, Y and Z. I don’t really like those designators. Concept X, let’s change to concept R. Concept R has a maximum number of launches proposed of 12 in 2006, 12 in 2007, 24 in 2008, 48 in 2009, and 48 in 2010 (p. 4-2). Concept R runs on LOX and RP-1 (4-47) and needs an estimated 5761 kg of LOX and 2404 kg of RP-1. Concept R takes off and lands with a jet engine (4-39) reaches Mach 1 at 9144m (4-40), drops back to Mach 1 at 99,670m and speeds back up to Mach 1 at the same altitude and slows back down to Mach 1 at 16,459m. All these values are approximate. Let’s suppose concept R starts charging $200,000 per seat in 2008. If they sell three seats at that price per flight, they could expect $14.4 million in revenue at this airport in the first year of commercial operation and $28.8 million in their second and third. I am not sure how the maxes of 12 flights in each of the first two years square with a 25-flight test program with a maiden launch in July 2007. Perhaps they will fly out of other spaceports, have some non-rocket flights, or up the maximum number out of Burns Flat.

I don’t like the letter for concept Y either. Let’s call it X’. Concept X’ is scheduled to fly two times per year 2006-2010 (4-2). X’ does not exceed Mach 1 (4-38). Concept X’ runs on LOX and kerosene or alcohol (4-47). Concept X’ has rocket takeoff and glide landing with 1800 lbs thrust (4-40).

I don’t like the letter for concept Z as you might have guessed. Let’s call it concept V. Concept V has max 2 flights in 2006 and 2007 with 3, 4 and 4 in 2008-2010. Concept V vehicles (sic) will take off with a jet engine (4-39). They will carry Jet-A fuel for the carrier vehicle and 1295kg N₂O and some HTPB for the launch vehicle (4-47) (laughing gas and rubber).

You can see pictures of concept R, X’ and V on pages 2-11, 14 and 17 (although V has an Andrews Space Technology logo in the corner even if there might be a “Virgin” on the side of the carrier–it could be a SpaceDev HL-20 but the two tails and canard on the carrier scale back my expectations of that), and the picture of X’ looks like a Xerus instead of a Velocity and concept R has only one tail instead of two).

In layman’s terms? Expect there to be some kind of attempt at a rocket show in Burns Flat. Rocketplane is getting their spaceport. Hard to say what this means for business as the EA process was started in 2002.

*FAA=Federal Aviation Administration, EA=Environmental Assessment, OSIDA=Oklahoma Space Industry Development Authority, BFV=the little known designator of the Burns Flat Vortac which I am guessing at to try to be cute, CSIA=Clinton-Sherman Industrial Airpark

–Update 2006-02-18 09:18

–Update 2006-02-18 09:46

It’s actually a Gryphon Aerospace Plane from Andrews. Probably should be concept G.

NY Times has an article on “the Space Tourism Race” which is interesting mostly for the following quote:

Will Whitehorn, the president of Virgin Galactic, said that 157 people have put down deposits totaling $12.2 million to fly…

A race gets interesting when folks are funded and bending metal. Paper planes come and go. We can also have an industry without a race.

Unlike the Chinese versus NASA, this is a space race worth taking seriously:

I do wonder if Virgin Galactic/Spaceship Company will accelerate their vehicle development in response to this project if it looks probable that the Explorer vehicles will start flying next year. I think suborbital space tourism business will grow robustly beyond just those who want to claim that they were the “pioneers” in public space travel. In fact, more people will want to go once there have been lots of flights since this will help to demonstrate safe and reliable operation.

Unlike the Chinese versus NASA, this is a space race worth taking seriously:

I do wonder if Virgin Galactic/Spaceship Company will accelerate their vehicle development in response to this project if it looks probable that the Explorer vehicles will start flying next year. I think suborbital space tourism business will grow robustly beyond just those who want to claim that they were the “pioneers” in public space travel. In fact, more people will want to go once there have been lots of flights since this will help to demonstrate safe and reliable operation.

Unlike the Chinese versus NASA, this is a space race worth taking seriously:

I do wonder if Virgin Galactic/Spaceship Company will accelerate their vehicle development in response to this project if it looks probable that the Explorer vehicles will start flying next year. I think suborbital space tourism business will grow robustly beyond just those who want to claim that they were the “pioneers” in public space travel. In fact, more people will want to go once there have been lots of flights since this will help to demonstrate safe and reliable operation.

Jeff Foust asks a question (scroll down about thirty comments):

…should settlement be an explicit goal of the space agency, with programs specifically tailored to that, or should settlement be instead a commercial initiative that is either an outgrowth of, or even completely independent from, government space efforts?

I’ve some thoughts on that, but no time to put them down right now. The comments section is open, however.

The FAA Oklahoma Spaceport Draft Environmental Assessment (EA) is available for download (6 MB). I haven’t read it yet, but I can already say it is very similar to the Mojave Spaceport one. That’s because there is an XCOR Xerus on the front cover. They are soliciting comments and will have a public meeting in Oklahoma on March 9.

Liftport has had a successful test.

From Henry Spencer, over at sci.space.policy:

As various people have pointed out in the past, to judge by the fuss that gets made when a few of them die, astronauts clearly are priceless national assets — exactly the sort of people you should not be risking in an experimental-class vehicle.

I tracked down the cite to the following quote in The Economic Impact of Commercial Space Transportation on the US Economy: 2004.

Recent market studies have shown public space travel has the potential to become a billion dollar industry within 20 years.

It’s the famous 2002 Futron study made public in October 2004. On the bullish side, still no accounting for games. No accounting for $200,000 starting prices (It assumes $100,000) which is bullish for price, bearish for quantity. On the bearish side, still none of the demand flown off. Why am I analyzing 4 year old data when I could be testing the market personally for a little more than the cost of a new study?

I am doing that, too.