David Keller’s research while affiliated with The American Institute of Aeronautics and Astronautics and other places

Operationally responsive launch sites and spaceports are required for national security to employ ready assets to space within hours, deploy staged assets within days and develop new or modified assets and launch systems in less than a year. Reduced processing and launch times lead to more frequent launch opportunities. Commercial launch providers have similar needs. Space adventure tourism operators are looking for suborbital lau nch opportunities as often as several times a week. To date the authors have performed analyses and/or designs for several of these types of users. Similarities in objectives among these users have made common themes and strategies apparent as successful a pproaches for achieving many of the desired improvements in ground infrastructure and support equipment. These strategies will enable much of this type of launch responsiveness. This paper describes the launch vehicle characteristics to which operationally responsive sites must respond such as propellant types, vehicle geometry, engine configuration and cleanliness requirements. The paper suggests infrastructure approaches for interface management between the vehicle , payload, and ground. Operational strategies such as integrate-transfer-launch vs. build onpad vs. combinations of the two are compared. Also discussed are lesser considered range characteristics which can contribute to or detract from operational responsiveness . These include airspace availability, presence of other high value assets, and competition for range services. By prudent application of the identified concepts, ground infrastructure can greatly improve its responsiveness for land, sea, rail and/or air based launches .

Spaceport development in the United States for many years was exclusively the purview of the Federal Government. It then evolved to also include a State - Federal based model. Now it is a mix of competing models which also involve State spaceport initiatives, private US domestic spaceports and private international spaceports. To date, the authors have completed detailed design and / or environmental planning at four spaceports for Public – Private and entrepreneurial launch vehicle programs. Some of these spaceports involved State participation in their development, while some were privately funded and developed. This paper discusses the technical, cost, schedule and political requirements of the vehicle programs which influenced the evolution of these spaceport development models. It then compares and contrasts the differing requirements of Federal, State and private spaceports which influence the ultimate decision of where to conduct a launch. The private entrepreneurial launch companies have different requirements for spaceport technical capabilities, costs and schedules than do the government supported launch operators. There are certain aspects of existing and planned Public – Private spaceports which provide both appealing and alienating features to these private companies. There are examples of PublicPrivate spaceport developments which have not proven useful to the private launch companies. The paper provides the basic guidelines for how new Public – Private spaceports should be developed in order to attract the new innovative launch vehicle operators they desire and maximize their benefits to the local area.

Understanding the costs of implementing a new or revised space launch system is a key to understanding its business potential, analyzing its business case and funding its development. The design, construction and startup of a launch complex (including launch mount, flame deflector, component and fluid handling equipment, support equipment and facilities) represents a significant portion of the non-recurring costs for a new launch system. By understanding the factors which drive these costs, informed decisions can be made early in a program to give the business case the best chance of economic success. The authors have designed several NASA, military, commercial and private launch complexes. Data from these designs has been used to identify the major factors which, on a broad scale, drive their non-recurring costs. Both vehicle specific and location specific factors play major roles in establishing costs.

Numerous economic, technical and schedule factors affect the decision regarding where a privately funded commercial venture will locate a launch vehicle's final assembly, launch and landing infrastructure. The National Ranges (Kennedy Space Center, Cape Canaveral AFS and Vandenberg AFB) provide comprehensive launch site capabilities. However, the new space tourism and commercial launch companies in general are not planning to launch from these ranges. These companies are consciously avoiding the ranges and building infrastructure at other locations, commonly called "Spaceports". Based on the design experience of two such new, "greenfield" launch sites, this paper explores the various economic, technical and schedule factors which leads to the decision to go "off range".