Vision Spaceport

Renewing

America's Space Launch

![](media/image1.png){width="3.247916666666667in"
height="2.2256944444444446in"}Infrastructure & Operations

-   [Findings]{.smallcaps}

-   [A Vision of Improvement]{.smallcaps}

-   [Summary of Research Activity]{.smallcaps}

Carey M. McCleskey, Technical Manager

Spaceport Technology Development Office

NASA John F. Kennedy Space Center

**April 2001**

> This report summarizes the R&D activity of the Vision Spaceport
> Project from 1998 through 2000 and coincides with the first release of
> the *Strategic Planning Tool.* In addition to providing top-level
> findings, the NASA Technical Manager provides a long range,
> "quick-look" vision of ground infrastructure and operations for future
> space travel.
>
> Many individuals have contributed to this effort. Their vision,
> innovativeness, patience and dedication to explore and build on
> largely uncharted ground is here acknowledged and appreciated.
>
> [Management Support]{.underline} [JSRA/Project
> Administration]{.underline}
>
> R. Bridges/KSC Director M. Duenas/NASA Ames
>
> L. Shriver/KSC Deputy Dir. B. Vrioni/KSC Patent Counsel
>
> J. Morgan/KSC Assoc. Dir. D. Shelton/NASA KSC Engineering
>
> D. Hendriksen/KSC Dpty. Chief Counsel S. Colloredo/KSC Engineering
>
> J. Hattaway/Dir. KSC Procurement B. Collins/KSA KSC Procurement
>
> M. Freeman/NASA Ames L. Euell/KSC Resources
>
> G. Allen/NASA KSC SE&T N. Buchert/Boeing
>
> B. Melnick/Boeing C. Shea/Boeing
>
> R. Davis/CCT P. Simons/CCT
>
> B. Atkins/Lockheed Martin D. McGhee/Lockheed Martin-Michoud
>
> R. Hofer/UCF-IST B. Wick/UCF-IST
>
> K. Ramos/Barker-Ramos
>
> [Project Team]{.underline}
>
> C. McCleskey/NASA KSC SE&T, Govt Co-Chair
>
> R. Byrd/Boeing, Industry Co-Chair, 1997-2000
>
> K. Ingoldsby/Lockheed Martin, Industry co-chair, 2001
>
> P. Rawlings/SAIC, Space Concept Artist
>
> R. Rhodes/NASA SE&T J. Huether/Boeing K. Brown/CCT K.
> Ingoldsby/Lockheed Martin
>
> E. Zapata/NASA SE&T R. Vargo/Boeing J. Horn/CCT W. Lattin/Lockheed
> Martin
>
> A. Ruiz-Torres/FGCU M. Sklar/Boeing J. Judkins/CCT
>
> P. Jogelkar/LaSalle Univ. C. Urrutia/Boeing B. Collins/CCT J.
> Parsons/IST-UCF
>
> R. Cutri-Kohart/Ga Tech C. Besset/Boeing G. Martin//IST-UCF
>
> S. Malsom/NASA Ames *(and many UCF students-great job!)*
>
> To access more information on the Vision Spaceport Project, go to:
> [http://www.visionspaceport.org](http://www.visionspaceport.org/)
>
> For information on spaceport technology, in general, go to:
>
> [<http://www-pao.ksc.nasa.gov/kscpao/spacetech/>]{.underline}
>
> or contact:
>
> *Carey M. McCleskey/Technical Manager*
>
> Spaceport Technology Development Office
>
> NASA John F. Kennedy Space Center/YA-C
>
> Kennedy Space Center, FL 32899
>
> Ph: (321) 867-6370
>
> <Carey.McCleskey-1@ksc.nasa.gov>

Contents

[**EXECUTIVE SUMMARY 7**](#executive-summary)

[Overview 7](#overview)

[Conclusion 7](#conclusion)

[Primary Findings 8](#primary-findings)

[Project Overview 13](#project-overview)

[Introduction 13](#introduction)

[Motivation for Research into Spaceport Operations & Infrastructure
13](#motivation-for-research-into-spaceport-operations-infrastructure)

[Vision Spaceport Joint Sponsored Research
15](#vision-spaceport-joint-sponsored-research)

[A Vision of Improvement for Spaceport Operations
16](#a-vision-of-improvement-for-spaceport-operations)

[New Spaceport Architectures for A New Century of Space Travel
17](#new-spaceport-architectures-for-a-new-century-of-space-travel)

[A Vision For Space Cargo Shipping & Receiving
18](#a-vision-for-space-cargo-shipping-receiving)

[A Vision For Space Traffic & Flight Control
19](#a-vision-for-space-traffic-flight-control)

[A Vision For Turnaround & the Ability for You to Access Space
20](#a-vision-for-turnaround-the-ability-for-you-to-access-space)

[Spaceports as Both Exploration Gateways and Commercial Trade Ports
21](#spaceports-as-both-exploration-gateways-and-commercial-trade-ports)

[Summary of Results 23](#summary-of-results)

[Research Objectives 23](#research-objectives)

[1---Benchmarking Line of Research 23](#benchmarking-line-of-research)

[2---Modeling Line of Research 28](#modeling-line-of-research)

[3---Vision Spaceport Artwork 30](#__RefHeading___Toc507778369)

[4---Spaceport Technology Roadmaps for Space Solar Power
31](#spaceport-technology-roadmaps-for-space-solar-power)

[Acronyms 33](#acronyms)

[References & Notes 35](#references-notes)

VISION SPACEPORT

*Renewing America's\
Space Launch Infrastructure & Operations*

# EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

## 

## Overview

In July of 1998, the National Aeronautics & Space Administration's
(NASA) John F. Kennedy Space Center (KSC) approved the Vision Spaceport
Project. A partnership formed by NASA, industry and academia has since
pursued the modeling and analysis of spaceport functions.

The primary intent has been to build tools for strategic decision-makers
while formulating an exciting new vision for space transportation ground
operations. The tools allow decision-makers to review proposed concepts
and prioritize technology investments. In general, the tools provide a
strategic framework for space transportation and spaceport planning. The
two-year effort has fulfilled its initial objectives, which include:

1)  *[Benchmarking]{.underline} fundamental space transportation system
    cost and performance relationships*

2)  *Outlining the structure of a [comprehensive spaceport
    knowledge-base]{.underline} and building [strategic decision-support
    tools]{.underline}*

3)  *[Rendering a shared vision]{.underline} of highly productive
    spaceports of the future*

4)  *Creating a [structured process for exploring advanced concepts and
    spaceport technologies]{.underline}*

## 

## Conclusion

The output and efficiency of space transportation infrastructure is in
stagnation at best. However, a knowledge-base of space system design
characteristics and operations concept choices has been assembled and
incorporated in a user-friendly tool by a government/industry team to
help improve the trend. The principal products of this project
(particularly the *Strategic Planning Tool--Release 1* and the spaceport
technology assessment tools) are a major advancement in the
state-of-the-art for analysis and modeling of space transportation
systems. It is becoming clear from our research into modeling space
launch systems and spaceport technologies that these products can help
shape an important strategic framework for the industry and for our
nation.

Vision Spaceport's technology planning products, along with recent
Office of Science & Technology Policy (OSTP) recommendations for
management planning, are key strategic elements. Still needed to round
out a total strategic framework, however, is an overall approach to
National Space Launch Growth. As the report will show, much groundwork
has been completed to aid in planning the renewal, and in the
longer-term, revolutionizing America's space launch capability.

## Primary Findings

After considering the accomplishments, as well as the barriers
confronted in our research, the following top-level findings are
forwarded by the NASA Technical Manager:

**FINDING 1:** **Understanding the cost and performance of operational
ground infrastructure, and the associated operations, is critical to
creating effective space transportation architectures**. The most
relevant and hard-hitting metrics are:

A.  *Capital investment costs and fixed operating costs for facilities
    and equipment*

B.  *Variable costs (relating to flight rate) of labor, materials and
    other direct costs*

C.  *Cycle Time and Throughput*

> Without such insight, many misleading notions will remain of the true
> extent and nature of ground support infrastructure (facilities,
> equipment, logistics, workforce, utilities, etc.) and the associated
> operational performance.

**FINDING 2: A key performance metric of any transportation system is
throughput (as measured by annual cargo and passenger rates, for
example---*see Figures 1 & 2*). Modeling throughput efficiency can
significantly lower the cost-per-pound, and yet this important parameter
remains unaccounted for in NASA's Strategic Plan.**

> *Traditional operations models, however, have treated throughput and
> flight rate as an assumed input and then allocated these to
> facility-based processes. Our modeling methodology has overcome this
> shortfall through its analytical capability. Based on design
> characteristics as inputs, the method determines flight rate as an
> output that is available for economic trades and analysis. This
> modeling technique ultimately yields an understanding of the
> influences between design characteristics and the responsiveness and
> affordability of various concepts.*

**FINDING 3:** **An independent assessment of our software tool
methodology by civil and military government technologists, industry
designers and operators and academia representatives, found it to give
credible yet limited results**. Specifically,

A.  *Industry found the model predictions "quite credible" when
    examining existing systems (Shuttle, Titan and Atlas) and
    "accurately assessed the operability improvements" that have been
    implemented in those systems over the last 10 years.*

B.  *While the methodology of the tool appears sound, development of the
    tool's output capability would greatly increase its usefulness and
    applicability.*

C.  *Academia found a great deal of potential in our software tool to
    draw interest in the field of ground systems and technologies. This
    is perhaps because students can now interact with advanced space
    flight systems and observe connections with the resulting ground
    architecture. We found the same sense of academic excitement and
    interest as we explored spaceport visualization techniques.*

**FINDING 4: The team identified several top-level spaceport modeling
technology challenges to pursue in NASA's Space Launch Initiative**.

A.  *Activity-based modeling of Launch Infrastructure & Operations (cost
    & throughput)*

B.  *Integration of our methodology with collaborative,
    multi-disciplinary space transportation design environments*

C.  *Allocating the results of top-level operations and infrastructures
    estimates to lower-level functional tasks and facility objects*

D.  *Intelligent visualization of entire Spaceport Concepts---Rendering
    form from function*

**FINDING 5: Exploration of technology prioritization techniques is
important to pursue for modernization and healthy growth in
spaceports**.

> *Promising areas needing more analysis and concept exploration in the
> near term include spaceport information systems, sensing &
> instrumentation, and command & control systems. Additionally, payload
> standardization, automated checkout, and carriers/container methods
> need more exploration to identify specific technology shortfalls to
> achieve realistic "ship & shoot" concepts.*

**FINDING 6:** **The results of Vision Spaceport's benchmarking line of
research indicate that excess launch capacity probably exists. This
unused and un- financed capacity has the potential to extend and defend
the nation's commercial, civil and military space launch capabilities in
the near term. Therefore, using the capacity for innovative
non-traditional applications can highlight the benefits of investing in
new space markets and missions**.

**FINDING 7:** **The inherent reliability and dependability of flight
and ground systems, across nearly all technical disciplines (fluid,
electrical and mechanical) needs much more investigation, needs to be
more widely communicated, and more importantly, needs far more
engineering attention.**

> Our strategic planning tool reveals that such characteristics as
> design life, components with demonstrated reliability, operational
> system margin, total system parts counts, number of fluid and
> electrical connections, correlate to many spaceport cost centers. For
> example, routine flight and ground component removals lead to
> excessive logistics costs, unplanned work and lengthy cycle times for
> turnaround and launch. As *Figures 1 & 2* show, this in turn affects
> system throughput efficiency, and thus the cost per pound.
>
> Further, the subject of system dependability (flight and ground
> systems) is highly related to the subject of system certification for
> flight. Low levels of confidence gained from flight and ground
> operations experience leads to 1) a high degree of test and checkout,
> 2) large levels of unplanned work and elevated logistics costs, 3)
> lengthy, repeated, time consuming, and expensive flight-by-flight
> certifications, finally resulting in 4) a very large sustaining
> engineering workforce. Higher levels of demonstrated reliability and
> dependability would greatly reduce the sustaining engineering workload
> and lead to vehicle type-certificates. *[However, specific technical
> means for creating a structured system certification process are not
> being pursued---nor are the necessary ground and flight test
> infrastructure being established]{.underline}.* NASA may wish, for
> example, to consider a new technology readiness level---TRL10 (see
> *Figure 3*).

**FINDING 8:** **We must renew and re-establish the importance of our
systems engineering capabilities and begin by identifying specific
impediments to improving our space launch systems (technical and
programmatic, real and perceived).**

Results of work being performed by the Space Propulsion Synergy Team
(SPST) to create a knowledge base of these impediments (and candidate
solutions that address these impediments) is acknowledged here as a
important national systems engineering activity.

![](media/image2.wmf){width="5.274305555555555in"
height="3.9611111111111112in"}

### ![](media/image4.wmf){width="5.199305555555555in" height="3.904861111111111in"}

### 

### 

### 

### 

### 

### 

### 

### 

### 

### 

###  

VISION SPACEPORT

# Project Overview

## Introduction

### Motivation for Research into Spaceport Operations & Infrastructure

In 1997, NASA concluded the Highly Reusable Space Transportation (HRST)
study. The study indicated that certain ground technology and process
investments are important to operate future vehicles cheaply and safely.
The study recognized familiar technologies, such as integrated vehicle
health management, robotics, and nondestructive inspection and
evaluation. However, the more subtle systems engineering goal of
requiring operations considerations to drive all vehicle design and
technology investment decisions, and not performance for its own sake,
was the more significant finding.[^1]

Among the HRST study participants were a group of government and
industry personnel experienced in launch site analysis, advanced space
transportation concepts and technology development, design and
operations. While the study's objectives stretched far into the future,
it was recognized that fundamental principles from past launch
operations concepts and designs are very important to apply.

> > With better than 20 years\' experience, the von Braun team preached
> > and practiced that rocket and launch pad must be mated on the
> > drawing board, if they were to be compatible at the launching. The
> > new rocket went hand in hand with its launching facility.
>
> > [Moonport: A History of Apollo Launch Facilities &
> > Operations]{.underline},
>
> > Charles D. Benson & Wm. B. Faherty, 1978

The above observation, made nearly a quarter century ago about a
previous generation of space pioneers, is a seemingly obscure detail
written in the history of America's space program.[^2] The implication
that there are complex relationships that exist between all flight and
ground systems is profoundly true.

Note in *Figure 5* on the next page, for example, the physical models
presented to the national leadership[^3]. They convey that the entire
Apollo-Saturn operations concept and infrastructure was coming together
from both a flight and ground system sense. Presented were not only the
Saturn-Apollo vehicles, but also the radically new large-scale mobile
launch concept with its massive vehicle assembly building, transporters
and mobile launch tower. In total, presenting the ground support
infrastructure showed that a total architecture was coming together. The
figure also shows that management of launch infrastructure and
operations (embodied in Dr. Debus of the Launch Operations Center, later
KSC) was "front and center." For that reason Dr. Debus held one of only
four seats in NASA's Apollo Management Council.

The previous century of astronautical engineering required achieving
great strides in flight system performance. Great investments were
needed for the development of fragile lightweight components, powerful
propulsion systems with relatively little margin, and creation of
complex custom guidance and navigation methods, to name but a few.
Today's space policies, however, ask for improvements in affordability,
safety, responsiveness and reliability.[^4] In order to comply with
these policies, the difficult task of ensuring flight-to-ground system
compatibility, from concept through operation, goes beyond satisfying
the physics of the flight systems. It requires a renewal of our systems
engineering capabilities, as well as inclusion of many other technical
and non-technical disciplines.

![](media/image6.wmf){width="3.86875in"
height="3.428472222222222in"}FIGURE 5---National Leadership Motivated to
Create the Apollo-Saturn Launch Infrastructure & Operations Capability

The Vision Spaceport Project proceeded with the idea that analytical
models can be developed to represent the more important interactions
that must be dealt with very early in the design life cycle---in fact,
even before concept commitment.

There is an urgent need for a means to relate drivers of launch
infrastructure and operations to the resulting cost and flight rate
capability. It was recognized that without such a tool, designers would
continue to struggle weighing and considering difficult trades between
the needs of the operator and investors as well as satisfying the
physics of space travel. As long as there are no accepted analytical
tools, no hard-hitting metrics, no systems basis for opening up the
trade space to operationally efficient options, then the operations
community would continue to be held responsible for the lack of
investment in space launch infrastructure and operations. Vision
Spaceport set out to confront this challenge.

Later in the project, the team was also asked to confront the technology
challenges associated with revolutionary improvements in ground system
performance. The government-industry team undertook a systematic review
of the desired attributes, spaceport systems and design drivers of
ground equipment, ground facilities and ground operations.

Finally, the team has recognized that the time has come for the
operations community to take stewardship of their craft and engage the
academic community. Involvement of university students and faculty
occurred during the research.

### Vision Spaceport Joint Sponsored Research

The project team found an innovative mechanism for performing the
proposed joint research and technology project. Based on NASA's Space
Act[^5], the Joint Sponsored Research (JSR) Program allows NASA center
directors to provide resources on a shared or pooled basis to commercial
and/or nonprofit partners.

#### The JSR Program

![](media/image7.png){width="1.4215277777777777in"
height="1.9902777777777778in"}The JSR Program is dedicated to promoting
R&D partnerships between NASA and the private sector pertaining to dual
use technologies and to commercially valuable technologies with
industry-wide application. The Joint Sponsored Research Program goals
are to accelerate technology development, maintain U.S. technological
leadership, foster U.S. economic growth and competitiveness, and/or
create jobs.[^6]

In 1998, an informal consortium (the Spaceport Synergy Team), sent out
an invitation to potential partners and created a formal partnership.
The Vision Spaceport Project was created in order to pursue the research
objectives outlined in this report and forward a shared vision of
improvement for space transportation. The initial partners were: NASA's
John F. Kennedy Space Center; the Ames Research Center; McDonnell
Douglas, A Wholly Owned Subsidiary of the Boeing Company; Lockheed
Martin Corporation; Command & Control Technologies (CCT) Corporation;
Pat Rawlings, space concept artist for Science Applications
International Corporation (SAIC); and the University of Central
Florida's (UCF) Institute for Simulation & Training (IST).

![](media/image8.png){width="4.2375in" height="2.702777777777778in"}

FIGURE 6--- Vision Spaceport Partners at the Signing Ceremony, July 1998

## A Vision of Improvement for Spaceport Operations

In this section, a summary vision for space launch systems and
operations will be shared. The basis for this began in 1994 with a
challenge from the government/industry Operations & Avionics Synergy
Team during the concept definition phase of NASA's X-33 program. The
product was at that time known as the Reusable Launch Vehicle (RLV)
Operations Concept Vision; that is, a generic "plain vanilla" operations
concept for future reusable launch architectures[^7] that was shared by
NASA KSC and its industry partners.

Later, during NASA's HRST Study (1995-97), a similar challenge to the
Spaceport Synergy Team produced a "catalog" of generic spaceport
functions---or, in other words, a generic definition for spaceport
infrastructure and operations functions. Taken together they began to
form a "spaceport" vision. While the vision statement was not accepted
in the X-33 program proposal, it was carried into the formal partnership
as a preamble to the research agreement.

![](media/image9.wmf){width="4.831944444444445in"
height="6.273611111111111in"}

### New Spaceport Architectures for A New Century of Space Travel

As we begin to conceive of new space vehicle concepts, advanced ground
infrastructure and operations concepts will need to emerge, as well, to
fulfill our Vision of Spaceport Operations.

For example, various approaches for ground launch assist are now being
explored, such as the MagLev concept. Also, how can we produce,
distribute, condition and load the massive amounts of propellants that
will be needed for advanced spaceliners that are to fly every day, or
even multiple times per day at the spaceport? Today, with modest flight
rates requiring modest amounts of propellant, commodities such as
cryogenic hydrogen, liquid oxygen and liquid nitrogen are trucked into
many different space launch complexes and loaded into large spheres (or
dewers) at the launch pad. Advanced concepts for generation of both
propellant commodities and commodities for industrial and commercial
consumption, such as electricity and water, have been studied in recent
years.[^8]

Another aspect of master planning of spaceports will involve synthesis
of many different modes of transportation, such as ground transportation
(road and rail), sea, and air travel. Space will become a new dimension
in our national economy when our current transportation nodes make
frequently scheduled connections, literally, to space from our national
spaceports. Passenger space travel becomes possible with safe and
affordable space access made possible by engineering highly dependable
flight and ground systems.

### ![](media/image10.wmf){width="5.891666666666667in" height="3.9506944444444443in"}  {#section-14 .unnumbered}

### A Vision For Space Cargo Shipping & Receiving

Currently, the process of installing and off-loading space payloads is a
complex task. On the Shuttle Orbiter, for example, the process is one of
redesigning the payload bay and crew compartment for each flight. This
is due to many fluid hook-ups, routing of air or nitrogen gas purge
ducts, electric power connections, routing of signal cables, and
specialized structural mating operations (such as positioning of special
keel fittings and trunnions, and tailored thermal insulation blankets).
This process is often referred to as *payload integration*, that is, the
rather complex mating of the payload both physically and functionally to
the launch vehicle. Often, this operation is performed in
cleanliness-controlled environments with manual labor forced to don
special garments, and adhere to restrictive clean room operations.

Unlike the air cargo or the sea-going cargo transportation systems,
space transportation has no agreed upon standard for easy-to-load
containers. Perhaps it will take a renewed purpose in space to generate
a higher cargo demand before there will be a requirement for such a
standardization. This is, however, the vision.

The 1994 *RLV Operations Concept Vision* called for adoption of minimum
standardized payload interfaces (and preferably none other than a simple
mechanical attachment taking just minutes to complete). This was to
assure maximum flexibility and affordability for the space launch
customer. More importantly, it would greatly enhance, even
revolutionize, the throughput efficiency of space transportation
vehicles and their spaceports. The most affordable vehicle to operate is
blind to payload needs---like a truck, and not like a patient in an
ambulance. Overall, the vision would strive to eliminate the payload
impact on the launch system infrastructure.

### ![](media/image11.wmf){width="6.022222222222222in" height="4.517361111111111in"}  {#section-15 .unnumbered}

### A Vision For Space Traffic & Flight Control

Currently, the launch and flight control operations are extremely
manpower intensive with massive monitoring of many individual subsystems
and processes. Public safety, flight crew safety, as well as the
integrity of the vehicle functions for flight are all carefully planned
and monitored.

To overcome this customized, time consuming and expensive set of
infrastructures, the 1994 *RLV Operations Concept Vision* called for
several advances. First, it promoted new technologies and the
development of health management systems that would let the vehicle
"talk" to the operator remotely during processing. This would put a
greater up-front burden on the vehicle designer, but would avoid the
recurring time consuming hook-ups of ground-based test equipment,
performance of manual leak checks, and generally avoiding the many
unplanned guessing games that occur in isolating bad components. Also,
in this vision, custom flight planning functions are kept to a bare
minimum to insure greater vehicle availability for space access, and an
overall higher system throughput capability.

Incorporation of engineering instrumentation would be on specifically
designated demonstration vehicles only. Satisfaction of certification
criteria would remove many requirements on operational vehicles. Thus,
combined with a new reliance on designed-in margins and highly
dependable parts and subsystems that are all certified to a much higher
degree of dependability, we could eliminate "flight readiness-style"
vehicle re-certification for every operational flight (as now performed
on all major launch systems). An aircraft-style, vehicle-type
certificate for repetitive commercial flight operations is envisioned.
We will need to renew our space launch systems engineering
infrastructure to meet this challenge, however (*see FINDINGS 7 & 8*).
Until we see such certified designs come into operation with
demonstrated reliability and obtain a high degree of confidence,
land-locked spaceport concepts will be very problematic. In addition,
without dependable and certified designs, the nation will be forced to
support expensive maintenance and upgrades for "range safety"
infrastructures.

### ![](media/image12.wmf){width="5.898611111111111in" height="4.424305555555556in"}  {#section-16 .unnumbered}

### A Vision For Turnaround & the Ability for You to Access Space

The nature of the current processes involved in turning around reusable
launch vehicles (such as the Shuttle Orbiter and the recoverable Solid
Rocket Boosters) is unacceptable for our future. The infrastructure and
the operations for turnaround is labor intensive, equipment intensive,
time consuming, and, due to ground and flight equipment dependability
issues, fraught with a high degree of unplanned work.

Major functions involved with turnaround may include the following to
varying degrees, depending on the vehicle concept and/or design:

-   *Prepare facility for space vehicle arrival*

-   *Receive vehicle at facility, position, secure and provide access*

-   *Perform safing (ordnance, propellants, etc.)*

-   *Perform inspections and checkout to verify no loss of vehicle
    certification for next flight*

-   *Perform payload removal and installation*

-   *Perform necessary component removals, replacements; conduct
    in-place repairs as needed*

-   *Service commodities and perform close-out if desire*

In the future, the operations community would like a simplified, highly
autonomous vehicle with much more dependable hardware performance. This
would enable minimum periodic and repetitive maintenance (airplane-like)
and result in short turnaround time between flights (hours, not months).

Further, we should strive to isolate vehicle ground operations from
dependence on facilities and specialized equipment (spaceport
infrastructure). Routine, scheduled turnaround should replenish
consumables only. This will take a commitment to design the type of
vehicle that operators and investors want. It will then take another
commitment to build-in the dependability required. It will take yet
another commitment to conduct comprehensive and disciplined one-time
certifications for the flight and ground systems to earn the confidence
needed to fly frequently, on-schedule and safely. Once achieved,
however, space will open-up for all of us---even you!

![](media/image13.wmf){width="5.434722222222222in"
height="4.076388888888889in"}

### Spaceports as Both Exploration Gateways and Commercial Trade Ports

![](media/image14.png){width="2.394488188976378in"
height="1.5200787401574802in"}Spaceport concepts, such as those
envisioned here, build on a rich history of development in
transportation, trade and exploration. Consider the transportation
capabilities built up during the Golden Age of Exploration, for example.
New capabilities in sea-going trade and commerce fostered a new age in
exploration for Western Europe in the Second Millennium. New shipyards,
wharfs, port cities, as well as new ship types such as caravels,
galleons and frigates emerged. Trends point to a future with improved
spaceport throughput, new space destinations and markets, and a renewed
purpose to explore and experience the space frontier. All this
represents exciting new possibilities for our economic development.

![](media/image15.png){width="2.4874015748031497in"
height="1.2716535433070866in"}Spaceport architectural planning will need
to consider innovative methods of transferring cargo and passengers from
other earthbound modes of travel. Overland transportation (such as
highways and rail), as well as air and sea cargo will need to come
together with the "space-side" systems to create truly inter-modal
transportation. With high flight rates, spaceports will become a common
commercial "point-of-sale" between Earth and space.

An example, previously cited, is an opportunity associated with
providing massive quantities of propellant needed for daily flights to
and from a high performance spaceport. The concepts of co-production or
poly-production not only offer promise in overcoming the challenge, but
also provide large-scale economic opportunity. These dual-use concepts
not only convert raw feedstock material into propellants, such as
cryogenic hydrogen and oxygen, but also produce power for off-site
consumption. The "poly-generation" concept uses coal to produce even
more consumables, such as sulfurous-rich fertilizers and water. Many
economic development opportunities exist for launch infrastructure and
operations beyond that of a traditional "national range."[^9]

![](media/image16.wmf){width="5.073611111111111in"
height="2.7708333333333335in"}

# Summary of Results

## Research Objectives

Ultimately, the objective of the Vision Spaceport Project is to provide
a foundation for strategically identifying concepts and technologies for
advanced spaceport architectures, thus leading to follow-on research,
demonstrations, and ultimately commercial development. While the tasks
do not attempt to construct detailed spaceport \"master plans,\" they
are nonetheless creating the benchmarks, tools, basic model constructs,
concept art, as well as analyzing strategic research and technology
investments. The spaceport development community needs these products
before making major master planning commitments. Therefore, follow-up
focused spaceport master planning that uses Vision Spaceport research
products, is a strategic outcome of this effort.

### 1---Benchmarking Line of Research

The research team explored several levels of spaceport "benchmarking."
The partnership learned early in the project that fundamental metrics
relating to space transportation performance have not been collected
into one common database and published on a regular basis \[see FINDING
2\].

#### Top-Level Spaceport Performance

The airline and airport industries track cargo and passenger throughput
as a top-level metric for performance rankings.[^10] The team researched
launches for current vehicles and launch complexes. There are no such
metrics or rankings publicly available and published by or for the space
industry. Nor could the team initially find a single source that had
adequate data to derive the throughput metrics[^11]. The team found
combining many different sources could provide insight into throughput
performance.

The partnership conducted a minor effort to provide some insight by
creating a database from different sources. However, due to the
priorities of pursuing spaceport architectural modeling, technology
analysis etc., the benchmarking effort focused more on identifying
common measurable cost and performance parameters that reach across the
spectrum of spaceport functions.

#### Defining Benchmarks of Spaceport Functional Performance

An early breakthrough in this line of research was reaching consensus
among the government and industry partners on seven fundamental
parameters:

1.  *Facility Acquisition Cost*

2.  *Ground Support Equipment (GSE) Outfitting Cost*

3.  *Fixed Labor Cost*

4.  *Fixed Materials & Other Direct Cost*

5.  *Variable Labor Cost*

6.  *Variable Materials & Other Direct Cost*

7.  *Cycle Time*

These parameters reach across the life cycle spectrum of spaceport
development and operational performance.

#### Benchmarking Generic Spaceport Functions---What is a Spaceport?

The Vision Spaceport partnership uses the term "spaceport" to refer to
the facilities, equipment, personnel, and vicinity required (the
[infrastructure]{.underline}) to prepare space-bound vehicles and their
payload for flight, initiate and manage the flight, and to receive them
at the end of their flight (the [operations]{.underline}). For
earth-based spaceports, "vicinity" refers to the land (or sea) occupied
by the launch infrastructure. For space-based spaceports, "vicinity"
refers to the orbit and operations envelope of the space-based
facilities. Dispersed infrastructure, spread over several locations, is
a typical characteristic of spaceports. The dispersed infrastructure may
include "downrange" instrumentation facilities, dedicated equipment and
personnel for abort-mode landing sites, and space-based communications
assets. Multiple spaceports may share certain resources.

The HRST study managers had previously challenged the Operations
Sub-team to create a model for generic spaceports. While there were not
enough resources to accomplish this at that time, the sub-team undertook
a cataloging of generic functions as a necessary first step to first
define a "generic spaceport." The resulting *Catalog of Spaceport
Architectural Elements with Functional Definition*[^12] organized major
spaceport functions in a hierarchy of sub-functions. This allowed the
team to bypass, in the Vision Spaceport project, lengthy discussions
attempting to define "what is a spaceport?"

While the hierarchy has remained intact throughout the Vision Spaceport
project, the team improved the document by providing descriptive
background, illustrations and photos of the top-level functional
"modules."[^13] A particular Spaceport may or may not include all these
functions depending on the customers and types of systems served. In the
broadest sense, however, a future spaceport and planning for growth must
consider all these functions for applicability and improvement.
Additionally, the new 196-page document provides a structured vision for
improvement that is consistent with the "orders of magnitude" being
sought in current NASA space transportation plans. At the highest level,
the catalog includes twelve major functional modules:

###### ![](media/image17.png){width="1.6194444444444445in" height="1.96875in"}

-   **Off-line Cargo & Passenger Services**

-   **Traffic & Flight Control**

-   **Launch**

-   ![](media/image18.wmf){width="1.8805555555555555in"
    height="2.3930555555555557in"}

-   **Vehicle Turnaround**

-   **Vehicle Assembly and Integration**

-   **Vehicle Depot Maintenance**

-   **Spaceport Support Infrastructure**

-   **Concept-Unique Logistics**

-   **Transportation System Planning and Management**

-   **Expendable Element**

-   **Connecting Community Infrastructure and Support Services**

### Global Spaceport Performance

In reviewing the many trade journals, almanacs, on-line databases,
newsletters, etc., no single source made space transportation throughput
visible as a published metric. Yet, when reporting airport and airline
rankings, shipping port rankings, and almost all other forms of
transportation, cargo mass per year and passengers per year a typically
provided as measures of throughput. Throughput trends are also typically
reported as indicators of industry health.

#### ![](media/image19.wmf){width="5.940944881889764in" height="5.3527559055118115in"}  {#section-18 .unnumbered}

#### Spaceport Throughput and Throughput Efficiency

It is important to distinguish *throughput* from *throughput
efficiency*. The maximum throughput achieved by the Space Shuttle
system, for example, occurred around 1985.

![](media/image20.wmf){width="5.625in" height="4.21875in"}In 1985, nine
launches occurred with a total of approximately 300,000 lbs of payload
and 50 crew members. Therefore, the Shuttle system achieved an *annual
throughput of about 150 tons and 50 passengers per year*. At the same
time, this metric of space launch performance indicates that Launch
Complex 39 and its supporting ground infrastructure produced 150 tons of
space cargo, while carrying 50 passengers.

Shuttle *throughput efficiency*, however, requires slightly different
metrics. For example, one might look at the fact that no more than three
shuttle Orbiters pass through any given hangar (or Orbiter Processing
Facility-OPF) in a one-year period. Therefore, the *throughput
efficiency of the Orbiter--OPF combination is about three flights per
year per Orbiter, or three flights per year per hangar*. Changing
[throughput]{.underline} and [throughput efficiency]{.underline} metrics
gets back to the vehicle-to-ground system compatibility issue identified
at the outset of this report---and why benchmarking throughput and
throughput efficiency is so important to improving this nation's space
launch performance.

#### Defining Benchmarks for Reusable Launch System Performance

Several key sources of information were used by the team to anchor our
experience with existing systems to our model of spaceport functions.
First, a breakdown of the Space Shuttle program budget elements, which
was performed for the NASA Access-to-Space Study in 1994 helped to
discriminate between labor and material costs.[^14] For each program
cost element, the team was able to identify a unique spaceport "module."
Fixed and variable cost relationships were obtained through a program
element-by-program element analysis conducted by NASA in 1991.[^15]
While *Release 1* of the *Strategic Planning Tool* does not translate
its output to dollars, summary data prepared by the NASA Technical
Manager is provided in Table 1. (Again, note that this is raw data from
the study and does not represent up-to-date program information. Plans
for a *Release 2* will update, incorporate and validate Shuttle budget
data). Other sources were found for facility acquisition ("brick &
mortar") and some ground support equipment outfitting costs. However,
these sources were not considered comprehensive and, unfortunately, as
with the other sources, extremely out of date.

The project team made a decision to output "figures-of-merit" only for
the first release of tool. This was because only the Space Shuttle data
was available across the spectrum of cost and cycle time categories, and
since time to locate and analyze other launch systems within the
resources of the project was not available. Comparative analyses between
concepts are easily accomplished and are quite useful in early concept
explorations. In fact, some of the partnership members are performing
these types of comparisons are being performed by some of the
Partnership members in NASA's Space Launch Initiative.

+---------------------+--------+--------+--------+--------+--------+
| **Generic Spaceport | Fixed\ | Fixed  | Va     | Va     | **TO   |
| Module**[^16]       | Labor\ | Mat    | riable | riable | TAL.** |
|                     | Cost   | erials | Labor\ | Mat    |        |
|                     |        | Cost   | Cost   | erials |        |
|                     |        |        |        | Cost   |        |
+---------------------+--------+--------+--------+--------+--------+
| 10--Trans Sys       | \      | \      | \      | \$65.7 | **\$14 |
| Plan'g & Mgmnt      | $918.0 | $189.4 | $305.5 |        | 78.6** |
+---------------------+--------+--------+--------+--------+--------+
| 9--Concept-Unique   | \      | \      | \      | \      | **\$8  |
| Logistics           | $366.0 | $181.6 | $138.1 | $157.1 | 42.8** |
+---------------------+--------+--------+--------+--------+--------+
| 8--Spaceport Spt    | \      | \$92.8 | \$52.6 | \$39.7 | **\$3  |
| Infrastructure      | $133.9 |        |        |        | 19.0** |
+---------------------+--------+--------+--------+--------+--------+
| 7--Vehicle Depot    | \      | \$50.6 | \$49.4 | \$23.7 | **\$2  |
| Maintenance         | $113.7 |        |        |        | 37.4** |
+---------------------+--------+--------+--------+--------+--------+
| 2--Traffic & Flight | \$77.6 | \$55.6 | \$34.4 | \$32.8 | **\$2  |
| Control             |        |        |        |        | 00.4** |
+---------------------+--------+--------+--------+--------+--------+
| 5--Vehicle          | \$37.5 | \$4.6  | \$53.6 | \$6.4  | **\$1  |
| Turnaround          |        |        |        |        | 02.1** |
+---------------------+--------+--------+--------+--------+--------+
| 1--Offline          | \$32.0 | \$5.8  | \$31.2 | \$7.2  | **\$   |
| Cargo/Pax Proces.   |        |        |        |        | 76.2** |
+---------------------+--------+--------+--------+--------+--------+
| 3--Launch           | \$22.7 | \$0.7  | \$28.0 | \$0.8  | **\$   |
|                     |        |        |        |        | 52.2** |
+---------------------+--------+--------+--------+--------+--------+
| 6--Vehicle Assembly | \$11.2 | \$0.5  | \$12.0 | \$0.3  | **\$   |
| & Integ.            |        |        |        |        | 24.0** |
+---------------------+--------+--------+--------+--------+--------+
| 4--Landing/Recovery | \$5.6  | \$2.6  | \$8.0  | \$3.2  | **\$   |
|                     |        |        |        |        | 19.4** |
+---------------------+--------+--------+--------+--------+--------+
| 11--Expendable      | \$1.2  | \$0.0  | \$1.8  | \$0.0  | **\    |
| Element Proc.       |        |        |        |        | $3.0** |
+---------------------+--------+--------+--------+--------+--------+
| Total Fixed         | \$     |        | \-     |        | ## ↓   |
|                     | 2303.6 |        |        |        |        |
+---------------------+--------+--------+--------+--------+--------+
| Total Variable      | \-     |        | \$     |        |        |
|                     |        |        | 1051.5 |        |        |
+---------------------+--------+--------+--------+--------+--------+
| Total Labor         | \$     |        |        | \-     |        |
|                     | 2434.0 |        |        |        |        |
+---------------------+--------+--------+--------+--------+--------+
| Total Materials     | \-     | \      |        |        |        |
|                     |        | $921.1 |        |        |        |
+---------------------+--------+--------+--------+--------+--------+
| TOTAL               | \$     | \      | \      | \      | **\$33 |
|                     | 1719.4 | $584.2 | $714.6 | $336.9 | 55.1** |
+---------------------+--------+--------+--------+--------+--------+

### *TABLE 1---Space Shuttle Fixed and Variable Operations Costs Allocated to Generic Spaceport Functions* 

### 2---Modeling Line of Research

#### Modeling Goals and Objectives

![](media/image21.wmf){width="3.061023622047244in"
height="2.191732283464567in"}The research and design of future
generation launch vehicles continues as NASA and industry recognize the
potential commercial uses of space and space-based transportation.
However, potential applications and new markets will not materialize
until there is a reduction in the cost of access to space by orders of
magnitude[^17]^,^[^18]. In order to achieve this, and based on
experiences with the only existing reusable launch vehicle (Shuttle) and
several expendable launch vehicles, the design process has evolved and
parameters like operability, maintainability, and life cycle costs are
critical measures of performance for the evaluation of new
architectures[^19].

The growing emphasis on affordability for space transportation systems
requires the assessment of new concepts for all life cycle
activities---from design and development, through manufacturing and
operations. The project team explored the systems engineering processes
involved in conducting operational assessments of launch concepts,
focusing on modeling the ground support requirements of vehicle
architectures, and estimating the resulting cost effectiveness and
flight rate efficiency.

#### Assessment Methodologies

The project team searched for modeling methodologies that were
consistent with the expected level of concept input information and data
availability needed to anchor the model or decision tool. This line of
research turned up two promising approaches during the course of the
project.

The first of these approaches resulted in a prototype model toolkit that
assesses the spaceport requirements driven by a given space
transportation architecture. The tools developed by this team provide a
*"sense of direction"* and *"order of magnitude"* Life Cycle Cost (LCC)
based on available benchmarks of the Shuttle program and other existing
launch/transportation systems. The tools use *knowledge-based utility
functions* that map vehicle characteristics to operational functions of
a spaceport[^20], for example the *Launch* function referred to in the
*Spaceport Module Definition Document*. The NASA team members in fact,
successfully used the prototype tool for two NASA in-house activities;
the Space Solar Power Concept Definition Study and the Space
Transportation Architecture Study 99 (STAS99).[^21]

A recommended advanced methodology was uncovered as an alternative
approach. Dr. Alex J. Ruiz-Torres, of Florida Gulf Coast University,
explored various innovative methodologies that apply to the
infrastructure and operations modeling problem. Drawing from
supply-chain management techniques employed in the manufacturing
industry, Dr. Ruiz-Torres proposes the use of *activity-based cost
modeling* for future assessments of space transportation
architectures.[^22] The modeling approach uses expert knowledge to
determine the activities, the activity times and the activity costs
based on proposed concept characteristics. The approach provides several
advantages over current techniques to vehicle architecture assessment
including easier validation and allowing vehicle designers to understand
the cost and cycle time drivers.

#### **Visualization**--- Rendering Spaceport Concepts from a Functional Knowledge Base

In addition to the challenges of analytical modeling, the Vision
Spaceport research team also explored the techniques and technologies
needed to render advanced spaceport concepts. For example, intelligent
rendering of spaceport infrastructure might keep a running tally of
fixed annual support costs, operational throughput efficiency, etc.

The **University of Central Florida's (UCF) Institute of Simulation and
Training (IST)** has stepped up to this challenge. IST examined various
advanced object-oriented software approaches and platforms. The key
principle to observe in this line of research is constantly determining
which technologies are compatible with both visual presentation
techniques, interactive manipulation of generic spaceport functions, and
display of life cycle cost and performance parameters.

The objective is to immerse the space transportation systems engineers
in the spaceport domain, and to discover the infrastructure and
operations implications, across the life cycle, of various systems
solutions. This technology, then, becomes a graphical extension of
analytical tools under development. Visualization technologies offer the
possibility of positive and negative impacts uncovered and recognized
early by the systems architects and engineers.

Some advanced visualization technologies explored and demonstrated were:

-   Multi-dimensional visual benchmarking and terrain modeling

-   Spaceport object attribute exchange protocols

-   Information exchange across remote platforms

-   3-D systems that immerse engineers and potential customers in the
    spaceport environment

-   Visual spaceport traffic and control tower environment simulation
    for exploring advanced spaceport architectures and operations
    concepts

    ![](media/image22.jpeg){width="5.136111111111111in"
    height="3.592361111111111in"}

[]{#__RefHeading___Toc507778369 .anchor}3---Vision Spaceport Artwork

Another area pursued early in the project was the rendering of a shared
far-term vision for spaceport operations by a highly acclaimed space
concept artist. While there had been many renderings of launch vehicle
concepts, it was very difficult to find artwork relating these concepts
in the context of ground infrastructure and operations.

In previous years, the Spaceport Synergy Team had agreed on a vision
statement for space transportation systems. Therefore, it seemed the
appropriate time to entrust our common vision of operations to the
capable hands of a space concept artist. The team was fortunate to bring
Mr. Pat Rawlings of Science Applications International Corporation
(SAIC) into the agreement.

![](media/image23.jpeg){width="6.613194444444445in"
height="4.770138888888889in"}Mr. Rawlings spent several days in
September 1998, becoming familiar with launch and landing system
facilities and functions. Subjects rendered by Mr. Rawlings included
launch concepts, cargo and passenger conveyance, multi-modal operations
concepts, as well as advanced concepts for traffic and flight control.

### 4---Spaceport Technology Roadmaps for Space Solar Power 

The Spaceport Synergy Team further explored its operations concept
vision through its participation in the Space Solar Power (SSP)
Exploratory Research and Technology (SERT) Program.

![](media/image24.png){width="2.8653543307086613in"
height="2.052755905511811in"}This effort focused purely on the ground
infrastructure and operations challenges inherent in launching 35
million pounds of payload to space per year, and sustained at that rate
for many years (ultimately at about \$100-200/lb). This implies very
affordable, responsive, safe, and dependable spaceport architectures. It
also implies specific technical advances in the state-of-the-art for
spaceports. The Spaceport Synergy Team explored the technical challenges
and has documented these in a separate report.

The national-level SERT Program defined reference configurations that
represented near-, mid-, far- and very far-term operational scenarios.
Within this context, the team was able to structure an approach to map
out the *technology challenges* and systems development issues
associated with the higher and higher throughput scenarios scoped out in
the SERT program. Additionally, the approach needed to provide insight
into specific programmatic factors relevant to the sequential
timeframes, cost goals and capabilities explored.

#### Spaceport Technology Center

> Kennedy Space Center's Spaceport Technology Center (STC) initiative is
> designed to align and enhance existing KSC technology development
> product lines with the needs of future reusable and expendable space
> transportation systems. The Spaceport Technology Center initiative is
> an evolving component of KSC\'s Center of Excellence in Launch and
> Payload Processing Systems.
>
> KSC\'s core business statement is to \"Provide space systems
> processes, test, and launch techniques and develop associated
> technologies.\" As an active spaceport, KSC technology development
> activities encompass a wide range of technology readiness levels
> (TRL\'s). KSC has product lines for \"spaceport design and systems
> development\" which start with testing and integrating technologies at
> the mid-TRL ranges in order to build and deploy an operational
> spaceport system. KSC has also established unique development
> capabilities (personnel and laboratory/test bed facilities) for
> collaborative technology development efforts in several technology
> thrust areas. Historically, the majority of the total life cycle cost
> for any complex system is attributed to operational and support
> activities. Therefore, a primary strategy for reducing life cycle
> costs should be to develop and infuse spaceport technologies in future
> space transportation systems. KSC\'s complementary advanced spaceport
> technologies will benefit current and future spaceports on the earth,
> moon, Mars, and beyond.

The results of this effort are contained in the report *[Spaceport
Concept & Technology Roadmapping]{.smallcaps}: Investment Steps to
Routine, Low-Cost Spaceport Systems*.[^23] A summary of the
recommendations are shown below:

#### RECOMMENDATIONS From SERT Spaceport Technology Roadmapping

1.  A national policy of commitment to space transportation technology
    and infrastructure development is required

2.  Investment in a modernized National Spaceport infrastructure in the
    areas of information systems, sensing and instrumentation, and
    command and control systems is required as a near-term step

3.  Implement effective cost accounting, information, work control and
    tracking systems within the Cape Canaveral Spaceport. These systems
    should be pervasive, useful and fully a part of the systems being
    operated today on the National Ranges

4.  NASA and the private sector must continue to develop, understand and
    mature customer requirements and opportunities, only one example of
    which Space Solar Power, leading to the maturation and stimulation
    of demand will that will take advantage of increased Spaceport
    capabilities

5.  Institute a payloads customer and stakeholder initiative as a public
    and private sector partnership that addresses standardization,
    automation of test and checkout, carriers and containers for flight
    systems

6.  Government and industry must evolve common support architectures
    compatible with a maximum or growing number of spaceports

7.  Policy and regulatory frameworks must encourage capital availability

8.  It is recommended that necessary next steps, that may be performed
    by government and industry partnerships, include a more detailed
    identification of impediments to the Spaceport improvements required

## Acronyms

  ------------------ ----------------------------------------------------
  AST                Associate Administrator for Space Transportation
                     (FAA)

  CCT                Command & Control Technologies Corporation

  FAA                Federal Aviation Administration

  FAR                Federal Aviation Regulations

  GSE                Ground Support Equipment

  HEDS               Human Exploration & Development of Space

  HRST               Highly Reusable Space Transportation

  IST                Institute for Simulation & Training

  KSC                Kennedy Space Center (Florida)

  MagLev             Magnetic levitation

  NASA               National Aeronautics & Space Administration

  OPF                Orbiter Processing Facility

  OSTP               Office of Science & Technology Policy

  R&D                Research & Development

  RLV                Reusable Launch Vehicle

  SAIC               Science Applications International Corporation

  SPST               Space Propulsion Synergy Team

  TRL                Technology Readiness Level

  UCF                University of Central Florida

  USAF               United States Air Force

                     
  ------------------ ----------------------------------------------------

##   {#section-20 .unnumbered}

## References & Notes

[^1]: Mankins, John C, *Aerospace America*, March 1998, pp.36-42
    \[hereafter, Mankins, *Aerospace America*\]

[^2]: Benson, C. D. & Flaherty, Wm. B, *Moonport---A History of the
    Apollo Launch Facilities and Operations*; NASA History Series,
    SP-4204; Washington, D.C., 1978. Online access from Kennedy Space
    Center:
    <http://www.hq.nasa.gov/office/pao/History/SP-4204/cover.html>

[^3]: [Top Left]{.underline}: Wernher von Braun and Kurt H. Debus---
    [Top Right]{.underline}:: The Apollo Management Council meets at
    NASA Headquarters in Washington, D.C. in 1967. Left to right are Dr.
    Wernher von Braun--Director Marshall Space Flight Center, Dr. Robert
    R. Gilruth--Director Manned Spacecraft Center, Dr. George E.
    Mueller--NASA Associate Administrator for Manned Space Flight, and
    Dr. Kurt H. Debus--Director Kennedy Space
    Center---[Bottom]{.underline}: President John F. Kennedy during a
    briefing on Project Apollo at Cape Canaveral, Florida, November 16,
    1963. Note that the models displayed convey a total system design
    with compatible flight and ground elements.

[^4]: White House Office of Science and Technology Policy (OSTP),
    Presidential Decision Directives for National Space Transportation
    Policy (august 1994) & National Space Policy (1996).

[^5]: Section 203(c)(5) and (6) of the National Aeronautics and Space
    Act of 1958 as amended.

[^6]: NASA, [Joint Sponsored Research Program---Program Information
    Package]{.underline}, April 1998

[^7]: Rhodes, R. E., et al; [RLV Oerations Concept Vision and
    Operability Criteria Document]{.underline}, Encl. 3, Operations
    Synergy Team, 1994. Contributors were: B. Atkins, Martin
    Marietta-Michoud; R. Byrd, Boeing; Dr. J. Hanson, MSFC; J. Huether,
    Rockwell; C. McCleskey, NASA KSC; C. McCreary, NASA KSC; P. Scott,
    Lockheed; R. Vargo, McDonnell Douglas; G. Waldrop; Rocketdyne; E.
    Zapata, NASA KSC.

[^8]: \[KSC Co-gen and Polygen studies\]

[^9]: Zapata, E, et al, "Spaceport Concept and Technology Roadmapping;"
    Co-Gen Poly-Gen references from SERT white papers, November 2000.

[^10]: Airports Council International--ACI, on-line traffic data;
    <http://airports.org/traffic/index.html>

[^11]: Recently, however, the American Institute of Aeronautics and
    Astronautics (AIAA) published a third edition of the *International
    Space Launch Reference Guide*, Isakowicz, et al, 1999. It now lists
    payload mass per flight in its data, although, throughput
    performance summaries are still lacking.

[^12]: *A Catalog of Spaceport Architectural Elements*

[^13]: *Vision Spaceport Module Definition Document*, Version 1.0;
    Spaceport Synergy Team, JSRA NCA10-0030, September 2000.

[^14]: NASA Access-to-Space Study, Space Shuttle Budget Work Breakdown
    Structure with Cost, 1994.

[^15]: "Space Shuttle Zero-Base Cost Study," Presentation to Dr. Lenoir,
    NASA Office of Space Flight, 1991.

[^16]: Numbers associated with spaceport modules are references to the
    *Vision Spaceport Module Definition Document* (reference note 13).

[^17]: Smitherman, D.V., compiler, *New Space Industries for the Next
    Millennium*, NASA CP-1998-209006, Marshall Space Flight Center,
    Huntsville, Alabama, December 1998.

[^18]: O'Neil, D., Mankins, J, et al., *General Public Space Travel and
    Tourism---Volume 2 Workshop Proceedings*. Summary of a Space Act
    Agreement Study, including a workshop held at Georgetown University,
    Washington, DC, February 19-21, 1997. NASA CP---1999---209146, NASA
    Marshall Space Flight Center, Huntsville, Alabama, 1999.

[^19]: Mankins, John C., "Lower Cost for Highly reusable Space
    Vehicles," in *Aerospace America*., March 1998.

[^20]:
    ####  Zapata, E., and Ruiz-Torres, A.J. Space Transportation Cost Modeling and the Architecture Assessment Tool- Enhanced. IAA-99-IAA.1.1.01 paper presented at the 50th International Astronautical Congress, Amsterdam, The Netherlands, October 1999. 

[^21]: *Ibid.*

[^22]: Ruiz-Torres, A.J. and McCleskey, C.M., *Operations Assessment of
    Launch Vehicle Architectures Using Activity Based Cost Models,*
    1999.

[^23]: Vision Spaceport Partnership/NASA JSRA NCA10-0030, *Spaceport
    Concept & Technology Roadmapping: Investment Steps to Routine,
    Low-Cost Spaceport Systems*; NASA John F. Kennedy Space Center,
    Barker-Ramos Associates, Inc., The Boeing Company, Command and
    Control Technologies Corp., and Lockheed Martin Michoud Space
    Systems, November 2000.