2002 U.S. COMMERCIAL SPACE TRANSPORTATION

DEVELOPMENTS AND CONCEPTS: 

VEHICLES, TECHNOLOGIES, AND SPACEPORTS

Associate Administrator for Commercial Space Transportation

Federal Aviation Administration

January 2002

The Federal Aviation Administration’s (FAA)

Office of the Associate Administrator for Commercial

Space Transportation (AST) licenses and regulates

U.S. commercial space launch activity as authorized

by Executive Order 12465 and Commercial Space

Launch Activities, Title 49 of the United States Code,

Subtitle IX, Chapter 701 (formerly the Commercial

Space Launch Act of 1984). FAA/AST’s mission is to

regulate the U.S. commercial launch industry; license

commercial launch operations to ensure public health

and safety and the safety of property; and protect

national security and foreign policy interests of the

United States during commercial launch operations. In

addition, the Federal Aviation Administration is directed

to encourage, facilitate, and promote commercial space

launches. Additional information concerning space

transportation can be found on FAA/AST’s web site 

at http://ast.faa.gov.

2002 U.S. Commercial Space Transportation Developments and Concepts About FAA/AST

Federal Aviation Administration/Associate Administrator for Commercial Space Transportation

About The Office of the Associate Administrator for Commercial Space Transportation
About FAA/AST 2002 U.S. Commercial Space Transportation Developments and Concepts

Federal Aviation Administration/Associate Administrator for Commercial Space Transportation
Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .1

The Publication . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .1

Expendable Launch Vehicle Industry . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .1

Reusable Launch Vehicle Industry . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .1

Enabling Technologies . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .2

Spaceports . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .2

2001 Highlights . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .5

Expendable Launch Vehicles . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .7

Existing ELV Systems . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .7

Athena – Lockheed Martin Corporation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .7

Atlas Family – Lockheed Martin Corporation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .7

Delta Family – The Boeing Company . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .7

Minotaur – Orbital Sciences Corporation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .9

Pegasus – Orbital Sciences Corporation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .9

Taurus – Orbital Sciences Corporation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .9

Titan Family – Lockheed Martin Corporation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .9

Zenit 3SL – The Sea Launch Company, LLC . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .10

EELV Development . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .10

Atlas 5 – Lockheed Martin Corporation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .10

Delta 4 – The Boeing Company . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .11

More ELV Development Efforts . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .12

AirLaunch – The Boeing Company/Thiokol Propulsion . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .12

Eagle S-Series - E’Prime Aerospace Corporation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .12

LV-1 - Rocket Propulsion Engineering Company . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .13

Scorpius - Microcosm, Inc. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .13

SLC-1 - Space Launch Corporation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .13

Reusable Launch Vehicles . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .15

Government RLV Development Efforts . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .15

Space Shuttle . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .15

Space Launch Initiative . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .16

Third- and Fourth-Generation RLV Technologies and In-space Transportation Systems . . . . . . . .17

RLV Research Vehicles . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .17

Commercial RLV Development Efforts . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .17

Astroliner – Kelly Space and Technology, Inc. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .17

K-1 – Kistler Aerospace Corporation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .18

Pathfinder – Pioneer Rocketplane . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .19

SA-1 – SPACE ACCESS®, LLC . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .20

X PRIZE® Contenders . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .21

More Commercial RLV Concepts . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .23

Enabling Technologies . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .25

Hybrid Rocket Motors - SpaceDev, Inc. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .25

Hypersonic Engine – NASA X-43 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .25

Linear Aerospike Engine - Rocketdyne Propulsion & Power . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .25

Liquid Engines - Interorbital Systems Corporation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .25

Liquid Engines - Microcosm, Inc. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .26

Liquid Engines - Rocket Propulsion Engineering Company . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .26

Liquid Engines - XCOR Aerospace . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .26

Propellant Production – Andrews Space & Technology, Inc. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .26

RLV Technologies – NASA/The Boeing Company X-37 and X-40A . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .27

Spaceports . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .29

Federal Spaceports . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .30

2002 U.S. Commercial Space Transportation Developments and Concepts Contents

Federal Aviation Administration/Associate Administrator for Commercial Space Transportation i

Table of Contents
Cape Canaveral Spaceport . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .30

Edwards Air Force Base . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .32

Vandenberg Air Force Base . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .32

Wallops Flight Facility . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .33

White Sands Missile Range . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .34

Licensed Commercial Spaceports . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .34

California Spaceport . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .35

Kodiak Launch Complex . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .36

Spaceport Florida . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .36

Virginia Space Flight Center . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .38

Proposed Commercial Spaceports . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .39

Alabama Spaceport . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .39

Gulf Coast Regional Spaceport . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .39

Mojave Civilian Flight Test Center . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .39

Montana Spaceport . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .40

Nevada Test Site . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .40

Oklahoma Spaceport . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .40

South Dakota Spaceport . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .41

Southwest Regional Spaceport . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .41

Spaceport Washington . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .41

Utah Spaceport Authority . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .41

West Texas Spaceport . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .42

Willacy County Spaceport . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .42

Wisconsin Spaceport . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .42

Endnotes . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .45

Contents 2002 U.S. Commercial Space Transportation Developments and Concepts

ii Federal Aviation Administration/Associate Administrator for Commercial Space Transportation
AADC - Alaska Aerospace Development Corporation

AFB - Air Force Base

AST - Associate Administrator for Commercial Space

Transportation

ASTP - Advanced Space Transportation Program

CBC - Common Booster Core

CCAFS - Cape Canaveral Air Force Station

CCB - Common Core BoosterTM

CCSI - Center for Commercial Space Infrastructure

CLF - Commercial Launch Facility

CRV - Crew Return Vehicle

DoD - U.S. Department of Defense

EELV - Evolved Expendable Launch Vehicle

ELI - Elliptical Orbit

ELV - Expendable Launch Vehicle

ESA - European Space Agency

EXT - External Orbit

FAA - Federal Aviation Administration 

GEO - Geosynchronous Earth Orbit

GTO - Geosynchronous Transfer Orbit

ICBM - Inter-Continental Ballistic Missile

IPF - Integrated Processing Facility

ISS - International Space Station

ISTP - Integrated Space Transportation Plan

KSC - Kennedy Space Center

LC - Launch Complex

LEO - Low-Earth Orbit

LOX - Liquid Oxygen

LP - Launch Pad

MEO - Medium-Earth Orbit

NASA - National Aeronautics and Space

Administration

NCSS - National Coalition of Spaceport States

NGSO - Non-Geosynchronous Orbit

OSIDA - Oklahoma Space Industry Development

Authority

OV - Orbital Vehicle

RLV - Reusable Launch Vehicle

SBIR - Small Business Innovative Research

SLC - Space Launch Complex

SLI - Space Launch Initiative

SSI - Spaceport Systems International

SSME - Space Shuttle Main Engine

SSO - Sun-Synchronous Orbit

SSTO - Single Stage to Orbit

TSTO - Two Stage to Orbit

VAFB - Vandenberg Air Force Base

VCSFA - Virginia Commercial Space Flight Authority

VSFC - Virginia Space Flight Center

2002 U.S. Commercial Space Transportation Developments and Concepts Acronyms

Federal Aviation Administration/Associate Administrator for Commercial Space Transportation iii

List of Acronyms
Acronyms 2002 U.S. Commercial Space Transportation Developments and Concepts

iv Federal Aviation Administration/Associate Administrator for Commercial Space Transportation
The Publication

This report, 2002 U.S. Commercial Space Transportation

Developments and Concepts: Vehicles, Technologies,

and Spaceports reviews the major events relating to

U.S. commercial space transportation in the past year

and showcases current and planned U.S. commercial

and commercially-oriented activities.

The Federal Aviation Administration (FAA)/

Associate Administrator for Commercial Space

Transportation (AST) first published the report in

1998 with an exclusive focus on reusable launch vehicles (RLV). The current edition addresses not only

RLVs but also expendable launch vehicles (ELV),

propulsion technologies, and spaceports to provide a

more complete picture of the U.S. commercial space

transportation industry.

This report focuses on commercial and commercially oriented activities; it includes industry-led and 

-funded projects, private-public cooperative projects,

as well as government-led and -funded projects that

will impact and support the development of commercial activities. With the exception of a few X PRIZE®

vehicle concepts, all activities and developments

described in this report are being led by U.S. entities.

Expendable Launch Vehicle Industry

The coming year is shaping up to be key for the

ELV industry. While virtually all of the U.S.-built ELVs

that were available in 2001 will continue to be available

in 2002, some of the variants will be phased out in the

upcoming years as the Evolved Expendable Launch

Vehicle (EELV) boosters enter use. The two EELVs,

The Boeing Company’s Delta 4 and Lockheed Martin

Corporation’s Atlas 5, are slated to make their inaugural

flights in 2002. These boosters represent the next generation of medium- and heavy-lift launchers for both

commercial and government payloads. Although any

new launch vehicle initially carries a high degree of

risk, the fact that these boosters represent evolutionary

improvements over previous Atlas and Delta versions

should improve the likelihood for a successful debut.

While the EELV program supports the larger end

of the launch market, there are a number of commercial

ELVs under development to serve smaller payloads.

These ELVs are primarily being developed by small

entrepreneurial companies focusing on specific market

niches, such as satellites that currently fly as secondary

payloads on larger boosters. These companies are

exploring various technologies, including new propellants and pressure-fed engines, which have the potential

to reduce the cost of their vehicles. The ability to

reduce launch costs and thus stimulate demand will be

critical to the success of these ELVs given the current

size of the market for small payloads. While none of

these new ELVs are expected to launch in 2002, there

should be a number of key developments for these

efforts during the year as they pursue private investment and construct and test components needed for

launches planned for 2003 and beyond.

Reusable Launch Vehicle Industry

RLVs may become attractive alternatives for

access to space for several reasons. With the exception

of the United States’ Space Shuttle, world access to

space is made possible only by ELVs. As a new vehicle is needed for each launch, the customer who purchases an ELV launch must pay the cost to build an

entire vehicle. In contrast, an RLV has the capacity 

not only to launch but also to return to Earth for reuse.

Because the construction cost of an RLV could be

amortized over multiple launches, RLVs may potentially

reduce the cost of access to space for government and

commercial users. In addition, the return nature of

RLVs would facilitate human trips to and from space.

Although many national governments and companies

have explored the development of RLVs, the Space

Shuttle remains the first and only currently operational,

partially reusable launch vehicle (the orbiter, main

engines, and solid rocket boosters are refurbished and

reused, but the external tank is irrecoverable).

Starting in the 1990s, however, both the public

and private sectors intensified RLV design and development efforts. On the commercial side, RLV design

and development activity increased in response to

strong growth in projected launch demand during the

1990s fueled primarily by nongeosynchronous orbit

(NGSO) satellite telecommunications constellations.

These NGSO constellations required large numbers 

of satellites for initial deployment as well as many

replacements and follow-on satellites. In 1998,

FAA/AST projected that 1,063 NGSO satellites 

would be deployed between 2000 and 2010.1

Unfortunately, the operators and proponents of

NGSO systems have suffered substantial setbacks. In

2002 U.S. Commercial Space Transportation Developments and Concepts Introduction

Federal Aviation Administration/Associate Administrator for Commercial Space Transportation 1

Introduction
particular, the pioneering Iridium NGSO mobile

telephony system, which deployed 88 spacecraft on 20

launches, failed to attract enough subscribers to service

its debt and was compelled to file for bankruptcy protection. The ICO system, which had not yet been

deployed, soon followed suit. As a result, future NGSO

satellite constellations, as well as the replacements 

and follow-ons of existing NGSO constellations, face

increased market skepticism and appear less likely than

once believed to be funded and launched. FAA/AST’s

2001 forecast reflected these reduced expectations and

estimated only 151 NGSO satellite deployments

between 2001 and 2010.2

The bankruptcies, along with the associated

reduced launch projections, have made it increasingly

difficult for commercial RLV companies to obtain

capital from private investors to complete their vehicle

development. U.S. RLV companies continued to have

a difficult time in 2001, as many vehicle development

programs were stalled or delayed due to lack of funds.

The government also increased RLV design and

development activity in the mid-1990s. For many reasons, the Space Shuttle had proven extremely expensive

to operate, and the Shuttle’s aging orbiters required

expensive upgrades. In accordance with the 1996

National Space Policy’s mandate that the National

Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA) lead

the development of a next-generation RLV, the space

agency embarked on an ambitious series of experimental vehicle, or X-vehicle, programs.

The centerpiece of these programs was NASA’s

X-33, a sub-orbital vehicle that would demonstrate

technology for a reusable, single-stage-to-orbit (SSTO)

launch vehicle. Lockheed Martin, the prime contractor

for X-33, planned to develop a commercial RLV called

VentureStarTM using X-33 technology. Escalating costs

and technical setbacks, however, prompted NASA to

cancel the X-33 in 2001 along with the X-34, an operations demonstrator and test bed being developed by

NASA and Orbital Sciences Corporation to test RLV

technologies, including structures, components, and

thermal protection systems. A joint NASA-Orbital

Sciences review of the X-34 in 2000 concluded that

the project’s approach, scope, budget, and schedule

needed to be redefined.3

The space agency is incorporating lessons learned

from the X-33 program into its Second Generation

Reusable Launch Vehicle Systems Engineering Risk

Reduction program. NASA’s second generation RLV

program received support from Congress and the

President when the Space Launch Initiative (SLI) was

passed into law in the fall of 2000. SLI is an initiative

that commits $4.8 billion over five years for NASA and

industry to pursue second-generation RLV technologies.

Rather than focusing on a specific vehicle concept, the

program is designed to substantially reduce the technical, programmatic, and business risks associated with

developing a safe, reliable, and affordable second generation RLV. NASA intends to sustain commercial

competition through 2005 and to invest in high-priority

risk reduction work. The desired payoff of these investments is to enable NASA to make a decision on the

full-scale development of at least one commercially

competitive, privately owned and operated RLV by

2005. Operations would commence by 2010.

Finally, while 2001 was another challenging

year for the RLV industry, the industry has remained

resilient. Several commercial RLV companies remain

committed to the goal of developing and operating

their vehicles. These companies are aggressively pursuing private investment, and many have revised their

business plans to include a much higher percentage 

of government payloads. Several are pursuing NASA

SLI contracts to support their development efforts.

Some RLV companies are focusing on providing alternative access to the International Space Station (ISS);

NASA, however, has not yet selected any contractors

for ISS re-supply.

Enabling Technologies

There are a number of efforts underway to

develop new propulsion technologies for launch vehicles, including ELVs and RLVs. These efforts include

government research projects as well as engines and

motors developed by companies for their own launch

vehicles and for sale to other companies. There is a

trend of development of new liquid-propellant engines

that use room-temperature propellants and either pressure-fed or pump-fed systems. Such engines are considerably less complex, and potentially less expensive, than

engines that use turbopumps and cryogenic propellants.

Spaceports

Spaceports characteristically house launch pads

and runways as well as the infrastructure, equipment,

and fuels needed to process launch vehicles and their

payloads prior to launch. The first spaceports in the

United States emerged in the 1950s, when the federal

government began to build and operate space launch

ranges and bases to meet a variety of national needs.

While U.S. military and civil government agencies

Introduction 2002 U.S. Commercial Space Transportation Developments and Concepts

2 Federal Aviation Administration/Associate Administrator for Commercial Space Transportation
were the original and still are the primary users of

these facilities, commercial payload customers have

become frequent users of federal spaceports as well.

The commercial dimension of U.S. space activity

is evident not only in the growing numbers of commercially-procured launches but also in an expanding list of

commercial launch sites supplementing federally operated sites. Today, four licensed commercial launch sites

exist. These spaceports serve commercial payload customers as well as government payload owners that have

commercially procured launch services. The recently

formed National Coalition of Spaceport States (NCSS)

is working to advance the development of additional

state and commercially owned and operated spaceports

through a variety of grant and legislative activities.

2002 U.S. Commercial Space Transportation Developments and Concepts Introduction

Federal Aviation Administration/Associate Administrator for Commercial Space Transportation 3
Introduction 2002 U.S. Commercial Space Transportation Developments and Concepts

4 Federal Aviation Administration/Associate Administrator for Commercial Space Transportation
January 22: Boeing combined the management of 

its Delta 2, Delta 3, and Delta 4 launch vehicles into 

a single organization.

February 5: Representatives of 14 states established

the National Coalition of Spaceport States (NCSS) in

Washington, D.C.

February 26: Boeing Expendable Launch Services

and the Sea Launch Company signed a memorandum

of agreement to provide mutual backup of each

other’s launches.

March 1: NASA announced that it would provide no

funding through the Space Launch Initiative (SLI) program for the X-33 and X-34 reusable launch vehicle

(RLV) technology demonstration programs, effectively

shutting down both programs.

March 16: New Mexico governor Gary Johnson signed

into law an appropriations bill that included a total of

$1.5 million in fiscal years 2002 through 2004 for

development of a commercial spaceport in the state.

March 18: A Sea Launch Zenit 3SL launched the XM

Rock digital radio broadcasting satellite from a mobile

platform on the Equator in the Pacific Ocean.

April 10: Pratt & Whitney Space Propulsion announced

plans to develop the RL-60, a new upper-stage engine

capable of 289,000 newtons (65,000 pounds-force) of

thrust. The company plans to have the engine ready for

service by the end of 2005.

April 19: Utah governor Mike Leavitt signed into 

law the Utah Spaceport Authority Act. The act created

a Utah Spaceport Authority to develop and regulate

spaceport facilities in the state and also established 

a seven-person advisory board.

May 8: A Sea Launch Zenit 3SL launched the XM

Roll digital radio broadcasting satellite from a mobile

platform on the Equator in the Pacific Ocean, thereby

completing the XM Radio satellite duo.

May 9: Boeing completed a series of hot-fire tests 

of the Common Booster Core (CBC) for its Delta 4

launch vehicle at NASA’s Stennis Space Center,

Mississippi.

May 17: NASA announced $767 million in SLI 

awards to 22 contractors. Kistler Aerospace Corporation

received $135 million, including a $125 million option

for a flight of Kistler Aerospace Corporation’s K-1 RLV.

A Pratt & Whitney/ Aerojet joint venture received $125

million for advanced rocket booster and upper stage

research.

May 23: NASA conducted the seventh and final drop

test of the X-40A, an 85-percent scale model of the 

X-37 RLV technology demonstrator, at Edwards Air

Force Base (AFB), California. The success of the tests

paves the way for future X-37 flight tests.

June 2: A modified Pegasus booster carrying the 

X-43A, an experimental vehicle designed to test

scramjet technologies for potential use in future RLVs,

lost attitude control five seconds after ignition and

was destroyed. The cause of the failure has yet to be

identified.

June 17: Texas governor Rick Perry signed into law

an appropriations bill that includes $1.5 million for

the Texas Aerospace Commission to support the

development of proposed spaceports in the state.

June 19: An Atlas 2AS launched the ICO F-1 

communications satellite from Cape Canaveral Air

Force Station (CCAFS).

July 24: XCOR Aerospace began flight testing of EZRocket, a modified Long-EZ airplane powered by two

1,780-newton (400-pound-force) rocket engines. The

aircraft is designed to test rocket technologies planned

for future sub-orbital RLVs.

August 6: NASA completed a series of test firings of

twin XRS-2200 linear aerospike engines at the Stennis

Space Center, Mississippi, as part of the SLI.

August 30: NASA’s Marshall Space Flight Center and

Lockheed Martin Corporation completed tests of the

first subscale liquid oxygen tank made of composite

materials. Such tanks could be used to reduce the

weight of future RLVs.

September 7: The U.S. Air Force announced that it

would neither assume project responsibility nor provide funding for the X-33 program. The Air Force also

announced that it would not fund the X-37 program

after September 2002.

2002 U.S. Commercial Space Transportation Developments and Concepts 2001 Highlights

Federal Aviation Administration/Associate Administrator for Commercial Space Transportation 5

2001 Highlights
September 19: FAA/AST renewed the commercial

launch license for the California Spaceport at

Vandenberg AFB (VAFB), California, for five years.

September 21: A Taurus launch vehicle failed to

deliver Orbital Imaging Corporation’s OrbView-4 and

NASA’s QuikTOMS satellites to their intended orbits

due to an anomaly with the vehicle’s second stage.

September 24: Boeing established Boeing Launch

Services, Incorporated, to market and sell both Sea

Launch and Delta commercial launch services.

September 26: Boeing shipped the CBC for its first

production Delta 4 launch vehicle from its factory in

Decatur, Alabama to CCAFS.

September 29: An Athena 1 launched NASA’s

Starshine-3 spacecraft and three satellites for the

Department of Defense Space Test Program from 

the Kodiak Launch Complex, Alaska. It was the first

orbital launch from the Kodiak Launch Complex.

October 9: Boeing dedicated its new Space Launch

Complex (SLC) 37 at CCAFS. The facility will be

used to launch its Delta 4 boosters.

October 9: Boeing announced that its first Delta 4

launch, scheduled for mid-2002, will carry a satellite

for Eutelsat.

October 18: A Delta 2 launched the QuickBird 2

commercial remote sensing satellite from VAFB.

October 19: The first Atlas 5 booster was stacked 

vertically in the Vehicle integration Facility of LC-41

at CCAFS.

November 22: Starchaser Industries launched the Nova

booster from Morecambe Sands, United Kingdom. The

vehicle is designed to test technologies for Thunderbird,

the company’s RLV and X-PRIZE® entrant.

December 10: Disassembly of the flight-ready X-33

hardware began. Hardware components will be distributed to NASA centers and companies involved

with SLI.

December 10: The Willacy County (Texas)

Commissioners Court established the Willacy County

Development Corporation for Spaceport Facilities to

investigate the feasibility of creating a spaceport in the

county.

December 12: Aerojet successfully tested a reaction

control engine it is developing under an SLI contract.

The test was the first hot-fire test of any propulsion

system whose development began under SLI.

December 17: NASA awarded an additional $94.6

million in SLI contracts for systems engineering, 

crew survivability, and advanced propulsion studies.

Rocketdyne won a $64 million option to an existing

contract for advanced propulsion systems.

December 19: Lockheed Martin completed a series 

of tests of the RD-180 engine, qualifying its use on 

all Atlas 5 launches.

2001 Highlights 2002 U.S. Commercial Space Transportation Developments and Concepts

6 Federal Aviation Administration/Associate Administrator for Commercial Space Transportation
This survey of expendable launch vehicles (ELV) in

the United States is divided into three sections. The

first section reviews the ELVs currently available to

serve a wide range of commercial and government

payloads. The second section discusses the Atlas 5 and

Delta 4 Evolved Expendable Launch Vehicle (EELV)

boosters, which promise to provide more reliable, less

expensive access to space for commercial and government payloads. The final section reviews a number of

proposed commercial ELVs under study or development. These vehicles would primarily serve small

commercial payloads at prices that are potentially

much lower than available today.

Existing ELV Systems

There are nine ELV systems available in the U.S.

today, a summary of which is provided in Table 1.4

Three ELVs–Minotaur, Titan 2, and Titan 4B–are

restricted to government payloads. The remaining six–

Athena, Atlas, Delta, Pegasus, Taurus, and Zenit 3SL

(Sea Launch)–are available for commercial use, and all

but the Zenit 3SL can also carry U.S. government payloads. The Athena system was mothballed in late 2001

because of a lack of customers, while the existing

Atlas and Delta boosters will be gradually phased out

in favor of their EELV variants, Atlas 5 and Delta 4.

Athena – Lockheed Martin Corporation

The Athena family of launch vehicles was created by Lockheed Martin to serve the small satellite market. Lockheed started development of the Lockheed

Launch Vehicle in 1993; the vehicle became the

Lockheed Martin Launch Vehicle after Lockheed’s

merger with Martin Marietta in 1995 and was renamed

the Athena in 1997. The Athena vehicles use Castor

120 solid-propellant motors: the Athena 1 uses a single

Castor 120 as its first stage, while the larger Athena 2

uses Castor 120 motors for its first and second stages

for enhanced payload performance. Both vehicles also

use either one solid and one liquid or two solid and

two liquid propellant upper stages.5

Athena launches have taken place from

Vandenberg Air Force Base (VAFB), California; Cape

Canaveral Air Force Station (CCAFS), Florida; and,

most recently, from the Kodiak Launch Complex in

Alaska. The latest Athena launch took place on

September 29, 2001, when an Athena 1 launched from

Kodiak placed the Starshine 3, Sapphire, PICOSat, and

PCSat spacecraft into polar orbit. With no launches

manifested and a limited market for small spacecraft

payloads, Lockheed Martin decided in late 2001 to

suspend the Athena program.

Atlas Family – Lockheed Martin Corporation

The Atlas launch vehicle family traces its roots

to the development of the Atlas ICBM in the 1950s.

The Atlas 2A and Atlas 2AS are direct descendants of

the original Atlas, incorporating its unique stage-anda-half design. This design uses two powerful “booster” engines and one less powerful, but longer-duration

“sustainer” engine on the vehicle’s first stage, as well

as a Centaur upper stage. The Atlas 2A and 2AS are

identical except for the four strap-on Castor 4A solid

rocket motors attached to the first stage of the Atlas

2AS to improve its payload performance.

The Atlas 3A and Atlas 3B represent a transition

between the older Atlas vehicles and the Atlas 5 EELV

under development by Lockheed Martin. The Atlas 3

abandons the stage-and-a-half design of the older

Atlases for a single RD-180 main engine developed

by the Russian company NPO Energomash and marketed under a joint Russian-American partnership. The

Atlas 3A, which first launched in 2000, uses a singleengine Centaur upper stage, while the Atlas 3B, whose

inaugural launch is planned for 2002, uses a stretched

Centaur upper stage with two engines.6

Delta Family – The Boeing Company

The Delta 2 and Delta 3 boosters are the latest

versions of a launch vehicle family that dates back to

the Thor missile program in the 1950s. The Delta 2

uses a LOX-kerosene first stage and a nitrogen tetroxide-Aerozine second stage, along with an optional

solid-propellant upper stage. The Delta 2 can also use

between three and nine strap-on solid rocket motors,

depending on the performance required.7

The Delta 3 was developed both to serve larger

payloads and to be a transition towards the Delta 4

EELV boosters. The Delta 3 uses the same first-stage

engine as the Delta 2 but incorporates nine more powerful strap-on solid rocket motors as well as a new

cryogenic upper stage with an engine similar to the one

used on the Centaur upper stage. After two unsuccessful

initial launch attempts in 1998 and 1999, the Delta 3

successfully launched a test payload in August 2000.

Boeing plans to phase out the Delta 3 as the Delta 4

becomes operational.8

2002 U.S. Commercial Space Transportation Developments and Concepts Expendable Launch Vehicles

Federal Aviation Administration/Associate Administrator for Commercial Space Transportation 7

Expendable Launch Vehicles
8 Federal Aviation Administration/Associate Administrator for Commercial Space Transportation

Vehicle Company Athena Minotaur Pegasus Taurus Delta 2 Titan 2 Delta 3 Atlas 2 Atlas 3 

Company Lockheed- Martin Orbital Sciences Orbital Sciences Orbital Sciences Boeing Lockheed- Martin Boeing Lockheed- Martin Lockheed- Martin 

First Launch 1995 2000 1990 1994 1990 1988* 1998 1990 2000 

3 (Athena 1)4 (Athena 2)

820 kg 

(1,805 lbs.) 

(Athena 1)

7,315 kg 

(16,130 lbs.) 

(Atlas 2A)

8,640 kg 

(19,050 lbs.) 

(Atlas 3A)

2,050 kg 

(4,520 lbs.) 

(Athena 2)

8,620 kg 

(19,000 lbs.) 

(Atlas 2AS)

10,720 kg 

(23,630 lbs.) 

(Atlas 3B)

545 kg 

(1,200 lbs.) 

(Athena 1)

6,190 kg 

(13,650 lbs.) 

(Atlas 2A)

1,575 kg 

(3,470 lbs.) 

(Athena 2)

7,210 kg 

(15,900 lbs.) 

(Atlas 2AS)

3,065 kg 

(6,760 lbs.) 

(Atlas 2A)

4,035 kg 

(8,900 lbs.) 

(Atlas 3A)

3,720 kg 

(8,200 lbs.) 

(Atlas 2AS)

4,475 kg 

(9,870 lbs.) 

(Atlas 3B)

* First launch of refurbished Titan 2 ICBM. Titan 2 also used for Gemini program launches, 1964-1966.

Medium Intermediate 

Stages 4

3

Small

2

N/A 440 kg (975 lbs.) N/A

4

3

2

2

2

340 kg 

(750 lbs.) 

(SSO)

330 kg 

(730 lbs.)

1,070 kg 

(2,360 lbs.)

3,895 kg 

(8,590 lbs.)

1,905 kg 

(4,200 lbs.) N/A N/A

Payload

Performance

(GTO)

N/A N/A N/A N/A 1,870 kg (4,120 lbs.) N/A 3,810 kg (8,400 lbs.) 

Payload

Performance

(LEO)

Payload

Performance

(LEO polar)

CCAFS, 

VAFB, 

Kodiak

Launch Sites VAFB

CCAFS, 

WFF, VAFB, 

EAFB, 

VAFB CCAFS, VAFB VAFB CCAFS CCAFS, VAFB

5,125 kg 

(11,300 

lbs.)

N/A 8,290 kg (18,280 lbs.)

CCAFS 

Table 1: Currently Available Expendable Launch Vehicles
Minotaur – Orbital Sciences Corporation

The Orbital/Sub-orbital Program Space Launch

Vehicle, also known as Minotaur, was developed by

Orbital Sciences Corporation under contract to the

U.S. Air Force to launch small government payloads.

The booster uses a combination of rocket motors from

decommissioned Minuteman 2 ICBMs and upper

stages from Orbital’s Pegasus launch vehicle. The

Minotaur’s first two stages are Minuteman 2 M-55A1

and SR-19 motors, and the upper two stages are Orion

50 XL and Orion 38 motors from the Pegasus XL. All

four stages use solid propellants.9

The Minotaur made its debut on January 26,

2000, when it successfully launched the FalconSat 

and JAWSAT satellites from VAFB. FalconSat was a

spacecraft developed by the Air Force Academy, while

JAWSAT carried three university-built microsatellites.

Minotaur’s only other launch took place on July 19,

2000, when it launched the Air Force Research

Laboratory’s MightySat 2.1 spacecraft, also from VAFB.

Pegasus – Orbital Sciences Corporation

The Pegasus is an air-launched ELV used to place

small payloads into a variety of low-Earth orbits

(LEO). Developed by Orbital Sciences Corporation in

the late 1980s, Pegasus became the first commercial

air-launch system. The Pegasus booster has three solidpropellant stages and an optional hydrazine mono-propellant upper stage. The booster is carried aloft under

Orbital Sciences’ “Stargazer” L-1011 carrier aircraft

(early Pegasus launches used a B-52 leased from

NASA) to an altitude of 11,900 meters (39,000 feet),

where it is released. The booster drops for five seconds

before igniting its first stage motor and beginning its

ascent to orbit. The original Pegasus booster entered

service in 1990. Orbital Sciences created a new version

of the Pegasus, the Pegasus XL, with stretched first and

second stages to enhance the booster’s payload capacity. While the first Pegasus XL launch was in 1994, the

first successful Pegasus XL flight did not occur until in

1996. The original, or standard, version of the Pegasus

was retired in 2000, and only the Pegasus XL is used

today. The air-launched nature of the Pegasus permits

launches from a number of different facilities, depending on the orbital requirements of the payload. Pegasus

launches have been staged from six sites to date:

Edwards AFB and VAFB, California; CCAFS; Wallops

Flight Facility, Virginia; Kwajalein Missile Range,

Marshall Islands; and Gando AFB, Canary Islands.10

Five Pegasus XL launches are planned in 2002, carrying four NASA and one commercial payloads.

Taurus – Orbital Sciences Corporation

The Taurus ELV is a ground-launched vehicle

based on the air-launched Pegasus. The Taurus was

developed by Orbital Sciences Corporation under the

sponsorship of the Defense Advanced Research Projects

Agency to develop a standard small launch vehicle to

launch small satellites that are too large for the Pegasus.

The Taurus uses the three stages of a Pegasus, without

wings or stabilizers, stacked atop a Castor 120 solid

rocket motor that serves as the Taurus first stage (the

first stage of a Peacekeeper ICBM was used as the

Taurus first stage for the first Taurus launch).11

The Taurus has successfully completed five of six

launch attempts since entering service in 1994. During

the latest Taurus launch, on September 21, 2001, an

anomaly during the first stage separation caused the

booster to fly off course for several seconds. While the

booster resumed its intended trajectory, the deviation

prevented the booster’s payload from reaching orbital

velocity.12

Titan Family – Lockheed Martin Corporation

In 1986, Martin Marietta (now Lockheed

Martin) won a contract from the U.S. Air Force to

refurbish 14 decommissioned Titan 2 ICBMs into

launch vehicles for government payloads. Ten of these

boosters have been launched since 1988, most recently on September 21, 2000. The two-stage Titan 2,

which uses nitrogen tetroxide and Aerozine-50 as propellants, can place 1,905 kilograms (4,200 pounds)

into polar LEO. With the addition of eight Graphite

Epoxy Motor 40 solid-propellant strap-on boosters,

the payload capacity can be increased to 3,540 kilograms (7,800 pounds) to the same orbit. Three Titan 2

launches are scheduled for 2002.13

The Titan 4B is the most powerful ELV in the

United States today. The Titan 4B is used solely for

U.S. military payloads, with the exception of the

October 1998 launch of NASA’s Cassini mission. The

Titan 4 program dates back to 1985, when the U.S. Air

Force commissioned Martin Marietta (now Lockheed

Martin) to develop an upgraded version of the existing

Titan 34D ELV that could launch Space Shuttle-class

payloads as an alternative to the Shuttle. The Titan 4A

was based on the Titan 34D but featured stretched first

and second stages, two more powerful solid rocket

motors, and a larger payload fairing. The Titan 4A was

used between 1989 and 1998. The Titan 4B, introduced

in 1997, uses upgraded solid rocket motors that

increase the payload capacity of the vehicle by 25 

percent.14 Four Titan 4B launches are planned for 2002,

2002 U.S. Commercial Space Transportation Developments and Concepts Expendable Launch Vehicles

Federal Aviation Administration/Associate Administrator for Commercial Space Transportation 9
including the successful launch of a Milstar communications satellite from CCAFS on January 15. The Titan

4B will be phased out by 2004 in favor of the heavy

EELV variants.

Zenit 3SL – The Sea Launch Company, LLC

The Zenit 3SL is a Ukrainian-Russian launch

vehicle marketed by Sea Launch, a multinational joint

venture led by The Boeing Company. The first two

stages, each powered by a single engine using liquid

oxygen and kerosene propellants, are provided by the

Ukrainian firm SDO Yuzhnoye/PO Yuzhmash and are

the same as those used on the Zenit 2 launch vehicle.

The third stage is a Block DM-SL upper stage, which

also uses liquid oxygen and kerosene propellants, provided by Russian firm RSC Energia. Boeing provides

the payload fairing and interfaces for the vehicle.15

The Zenit 3SL is launched from the Odyssey mobile

launch platform, which travels from its home port in

Long Beach, California, to a position on the Equator

in the Pacific Ocean for each launch. Launch operations are controlled from a separate vessel, the Sea

Launch Commander. While Sea Launch conducts

commercial launches with a license from the FAA, 

the multinational nature of the system prevents it 

from carrying U.S. government payloads at this time.

EELV Development

The National Space Transportation Policy,

signed by President Clinton on August 5, 1994, gave

NASA responsibility for RLV development while tasking the Department of Defense (DoD) with developing

EELVs and improving the nation’s existing launch

infrastructure. The goal of the EELV program was to

partner with industry to develop a national launch

capability that satisfies both government and commercial payload requirements and reduces the cost of

space access by at least 25 percent.16 Four companies

initially competed for DoD contracts to develop heavylift launch capability for the United States. Ultimately,

Lockheed Martin and Boeing were awarded EELV

production and service contracts for their respective

Atlas 5 and Delta 4 vehicles. The Air Force provided

each company with $500 million for technology development and initial launch contracts worth $650 million

for the Atlas 5 and $1.38 billion for the Delta 4.

Atlas 5 – Lockheed Martin Corporation

The Atlas 5 family of launch vehicles will be

able to carry twice the payload mass of previous Atlas

vehicles and will dispense with the pressure-stabilized

fuel tanks used on previous Atlas vehicles. Unlike earlier Atlas first stages, Lockheed Martin’s newly developed Common Core BoosterTM (CCB) will be able to

stand under the weight of its payload without being

fully fueled. All Atlas 5 launch vehicles will use the

CCB as well as the NPO Energomash RD-180 engine

that was introduced on the Atlas 3.

The RD-180 is a derivative of the RD-170 used

by the now-defunct Russian Energia heavy-lift launch

vehicle. Because the RD-180 has 70-percent component commonality with the proven RD-170, it was less

risky to develop than a totally new design while giving

better performance than available U.S.-built engines.

In order to meet national security requirements, Pratt

& Whitney will build this engine in the United States

for government versions of the Atlas 5. Domestic production has not begun, however, and the initial flights

of government payloads on Atlas 5 vehicles will use

Russian-built engines under a waiver.

Expendable Launch Vehicles 2002 U.S. Commercial Space Transportation Developments and Concepts

10 Federal Aviation Administration/Associate Administrator for Commercial Space Transportation

Vehicle: Atlas 5

Developer: Lockheed Martin

First launch: 2002

Number of stages: 2

Payload performance: between 3,970 and 8,670 kg

(8,750 and 19,100 lbs.) to GTO

Launch sites: CCAFS

Atlas 5 Vehicles
Lockheed Martin has approached the problem 

of pad dwell time in a different way than Boeing. The

Atlas 5 will be prepared for launch in a vertical configuration in an assembly building near the pad. Hours

before launch, it will be moved out to the pad fully

prepared for launch. Through the use of multiple

assembly buildings, multiple vehicles could be accommodated simultaneously; thus very high launch rate

may be possible with this system.

The Atlas 5 is available in the 400 and 500 series

and will have three available fairings and a variety of

strap-on solid rocket motors. The Atlas 400 series can

place payloads between 4,950 and 7,640 kilograms

(10,910 and 16,843 pounds) into geosynchronous

transfer orbit (GTO), while the Atlas 500 series can

place payloads between 3,970 and 8,670 kilograms

(8,750 and 19,110 pounds) into GTO.17 Lockheed

Martin has chosen not to develop a heavy version of

the Atlas 5 at this time. Unlike the Delta 4, the Atlas 5

will only be launched from CCAFS.

Delta 4 – The Boeing Company

The Delta 4 family of launch vehicles utilizes a

common booster core (CBC) first stage that uses the

first new liquid rocket engine developed in the United

States since the Space Shuttle Main Engine (SSME),

which was designed in the 1970s. This engine, the

Rocketdyne RS-68, was developed from the J-2 engine

used on the second stage of the Saturn 5 launch vehicle

with the addition of technology from the SSME. It is,

however, both larger and simpler than the SSME. This

engine is one of the key technologies required to make

the Delta 4 a success. The RS-68 is supplemented by

two to four solid-fuel, graphite-epoxy motors, two types

of upper stages, and three payload fairings, depending

on customer needs. It will be launched from both

VAFB and CCAFS.

Boeing offers five different versions of the Delta 4

to address a broad range of payload mass classes. These

include four medium versions, each with one CBC, and

one heavy-lift version that will use three parallel CBC

stages. Three of these versions, the Delta 4 MediumPlus vehicles, will be optimized for commercial use.

The Medium and Heavy versions are largely intended

for government use. Payload capacities to LEO range

from 3,685 kilograms (8,120 pounds) for the Medium to

10,450 kilograms (23,040 pounds) for the Heavy; GTO

capacities range from 4,210 to 13,130 kilograms (9,285

to 28,950 pounds).18 Boeing plans to replace the Delta 3

with the Delta 4 once it is introduced into service over

the next few years; subsequently, Boeing expects to

phase out Delta 2.

A distinctive design feature of the Delta 4 is 

its use of horizontal integration. The vehicle will be

assembled, tested, and prepared for launch horizontally,

away from the launch pad. When integration is complete, the vehicle will be moved to the pad, raised, and

launched in a relatively short amount of time. In addition to making the launch vehicle easier to work on by

keeping it closer to the ground, horizontal integration

also greatly reduces time spent occupying the launch

pad. Boeing expects to reduce pad time from Delta 2’s

24 days to a period of about a week for the Delta 4.

Since the availability of launch pads is one of the factors

limiting launch rates, horizontal integration contributes

to the economic advantages that are a major part of the

EELV program’s goals.

2002 U.S. Commercial Space Transportation Developments and Concepts Expendable Launch Vehicles

Federal Aviation Administration/Associate Administrator for Commercial Space Transportation 11

Vehicle: Delta 4

Developer: Boeing

First launch: 2002

Number of stages: 2

Payload performance: between 3,685 and 10,450 kg

(8,120 and 23,040 lbs.) to LEO, between 4,210 and

13,130 kg (9,285 and 28,950 lbs.) to GTO

Launch sites: CCAFS, VAFB

Delta 4 Vehicles
More ELV Development Efforts

A number of efforts by both large corporations

and small startups are currently in progress to develop

new ELVs to carry payloads to orbit. Most of these

designs are focused on the small-payload sector of the

launch market, placing payloads as small as a few

hundred kilograms into LEO. There is currently a limited market for such launches, so the success of these

vehicles may rely on their ability to reduce launch

costs enough to enable new markets.

AirLaunch – The Boeing Company/

Thiokol Propulsion

The Boeing Company and Thiokol Propulsion

are currently studying a launch vehicle system called

AirLaunch that features a solid-propellant ELV

launched from an aircraft. The AirLaunch booster

would use Castor 120 solid rocket motors for its first

and second stages with a custom-designed third stage

provided by Thiokol. The launch vehicle would be

carried aloft atop a modified Boeing 747-400F aircraft; at an altitude of 7,300 meters (24,000 feet) it

would separate from the aircraft and continue toward

LEO propelled by its rocket engines. Wing and tail

assemblies attached to the launch vehicle would provide lift and stability during this initial phase of the

flight; the assemblies would later be jettisoned as the

booster accelerated toward orbit.

AirLaunch was initially designed to launch the

Air Force’s proposed Space Maneuver Vehicle, a

small reusable spacecraft. AirLaunch could also be

used to place payloads of up to 3,400 kilograms

(7,500 pounds) into LEO.19 AirLaunch could operate

out of any airport with a runway longer than 3,650

meters (12,000 feet); only downrange ground tracking

is required because launch and range control would be

managed onboard the aircraft. Since announcing the

AirLaunch project in 2000, Boeing has conducted

extensive wind tunnel and structural tests. Future

development of AirLaunch will depend on the requirements of the military and any commercial customers.20

Eagle S-Series - E’Prime Aerospace Corporation

E’Prime Aerospace of Titusville, Florida, is developing a family of launch vehicles called the Eagle SSeries, based on the LGM-118A Peacekeeper ICBM

design. Like the Peacekeeper, the vehicle would be ejected

from a ground-based silo using a compressed-gas system, thereby not requiring extensive launch infrastructure. At a height of 61 meters (200 feet), the vehicle’s

engines would ignite. The smallest vehicle, the Eaglet,

would launch 580 kilograms (1,280 pounds) into LEO,

while a somewhat larger version, the Eagle, would put

1,360 kilograms (3,000 pounds) into LEO. Both would

use solid-propellant lower stages and a liquid-propellant

upper stage. E’Prime has also proposed larger vehicles,

designated S-1 through S-7, that would be able to place

considerably larger payloads into LEO and add a geosynchronous Earth orbit (GEO) capability.21

The Eagle S-Series concept dates back to 1987, when

the company signed a commercialization agreement with the

Air Force to use Peacekeeper

technology for commercial

launch vehicles. Provisions of

the Strategic Arms Reduction

Treaty I severely restricted

development of the first-stage

motor for much of the 1990s.

Expendable Launch Vehicles 2002 U.S. Commercial Space Transportation Developments and Concepts

12 Federal Aviation Administration/Associate Administrator for Commercial Space Transportation

Vehicle: Air Launch

Developer: Boeing/Thiokol

First launch: To be determined

Number of stages: 3

Payload performance: 3,400 kg (7,500 lbs.) to LEO

Launch sites: TBD

Vehicle: Eaglet/Eagle

Developer: E’Prime Aerospace

First launch: To be determined

Number of stages: 2

Payload performance: 580 kg (1,280 lbs.) to LEO

(Eaglet); 1,360 kg (3,000 lbs.) to LEO (Eagle)

Launch sites: KSC

Eaglet and Eagle

AirLaunch
The company has since updated the design of the first

stage to avoid the arms control restrictions. The Air

Force approved user manuals for the Eaglet and Eagle

vehicles in April 2001. E’Prime signed an agreement

with NASA in February 2001 that gives the company

non-interference use of available property and services.

The company plans to launch the Eaglet and Eagle

boosters from facilities at NASA’s Kennedy Space

Center (KSC) that the company has yet to construct.

LV-1 - Rocket Propulsion Engineering Company

Rocket Propulsion

Engineering Company of Mojave,

California, has proposed developing

the LV-1. The LV-1 is a two-stage

ELV capable of launching 204 kilograms (450 pounds) into LEO. The

vehicle uses hydrogen peroxide and

kerosene pump-fed engines and

graphite-epoxy tanks.22 The company

is working on two sub-orbital vehicles, the SV-1 and SV-2, that will test

the engines and other technologies

used in the LV-1 and anticipates

beginning test launches of those 

sub-orbital vehicles in 2004.23

Scorpius - Microcosm, Inc.

Microcosm, Inc. of El Segundo, California, is

developing the Scorpius family of ELVs. The boosters

feature a modular design, using a number of identical

propulsion pods, each with its own liquid-propellant

engines and graphite-composite propellant tanks. The

Sprite Mini-Lift vehicle, the smallest orbital version of

the Scorpius family, would use six booster pods, each

with a 89,000-newton (20,000-pound-force) engine,

clustered around a sustainer pod with a 22,250-newton

(5,000-pound-force) engine. The Sprite Mini-Lift would

be able to place 315 kilograms (700 pounds) into LEO

and 150 kilograms (330 pounds) into sun-synchronous

orbit (SSO). Two larger Scorpius vehicles are under

study: the Antares Intermediate-Lift, capable of launching 2,950 kilograms (6,500 pounds) into LEO, and the

Exodus Medium-Lift, capable of placing 6,800 kilograms (15,000 pounds) into LEO.24

In March 2001,

Microcosm successfully

launched its SR-XM

sounding rocket from 

the White Sands Missile

Range, New Mexico.25

The Sprite Mini-Lift’s

sustainer pod has the

same design and engine

as the SR-XM. The

Sprite’s booster pods will

also use the same design as the SR-XM, but with larger engines. Microcosm is currently developing the SRXM-2 sounding rocket to test the larger engine. The

company anticipates performing the first test launch of

the Sprite Mini-Lift from the California Spaceport by

the fourth quarter of 2003, with the vehicle entering

commercial service one year later.

SLC-1 - Space Launch Corporation

Space Launch Corporation of Irvine, California,

is in the initial development stages of its SLC-1 launch

system. The SLC-1 will use a small expendable booster

consisting of multiple, custom-built, solid rocket motors

based on existing technology. The booster will be

deployed from an existing jet aircraft and be able to

put payloads of up to 50 to 60 kilograms (110 to 132

pounds) into a 800-kilometer (500-mile) SSO. The

company is targeting microsatellites and other small

payloads that would otherwise be launched as secondary

payloads on larger vehicles. The company anticipates

the first launch of its system in mid-2003.26

2002 U.S. Commercial Space Transportation Developments and Concepts Expendable Launch Vehicles

Federal Aviation Administration/Associate Administrator for Commercial Space Transportation 13

Vehicle: LV-1

Developer: Rocket Propulsion Engineering Company

First launch: No sooner than 2004

Number of stages: 2

Payload performance: 204 kg (450 lbs.) to LEO

Launch sites: To be determined

Vehicle: Sprite Mini-Lift

Developer: Microcosm

First launch: Late 2003

Number of stages: 2

Payload performance: 315 kg (700 lbs.) to LEO, 150 kg

(330 lbs.) to SSO

Launch sites: California Spaceport

LV-1

Scorpius Sprite Mini-Lift

LEO Vehicle

Vehicle: SLC-1

Developer: Space Launch Corporation

First launch: Mid-2003

Number of stages: To be determined

Payload performance: 50-60 kg (110-132 lbs.) to SSO

Launch sites: To be determined
Expendable Launch Vehicles 2002 U.S. Commercial Space Transportation Developments and Concepts

14 Federal Aviation Administration/Associate Administrator for Commercial Space Transportation
This section describes active reusable launch vehicle

(RLV) programs in the United States. While emphasis 

is placed on commercial programs, government-funded

programs are also presented as they are enablers of a

robust commercial space transportation infrastructure.

The Space Shuttle, for example, is considered a first

generation RLV and the foundation of what may

become a long line of commercial and government nextgeneration systems to follow. Because of the enormous

expenditures of time and money needed to develop a

launch system capable of reducing launch costs as well

as risk to human life, the government’s role as a partner

and supporter of commercial RLV efforts is becoming

clearer. Experiences gained by operating the Space

Shuttle for over 20 years have helped solve crucial 

problems related to the design of more efficient RLV

systems. This section first addresses government RLV

development efforts and then describes the commercial

RLV projects underway or under consideration.

Government RLV Development Efforts

The National Aeronautics and Space

Administration’s (NASA) launch vehicle plans are

governed by its Integrated Space Transportation Plan

(ISTP), which was introduced in the fall of 1999.

Developed from joint NASA-industry space transportation architecture studies and national space policies, the ISTP is a long-range plan to reduce the cost of

access to space and improve launch safety. The plan

delineates the schedule and priorities of NASA’s various space launch development efforts, from current

operations to the development of fourth-generation

RLV technology for the 2040s, and is composed of

three parts:27

! Space Shuttle safety upgrades;

! The Space Launch Initiative (SLI); and

! Third- and fourth-generation RLV technologies

and in-space transportation systems.

In addition to NASA’s efforts, the Air Force 

is exploring the possibilities for improved military

access to space. In the short run, this effort has resulted in the Evolved Expendable Launch Vehicle (EELV)

program. In the longer term, various efforts are ongoing in support of the Space Maneuver Vehicle concept,

military space planes, and other areas of technology

development.

Space Shuttle

Currently, NASA operates the world’s only operational RLV system, the

Space Shuttle. Consisting of

an expendable external tank,

two reusable solid rocket

boosters, and one of four

reusable orbiters, the Shuttle

has conducted more than 100 launches since its introduction in 1981. The orbiters Atlantis, Discovery, and

Endeavour collectively performed six successful missions in support of the International Space Station

(ISS) in 2001. In February 2001, the fourth orbiter,

Columbia, returned to service after undergoing over 

a year of maintenance, inspections, and upgrades.

Under the ISTP, NASA is preparing to upgrade

the Space Shuttle fleet to improve safety and extend

its service life until a commercially developed and

operated second-generation RLV system can replace

it. The Space Shuttle safety upgrade goals are to

achieve the following:

! Major reduction in catastrophic failure risk

when ascending to orbit;

! Significant reduction in catastrophic failure risk

when in orbit and during reentry; and

! Improved crew cockpit-situational awareness for

managing critical operations.

Space Shuttles Columbia and Atlantis have both

received Honeywell’s new glass cockpit system, known

as the Multifunction Electronic Display System. While

2002 U.S. Commercial Space Transportation Developments and Concepts Reusable Launch Vehicles

Federal Aviation Administration/Associate Administrator for Commercial Space Transportation 15

Reusable Launch Vehicles

Vehicles: Space Shuttles Columbia, Discovery, Atlantis,

and Endeavour

Developer: Rockwell International (Now Boeing). Fleet is

managed, operated, and maintained on the ground by

United Space Alliance (USA) a joint venture between

Boeing and Lockheed Martin

First launch: April 12, 1981

Number of stages: 1.5

Payload performance: 24,900 kg (54,890 lbs.) to LEO

Launch site: KSC, FL

Markets served: Non-commercial payloads and ISS access

Space Shuttle
not part of the ISTP, the system has been installed to

improve crew training and to assist in contingency

planning. It will be fully employed when new cockpit

avionics are installed by 2005.28

Other planned improvements include Phase 1 

of the Advanced Health Management System for the

Space Shuttle’s main engines, improved manufacturing

techniques for the Shuttle’s external tank, and upgrades

to its landing gear assemblies. Improvements under

consideration include cockpit avionics upgrades, the

addition of electric auxiliary power units, solid rocket

booster thrust-vector system improvements, and

Advanced Health Management System Phase II. Both

these planned and projected safety upgrades are scheduled for completion by 2007. These upgrades are projected to improve ascent safety and reliability to

approximately one loss in 1,000 missions.

In addition to vehicle upgrades, NASA is also

considering an early departure from the launch vehicle

operations arena. Under the concept of Space Shuttle

privatization, NASA would turn over full responsibility

for the Space Shuttle fleet to a private entity that would

operate and maintain the fleet for profit. This would

foreshadow the transfer of responsibility for launch

operations that is anticipated when commercial secondgeneration RLVs provide launch services for all NASA

payloads.

Space Launch Initiative

SLI is the main component of ISTP. While the

goal of SLI is to produce a follow-on system to the

Space Shuttle, it will do so after a series of incremental steps have been completed successfully. These

steps involve the methodical selection of technologies,

architectures, and addressable markets required for a

commercially operated, second-generation RLV. SLI

represents a partnership between government and

industry within the context of a larger, national transportation infrastructure development framework, a

relationship that differs significantly from the independent RLV program partnerships of the past. The

goals of SLI are to produce an RLV system ten times

safer than the Space Shuttle, with crew survivability

100 times greater and launch costs one-tenth of current prices, or approximately $450 per kilogram

($1000 per pound) to LEO.29 With a planned budget of

$4.8 billion through fiscal year 2006, SLI is managed

by NASA’s Marshall Space Flight Center in cooperation with other agencies and industry partners.

SLI consists of two basic phases. Phase I,

Architecture Definition and Risk-Reduction, is planned

to continue through the second half of 2003, and is

intended to develop and maintain system-level requirements to meet safety, cost, and performance goals

through integrated systems engineering.30 Following

the development of system requirements under Phase I,

Phase II will involve systems engineering and requirements definition objectives to develop the detailed

technical and programmatic requirements necessary to

link technology and business risk reduction efforts to

competing architectures.31 Phase I ends and Phase II

begins with the selection of at least two competing

commercial RLV architectures, which are intended to

lead to full-scale development decisions in 2006 for

operations beginning early in the next decade.

SLI Phase I was announced in October 2000 

as NASA Research Announcement (NRA) 8-30. On

May 17, 2001, 22 contracts covering 37 different task

awards were awarded under NRA 8-30.32 These contracts, valued at $767 million, initiated the development

of alternative technologies for a new generation of

launch systems and associated space transportation

operations. These developing technologies include

crew survival systems, advanced tanks and vehicle

structures, reusable rocket engines, and robust thermal

protection systems. On December 17, 2001, NASA

announced an additional $94.6 million in contract

awards as part of SLI Phase I in areas such as systems

integration and architecture design, crew escape systems, and advanced propulsion concepts.33 SLI contract

awards are for ten-month base periods and include

options for one or more additional years. These options

allow NASA to measure contractor performance on an

annual basis and to monitor progress towards the program’s ambitious goals. This schedule also allows for

continued competition in key technology areas and

allows NASA to capitalize on emerging technologies. In

December 2001, Aerojet became the first contractor to

hot-fire engine tests in the SLI program, initial evidence

that this technology development process has begun.

In October 2001, NASA’s Johnson Space Center

opened a new office in support of the SLI program to

focus on human-specific research and development

associated with a follow-on RLV. Johnson’s Space

Launch Initiative Office is expected to receive hundreds of millions of dollars over the next four years.34

Reusable Launch Vehicles 2002 U.S. Commercial Space Transportation Developments and Concepts

16 Federal Aviation Administration/Associate Administrator for Commercial Space Transportation
Third- and Fourth-Generation RLV Technologies

and In-space Transportation Systems

NASA’s Advanced Space Transportation

Program (ASTP) was established, in part, to build

upon the successes that emerge from the SLI program.

The objectives of ASTP are to further increase the

crew survivability and safety of future space transportation systems and lower launch costs using technology that is expected to emerge from SLI and other

areas of research and development. In addition, the

ASTP will explore infrastructure and vehicle concepts

for exclusive use in space, such as travel between

Earth orbit and the Moon.35

Third- and fourth-generation RLV technologies

being researched include air-breathing rocket engines,

electromagnetic propulsion systems, and solar-powered

space sails, among others. ASTP aims to mature existing

technologies that, when integrated with newer technologies, will enable safe and routine Earth-to-orbit

transportation, rapid transportation to other celestial

bodies, and eventual interstellar travel. Alternative

propulsion technologies are currently being researched

at NASA’s Marshall Space Flight Center in conjunction

with university participants.

RLV Research Vehicles

The NASA/Lockheed Martin X-33 and Orbital

Sciences’ X-34 program were cancelled when NASA

allowed the agreement governing the jointly funded

endeavor to expire on March 31, 2001. Both companies had hoped that NASA would add funds to the

programs through SLI’s NRA 8-30, but NASA determined that further funding of the X-33 and X-34 was

not an efficient use of funds when compared to other

SLI projects. The only NASA RLV research vehicle

currently under development, the X-38, is discussed

here; the X-40A/X-37 and the X-43A, which are technology test beds, are discussed in a later section.

The X-38 is a full-scale prototype of the emergency Crew Return Vehicle (CRV), the proposed

lifeboat for the ISS. As an independent review group

concluded in 2001, the CRV is essential to the ISS program if the station is to safely house up to seven occupants. 36 Without the CRV, the ISS is limited to three

crewmembers due to the Soyuz lifeboat’s capacity.

The X-38 program, which is being managed 

by NASA’s Johnson Space Center and tested by 

the Dryden Flight Research Center, began in 1995.

Although not expected to launch payloads into orbit,

the X-38’s development supplements a growing body

of knowledge related to lifting body designs, which

allow a vehicle to maintain an efficient reentry profile

while still permitting controlled but unpowered flight

through the atmosphere. Unlike previous lifting body

designs, the X-38 uses a parafoil to augment the vehicle’s aerodynamic control surfaces in order to achieve

a safe landing profile.

The X-38 has been successfully flight tested

eight times, the last test incorporating remote piloting

software provided by the European Space Agency

(ESA). The ESA, which does not have the capability to

return payloads from space, has worked with NASA on

the development of the CRV concept as well as their

own Crew Transport Vehicle. The U.S. Congress has

agreed to continue funding the X-38 program with $40

million slated during fiscal year 2002. ESA has agreed

to fund half of the X-38 program in order to ensure

that its astronauts have continued access to ISS.

Commercial RLV Development Efforts

Astroliner – Kelly Space and Technology, Inc.

Kelly Space and Technology, Inc. is developing

an RLV to address the needs of various sub-orbital

markets, ISS customers, and small payloads to destinations higher than low-Earth orbit (LEO).

Kelly’s piloted Astroliner will be based on its

patented horizontal takeoff and landing tow-launch technique and is designed to carry humans and cargo to and

from sub-orbital and orbital destinations. The two-stageto-orbit (TSTO) system will be towed to altitudes of

6,096 meters (20,000 feet)

using a modified Boeing

747 aircraft. Astroliner’s

onboard turbine engines

will supplement the thrust

of the tow aircraft during

the initial ascent. The RLV

system will be released at

altitude and, using its rocket

engines, will ascend to

2002 U.S. Commercial Space Transportation Developments and Concepts Reusable Launch Vehicles

Federal Aviation Administration/Associate Administrator for Commercial Space Transportation 17

Vehicle: Astroliner

Developer: Kelly Space and Technology

First launch: 2005

Number of stages: 3-4 (including towing aircraft)

Payload performance: 4,690 kg (10,340 lbs.) to LEO

Possible launch sites: To be determined

Markets served: Public space transportation and other

emerging markets

Kelly Astroliner
stage separation. The second-stage system for the 

specific mission will proceed to orbit. The first stage

will return to its planned landing site and use conventional turbofan engines for powered landing.

Astroliner includes a number of different upperstage vehicles and intends to serve current and future

customers anticipated through 2030, including both

government and private citizen space travelers. Kelly

expects the system design to readily accommodate the

use of customer-supplied, orbit-transfer stages in conjunction with their satellites or other payloads.

Kelly claims its tow-launch technique will facilitate significant reductions in expensive ground facilities,

achieve system operating safety and reliability that

approaches commercial airline operations, and enable

delivery of heavier payloads than can be achieved by

competing air-dropped system concepts.

Under a cooperative program with NASA’s

Dryden Flight Research Center and the Air Force Flight

Test Center at Edwards AFB, California, Kelly’s towto-launch concept has been successfully flight demonstrated. Using a modified QF-106 (called Eclipse) and

a C-141A tow aircraft, Kelly successfully conducted

six flight tests to demonstrate the RLV tow-launch

technique in late 1997 and early 1998. Kelly expects

tow tests and atmospheric powered flight-testing of

Astroliner to begin in the latter half of 2003 and to last

until early 2004. This series of tests will be followed by

sub-orbital flights later in 2004. The first orbital flight

is planned for mid-2005, with operations planned for

early 2006.37

Kelly teamed with Vought Aircraft Industries in

January 2001 to submit a joint proposal for the development of an RLV under NASA’s SLI program. NASA,

however, did not award the companies a contract when

the first cycle of the SLI Phase I contract awards was

announced in May 2001.

K-1 – Kistler Aerospace Corporation

On May 17, 2001, Kistler Aerospace Corporation

was awarded a contract worth up to $135 million under

NASA’s SLI program to use the K-1 as a flight demonstrator under NRA 8-30.38

Kistler will provide flight

results of 13 embedded technologies flown on the first four

K-1 flights. These technologies

include propellant densification,

novel parachute and airbag

landing systems, and avionics. NASA also has options

to use the K-1 as a test bed for advanced technology

experiments in advanced materials, thermal protection

systems, avionics, and other technology areas. This

major award followed less than a year after Kistler was

awarded a three-month study contract from NASA

Marshall Space Flight Center to assess the K-1 as a

potential vehicle to provide alternate access to ISS. The

K-1 is 75 percent complete.39

Kistler has been developing the K-1 for commercial launches of LEO payloads. The K-1 design was

developed in the mid-1990s as a TSTO vehicle with 

a payload capacity of approximately 4,535 kilograms

(10,000 pounds) to LEO and an expected market price

of $17 million per launch. Kistler has completed a conceptual design for an Active Dispenser that will deploy

payloads to medium-Earth orbits (MEO), geosynchronous transfer orbits (GTO), and interplanetary trajectories. The Active Dispenser will expand the K-1’s

capability beyond LEO (approximately 1,570 kilograms,

or 3,460 pounds, to GTO) at a launch price of $25 million. The K-1 also will be capable of providing cargo

re-supply and return services for the ISS.

The K-1 will be able to launch multiple small

payloads on dedicated missions or as secondary payloads. Kistler is working with Astrium Ltd. in the United

Kingdom to develop reusable payload dispensers for

multiple small payloads. Astrium designed a similar

payload dispenser for small satellites for Arianespace’s

Ariane launch vehicles.

The K-1 will launch vertically like a conventional

ELV, but will use a unique combination of parachutes

and air bags to recover its two stages. The vehicle,

designed to operate with a small complement of ground

personnel, will be transported to the launch site and

erected with a mobile transporter. The K-1 will measure

about 37 meters (121 feet) in height and have a launch

mass of 382,300 kilograms (843,000 pounds).

Reusable Launch Vehicles 2002 U.S. Commercial Space Transportation Developments and Concepts

18 Federal Aviation Administration/Associate Administrator for Commercial Space Transportation

Vehicle: K-1

Developer: Kistler Aerospace Corporation

First launch: To be determined

Number of stages: 2

Payload performance: 4,535 kg (10,000 lbs.) to LEO;

1,570 kg (3,460 lbs.) to GTO

Possible launch sites: Woomera, Australia; Nevada Test

Site

Markets served: Deployment of LEO payloads, GTO payloads (with Active Dispenser), ISS re-supply and cargo

return missions

K-1
The K-1 employs off-the-shelf technology and

components in its design. The first stage, known as the

Launch Assist Platform, is powered by three liquid oxygen (LOX)/kerosene GenCorp Aerojet AJ26 engines.

These engines include elements of the NK-33 engines

originally built by the Soviet Union in the 1960s. After

launch, the Launch Assist Platform separates from the

second stage and restarts its center engine to fly a

return trajectory to a landing area near the launch site.

The Launch Assist Platform deploys parachutes and

descends to the landing area where air bags are

deployed to cushion its landing.

The second stage, or Orbital Vehicle (OV), continues into LEO, where it releases its payload. The OV

is powered by a single Aerojet AJ26-60 engine (derived

from the Russian NK-43 engine). Following payload

separation, the OV continues on orbit for about 24

hours, after which a LOX/ethanol orbital maneuvering

system performs a deorbit burn. The OV ends its ballistic re-entry profile by deploying parachutes and air

bags in a manner similar to the Launch Assist Platform.

Kistler expects to operate the K-1 from two

launch sites: Woomera, Australia, and the Nevada Test

Site. Kistler Woomera Pty. Ltd., a wholly owned subsidiary of Kistler Aerospace Corporation, will operate

the K-1 from Woomera. Kistler received authorization

from the Australian government to begin construction

of launch facilities at Woomera in April 1998 and held

a groundbreaking ceremony at the site several months

later. The launch pads design is complete, and Kistler

will conduct its initial K-1 flights and commercial

operations from Woomera. In 1998, Kistler signed 

an agreement with the Nevada Test Site Development

Corporation to permit Kistler to occupy a segment of

the U.S. Department of Energy’s Nevada Test Site for

its launch operations. The FAA environmental review

process is nearing completion for the Kistler project.

Pathfinder – Pioneer Rocketplane

The Pathfinder traces

its heritage to a military

space plane concept called

“Black Horse,” which was

promoted within the Air

Force in the early 1990s.

Pioneer Rocketplane

developed a derivative

design that it called

Pathfinder and proposed a precursor to it as a potential

design for NASA’s now-cancelled X-34 vehicle.

Pioneer Rocketplane continued Pathfinder

development, and in June 1997 it was awarded one 

of four $2 million NASA Low Cost Boost Technology

Program contracts to develop detailed preliminary

designs and to conduct wind tunnel tests for concepts

to launch small satellites.

Construction of Pathfinder is expected to begin in

2002. The vehicle will be operated by a crew of two

pilots with experience in high-performance aircraft and

will have accommodations to carry two passengers.

Both air-breathing jet engines and LOX/kerosene rocket

engines will power the vehicle. The 23-meter- (75-foot-)

long vehicle will take off horizontally using conventional turbofan jet engines. When it reaches an altitude of 6

kilometers (3.6 miles), Pathfinder will receive 59,000

kilograms (130,000 pounds) of LOX from a tanker aircraft. After disconnecting from the tanker, Pathfinder

will ignite its RD-120 rocket engine and climb to an

altitude of 112 kilometers (70 miles) at a speed of about

4 kilometers (2.5 miles) per second. Once out of the

atmosphere, Pathfinder will be able to open its cargo

bay doors and release its payload with a conventional

rocket upper stage. The payload will proceed to its orbit

while Pathfinder re-enters the atmosphere. After deceleration to subsonic speeds, Pathfinder will re-start its turbofan engines and land horizontally.40 Pathfinder’s maximum payload capacity to LEO will be 1,818 kilograms

(4,000 pounds). The first air-breathing test flights are

planned for 2003 and will be followed two to three

months later by rocket-powered test flights.41

Pioneer Rocketplane is designing Pathfinder as

a low-cost alternative for small- to medium-class payloads to LEO. The company is concurrently developing a scaled-down version of the Pathfinder vehicle,

called the Pathfinder XP, to provide passenger service

along sub-orbital trajectories. Pioneer Rocketplane has

an agreement with the U.S.-based company Space

Adventures to offer sub-orbital flights to customers

paying between $98,000 and $100,000 per seat.42

2002 U.S. Commercial Space Transportation Developments and Concepts Reusable Launch Vehicles

Federal Aviation Administration/Associate Administrator for Commercial Space Transportation 19

Vehicle: Pathfinder

Developer: Pioneer Rocketplane

First launch: 2003

Number of stages: 2 (Second “stage” is an air refueling

aircraft)

Payload performance: 1,818 kg (4,000 lbs.) to LEO

Possible launch sites: Oklahoma Spaceport

Markets served: Launch of small- and medium-class

payloads

Pathfinder
The company recently contracted with a costanalysis team to conduct a technical appraisal on

Pathfinder and its infrastructure as a requirement to

receive financial support from the state of Oklahoma.

On September 13, 2000, Pioneer signed a memorandum

of understanding with the Oklahoma Space Industry

Development Authority (OSIDA). Under the terms of

the memorandum of understanding, OSIDA agreed to

provide up to $300 million in revenue bond financing

to help finance the development of the Pathfinder

launch vehicle. Pioneer Rocketplane expects to receive

the financing package during 2002.43 In exchange for

this financial assistance, Pioneer agreed to conduct

launch operations from the proposed Oklahoma

Spaceport at the former Clinton-Sherman AFB in

Washita County, Oklahoma. Until such time as

FAA/AST authorizes over-land launch corridors,

Pioneer plans to base its vehicles at the Oklahoma

Spaceport and ferry-fly to approved launch sites on 

the East or West Coasts.44

Pioneer’s first suborbital spaceplane to be developed is a half-scale version of the Pathfinder without

the payload bay. This spaceplane is intended to service

the sub-orbital adventure travel market, and is also

Pioneer’s X PRIZE vehicle. The spaceplane will carry

a minimum of two passengers, plus a pilot and copilot. The half-scale vehicle takes off fully fueled, and

does not require the tanker operations that the larger

spaceplane needs for LEO satellite launch operations.

SA-1 – SPACE ACCESS®, LLC

SPACE ACCESS®, LLC, is developing the SA-1,

an uncrewed RLV that uses a hybrid propulsion system

and one or two rocket-powered upper stages to deliver

a range of payloads to LEO or GTO.

The propulsion system for the system’s first

stage, the “aerospacecraft,” is based on a proprietary

modification by SPACE ACCESS® to a ramjet engine

design that was tested in early 1960s. The modification

to the engines allows the ramjets to operate at both

subsonic and supersonic speeds (ramjets normally only

operate above Mach 2).45 One of the company’s subcontractors, Kaiser Marquardt, has tested elements of

the propulsion system,46 and SPACE ACCESS® worked

with the Air Force Research Laboratory in September

1995 under a Cooperative Research and Development

Agreement to review the SA-1 aeromechanics and the

“ejector” ramjet propulsion system. As of March 1998,

SPACE ACCESS® had wind tunnel tested the ejector

ramjet engine at all of the altitudes and speeds of the

SA-1’s planned flight profile.47

The SA-1 vehicle will take off horizontally from

a conventional runway, using a mixture of air and liquid hydrogen to power its ejector ramjet engines. As the

aerospacecraft climbs and accelerates and reaches the

limits of the atmosphere, it will gradually transition

from ramjets to liquid rocket propulsion in order to

reach its final altitude of over 100 kilometers (62 miles)

and speed of Mach 9. The aerospacecraft will then

deploy an upper stage with its satellite payload and

return to land on a conventional runway. The SA-1 will

carry a single, rocket-powered upper stage for LEO

missions and two upper stages for GTO. After deploying the satellite payload, the upper stage will deorbit

and return to land horizontally on the same runway.48

The SA-1 vehicle will be able to launch payloads of over 5,200 kilograms (11,500 pounds) to

GTO. Although SPACE ACCESS® intends to pursue

deployment of commercial geosynchronous orbit

(GEO) satellites as its primary market, the SA-1 will

also have a capability of deploying well over 15,000

kilograms (33,000 pounds) to LEO. The SA-1’s significant payload capability and reliability will also

make the SA-1 well suited for conducting re-supply

missions to the ISS.49

Reusable Launch Vehicles 2002 U.S. Commercial Space Transportation Developments and Concepts

20 Federal Aviation Administration/Associate Administrator for Commercial Space Transportation

Vehicle: SA-1

Developer: SPACE ACCESS®, LLC

First launch: 2007

Number of stages: 2-3 (depending on payload requirements)

Payload performance: 15,000 kg (33,000 lbs.) to LEO,

5,200 kg (11,500 lbs.) to GTO

Possible launch sites: Texas Spaceport; Homestead Air

Reserve Base, FL; and KSC/CCAFS, FL

Markets served: Launch of LEO and GTO payloads

SA-1
In 1999, SPACE ACCESS®, LLC was the recipient of a California Space Authority grant in the amount

of $50,000 for a Reusable Launch Vehicle Structural

Concept Evaluation. Research helped determine a 

second stage orbital vehicle design. A NASA Space

Transportation Architecture Study program contract

was signed in 1998 to further refine designs of the

orbital vehicle, which would give the SA-1 the capability to provide human access to space. In cooperation

with the state of California, SPACE ACCESS® is now

conducting tests of its proprietary integral hot structure

and ramjet designs. SPACE ACCESS® currently plans

to expand its test program over the next several years to

include avionics and full-scale propulsion hardware.50

X PRIZE® Contenders

In the spirit of the early

20th-century aviation prizes,

such as the Orteig Prize that

Charles Lindbergh won for

crossing the Atlantic in 1927,

the X PRIZE® Foundation was

established in 1994 as an educational, non-profit corporation dedicated to inspiring private, entrepreneurial advancements in space travel. The X

PRIZE® is being offered to

help speed development of

space vehicle concepts that will reduce the cost of

access to space and to allow human spaceflight to

become routine.

The St. Louis-based X PRIZE® Foundation is

offering a $10 million prize to the first team that launches a vehicle capable of carrying three people to a 100-

kilometer (62-mile) sub-orbital altitude and repeating

the flight within two weeks (only one person and ballast

for two others are required to actually make the flights).

There is no deadline for winning the X PRIZE®.

The X PRIZE® competition currently has 21

entrants from five countries proposing a variety of different RLV concepts, including the already-discussed

Pioneer Rocketplane Pathfinder and Kelly Space and

Technology Astroliner (see Table 2 for a complete list).

The commercial vehicles under development for the 

X PRIZE® competition are uniquely designed for suborbital space tourism operations carrying three to six

passengers. These designs use many different takeoff,

landing, and design concepts.

During 2001, Canadian Arrow and the Ontariobased da Vinci Project both unveiled their prototype

vehicles. The year also marked a significant achievement for Pablo de Leon and Associates of Argentina.

The team successfully released a sub-scale test capsule

using balloons to an altitude of 293,000 meters (96,000

feet). Upon achieving altitude, squibs severed the balloon cables to permit a drop test of the capsule. The

small capsule contained a Global Positioning System

receiver, a transponder, and at least one camera.51

In November 2001, Steve Bennett’s Starchaser

Foundation became the fourth X PRIZE entrant to successfully test an unpiloted prototype vehicle. His group

2002 U.S. Commercial Space Transportation Developments and Concepts Reusable Launch Vehicles

Federal Aviation Administration/Associate Administrator for Commercial Space Transportation 21

X PRIZE® Trophy

Typical X PRIZE® Trajectory
Reusable Launch Vehicles 2002 U.S. Commercial Space Transportation Developments and Concepts

22 Federal Aviation Administration/Associate Administrator for Commercial Space Transportation

Vehicle Developer Description

Ascender David Ashford, Bristol 

Spaceplanes Ltd. (Bristol, 

England) 

RLV powered by two conventional jet engines and a liquidfueled rocket engine. The vehicle will take off and land 

horizontally. 

Astroliner Kelly Space and Technology 

(San Bernardino, CA) 

Horizontal takeoff and landing vehicle that is towed to an 

airborne launch site by a modified Boeing 747. 

Aurora Fundamental Technology 

Systems (Altamonte Springs, 

FL) 

Horizontal takeoff and landing double-delta-winged RLV 

powered by a single throttleable kerosene and hydrogenperoxide engine. 

Canadian Arrow Canadian Arrow (Ontario, 

Canada) 

Vertically launched two-stage vehicle with water landing of 

both booster and passenger stages. 

Cosmos Mariner Lone Star Space Access 

Corporation (Houston, TX) 

RLV powered by two air-breathing engines and one rocket 

engine. The vehicle will launch and land horizontally. 

Gauchito Pablo De Leon and Associates 

(Argentina) 

Two-stage vehicle that will launch vertically. The first stage 

booster and the second stage passenger capsule return to 

Earth using parachutes. 

Green Arrow Graham Dorrington (London, 

England) 

Cylinder-shaped rocket using liquid-fueled rocket engines. The 

vehicle will launch vertically and land vertically using 

parachutes and air bags. 

Kitten CFFC, Inc. (Oroville, WA) Methane- and LOX-powered space plane that takes off and 

lands from conventional runway. Structure is aluminum 

sandwich foam with boron nitride ceramic coating. 

Lucky Seven Mickey Badgero (Owosso, MI) Cone-shaped vehicle powered by rocket engines. The vehicle 

will launch vertically and land using a parafoil.

Mayflower (CAC-1), 

or Advent 

Advent Launch Services 

(Houston, TX) 

Cylinder-shaped glider powered by liquid-fueled rocket 

engines. The vehicle will launch vertically from water and land 

horizontally in water. 

MICHELLE-B TGV Rockets (Bethesda, MD) The vehicle will launch vertically and land vertically using 

ascent engines in a deep throttle mode.

PA-X2 Rick Fleeter, AeroAstro Inc. 

(Herndon, VA) 

Cylinder-shaped vehicle using a liquid-fueled engine. The 

vehicle will launch vertically and land horizontally using a 

steerable parafoil. 

Pathfinder Pioneer Rocketplane (Ann 

Arbor, MI) 

RLV powered by both air-breathing jet engines and 

LOX/kerosene rocket engines. The RLV will take off 

horizontally and meet a tanker aircraft for air-to-air refueling. 

Proteus Burt Rutan, Scaled 

Composites (Mojave, CA) 

Two-stage vehicle consisting of the turbo-fan powered Proteus 

aircraft and a rocket-powered second stage. 

The Space Tourist John Bloomer, Discraft 

Corporation (Portland, OR) 

Disc-shaped vehicle powered by air-breathing “blastwavepulsejets.” The vehicle will take off and land horizontally.

Thunderbird Steven M. Bennett, 

Starchaser Foundation 

(Cheshire, England) 

Cylinder-shaped rocket using air-breathing engines and liquidfueled rocket engines. The vehicle will launch and land 

vertically. 

X Van Pan Aero, Inc., Third 

Millennium Aerospace 

(Washington, DC) 

Pan Aero has publicized two designs for the X Van. The entry 

may be a TSTO system comprised of a booster stage and 

orbiter stage, or a single-stage system flying a sub-orbital 

trajectory. 

Unnamed William Good, Earth Space 

Transport System Corporation 

(Highlands Ranch, CO)

No information on this entry has been released.

Unnamed Cosmopolis XXI (Moscow, 

Russia) 

Cylinder-shaped rocket that is launched from a carrier aircraft 

“Geophisika.” The vehicle will take off vertically and land 

horizontally. 

Unnamed The da Vinci Project (Ontario, 

Canada) 

Air-launched, LOX/kerosene rocket deployed from large 

piloted hot air balloon. Recovery system features a high-drag 

reentry ballute and parachute. Air bags are used to cushion 

touchdown on landing. 

Unnamed Anonymous Unknown 

Table 2: X PRIZE® Contenders
also successfully tested a two-stage prototype vehicle

in July 2000. His team is on track for a piloted test of

the Thunderbird launch vehicle, with plans to capture

the prize by mid-2003.52

Several of the competitors have commercial plans

for their vehicles after the X PRIZE®. In addition to the

plans of Pioneer Rocketplane and Kelly Space and

Technology, Scaled Composites plans to use its Proteus

aircraft for atmospheric research, reconnaissance,

microsatellite launch, and telecommunications over

metropolitan areas.53 The Mayflower and Ascender will

be used as commercial space tourism platforms. The X

Van, Cosmos Mariner, and Aurora have been proposed

for both satellite launch and space tourism missions.

More Commercial RLV Concepts

Several other companies and entrepreneurs are

developing RLVs, primarily designed to serve suborbital markets. Table 3 lists these organizations and

their respective vehicle concepts. These efforts are not

contenders for the X PRIZE®.

2002 U.S. Commercial Space Transportation Developments and Concepts Reusable Launch Vehicles

Federal Aviation Administration/Associate Administrator for Commercial Space Transportation 23

Vehicle Developer Vehicle Type

Armadillo Armadillo Aerospace Vertically-launched sub-orbital vehicle 

Bladerunner Air Force Research Laboratory 

(AFRL) 

Horizontally-launched orbital vehicle 

Hyperion Applied Astronautics Horizontally-launched sub-orbital/orbital vehicle 

Millennium Express Third Millennium Aerospace Horizontally-launched orbital TSTO vehicle 

Neptune Interorbital Systems Sea-launched orbital vehicle 

Pogo Olson Horizontally-launched orbital vehicle 

SC-1 Space Clipper International Vertically-launched sub-orbital vehicle developed by spin-off 

from Universal Space Lines 

SC-2 Space Clipper International Vertically-launched orbital vehicle developed by spin-off from 

Universal Space Lines 

Space Cruiser Vela Technology Development Horizontally-launched sub-orbital vehicle specifically designed 

to ferry passengers 

SpaceCub Burkhead Vertically-launched sub-orbital vehicle 

Starbooster Starcraft Boosters, Inc. Vertically-launched sub-orbital vehicle 

Star-Raker Star-Raker Associates Horizontally-launched orbital vehicle 

Swiftlaunch University of California at Davis Horizontally-launched orbital vehicle 

The ET Scenario Formation Vertically-launched orbital vehicle 

XPV Canyon Space Team Horizontally-launched sub-orbital vehicle

(undisclosed) XCOR Horizontally-launched sub-orbital vehicle 

(unnamed) SpaceDev Sub-orbital54

Commercial Space 

Transportation 

Architecture 

Andrews Space and 

Technology 

Horizontally-launched orbital vehicle 

Table 3: Summary of More RLV Concepts
Reusable Launch Vehicles 2002 U.S. Commercial Space Transportation Developments and Concepts

24 Federal Aviation Administration/Associate Administrator for Commercial Space Transportation
There are a number of efforts underway to develop new

propulsion technologies for launch vehicles, including

expendable launch vehicles (ELV) and reusable launch

vehicles (RLV). These efforts include government

research projects as well as engines and motors developed by companies for their own launch vehicles and

for sale to other companies. There is a trend of development of new liquid-propellant engines that use roomtemperature propellants and either pressure-fed or

pump-fed systems. Such engines are considerably less

complex, and potentially less expensive, than engines

that use turbopumps and cryogenic propellants; this simplicity, however, may be offset by reduced performance.

Hybrid Rocket Motors - SpaceDev, Inc.

In 1998, SpaceDev, 

Inc. of Poway, California,

acquired exclusive rights to

the intellectual property of the

American Rocket Company,

which had developed hybrid

rocket motor systems in the

1980s. SpaceDev is currently

developing a series of small

hybrid motors, using hydroxyl-terminated polybutadiene rubber or polymethyl

methacrylate (Plexiglas) as solid fuel and storable

nitrous oxide as a gaseous oxidizer.55 SpaceDev completed tests of a small hybrid rocket motor in August

2001 that is designed for use in the company’s

Maneuvering and Transfer Vehicle, an upper stage that

can move small spacecraft, such as secondary payloads

on larger launch vehicles, from geosynchronous transfer orbit (GTO) to low-Earth orbit (LEO) or geosynchronous orbit (GEO). The company has also proposed

developing larger hybrid motors that could be used on

manned sub-orbital RLVs, such as X PRIZE vehicles.56

Hypersonic Engine – NASA X-43

The National Aeronautics and Space

Administration’s (NASA) X-43 program is designed to

study and improve air-breathing hypersonic engine

technologies. In an X-43

flight, the vehicle is accelerated to Mach 10 by the

first stage of an Orbital

Sciences Pegasus XL

launch vehicle and is then

separated from the booster

for independent flight at high speed. The X-43 program

involves three flights in an effort to understand intake

and combustion chamber airflow patterns. The first of

these flights, X-43A, on June 2, 2001, failed due to a

first-stage anomaly in the Pegasus XL booster stage,

but two more flights are still planned.57

Linear Aerospike Engine - Rocketdyne

Propulsion & Power

Rocketdyne

Propulsion & Power, a

division of The Boeing

Company in Canoga Park,

California, developed the

XRS-2200 linear

aerospike engine for the

X-33 program. Aerospike

engines offer significant

efficiency advantages over fixed-nozzle-geometry

engine designs. The engine provides up to a 909,305-

newton (204,420-pound-force) thrust at sea level, using

liquid hydrogen and liquid oxygen as propellants.58 One

XRS-2200 engine was tested at NASA’s Stennis Space

Center between December 1999 and May 2000, accumulating over 1,500 seconds of firing time during 14

tests. A single dual-engine test took place at Stennis in

February 2001 before the X-33 program ended. Three

additional dual-engine tests, funded by the Space

Launch Initiative (SLI), took place in July and August

2001. Those firings were made to test electromechanical

actuators, designed to regulate propellant flow in the

engine, which could be used in future engine designs.59

Liquid Engines - Interorbital Systems

Corporation

Interorbital Systems, based in Mojave, California,

is currently developing a liquid-propellant, pressure-fed

engine for use in its planned sounding rocket and RLV

(see Interorbital’s RLV concept listed in the previous

section). The engine uses hypergolic propellants, inhibited white-fuming nitric acid and furfuryl alcohol. The

current engine design produces a 3,000-newton (675-

pound-force) thrust and has a nominal burn time of 50

seconds.60 The company has completed static and flight

tests of the engine.

Interorbital is using four of its new engines in its

Research Series X-2 (RSX-2) sounding rocket. A test

bed for the company’s two-stage orbital vehicles, the

2002 U.S. Commercial Space Transportation Developments and Concepts Enabling Technologies

Federal Aviation Administration/Associate Administrator for Commercial Space Transportation 25

Enabling Technologies

Hybrid Rocket Test

X-43

XRS-2200
RSX-2 rocket can launch 2.25 kilograms (5 pounds) on

a sub-orbital trajectory to 200 kilometers (125 miles), or

11 kilograms (25 pounds) to 97 kilometers (60 miles).

The company anticipates the first launch of the RSX-2

for late 2002 from the Pacific island nation of Tonga.61

The company plans to use larger versions of the engine

in Neptune, its proposed RLV capable of launching

cargo and passenger payloads of up to 3,175 kilograms

(7,000 pounds) into LEO.

Liquid Engines - Microcosm, Inc.

Microcosm is developing liquid-propellant rocket

engines for its Scorpius series of ELVs (see the ELV

section for a description of Scorpius). The company has

built a pressure-fed, ablatively-cooled, 22,250-newton

(5,000-pound-force) engine using liquid oxygen and jet

fuel as propellants. This engine was successfully tested

on the company’s SR-XM sounding rocket in March

2001. The engine will also be used as the sustainer

engine for the Sprite Mini-Lift orbital vehicle. A larger

version, a 89,000-newton (20,000-pound-force) engine,

is under development. This engine will be used on the

booster pods of the Sprite Mini-Lift.

Liquid Engines - Rocket Propulsion

Engineering Company

Rocket Propulsion Engineering Company is

developing a series of liquid-propellant engines for

use in its sub-orbital and orbital launch vehicles. The

engines use hydrogen peroxide and kerosene as propellants, directly injecting the hydrogen peroxide into

the engine rather than using catalyst beds, as in other

engines that use hydrogen peroxide. This allows the

use of less-expensive, lower-purity sources of hydrogen peroxide that would contaminate catalyst beds.

The company has demonstrated this technology with

its M1-B test engine, which generates a 1,780-newton

(400-pound-force) thrust.

The company is currently developing two larger

engines. The R6 engine, capable of a 26,700-newton

(6,000-pound-force) thrust, will be pressure fed and

ablatively cooled. The engine will be used on the company’s SV-1 sub-orbital vehicle under development.62

The R40 engine will use a simple turbopump powered

by an open-cycle, fuel-rich gas generator to feed propellants into the engine, rather than use the pressure-fed

design of the R6. The R40 will provide up to a 178,000-

newton (40,000-pound-force) thrust. The engine will be

used on the SV-2 sub-orbital vehicle and the first stage

of its LV-1 orbital vehicle.

Liquid Engines - XCOR Aerospace

XCOR Aerospace, located in Mojave,

California, specializes in the development of engines

for use on launch vehicles and spacecraft. The company has developed and extensively tested three different liquid-propellant engines. XCOR’s largest engine,

designated XR4AE, is a 1,780-newton (400-poundforce), pressure-fed regeneratively-cooled, liquid-oxygen and alcohol engine. Two such engines have been

built and, combined, have been fired over 400 times

for over 1,800 seconds. The engines have also been

flown on EZ-Rocket, a modified Long-EZ aircraft fitted with the two engines. EZ-Rocket has completed

several successful flight tests since July 2001.63 A key

technology is XCOR’s proprietary ignition system.

XCOR has built two smaller engines. A 67-newton (15-pound-force) engine, designated XR2P1, using

nitrous oxide and ethane as propellants, was initially

built to test the design of proposed larger engines.

This engine has made more than 1,200 firings, with a

cumulative burn time of 68 minutes. XCOR’s XR3B4

regeneratively-cooled engine is capable of a 220-newton (50-pound-force) thrust using nitrous oxide and

isopropyl alcohol as propellants. This engine has completed over 700 firings with a cumulative burn time of

over 812 seconds.64 XCOR designed this engine for

use as a maneuvering thruster on spacecraft. The company has plans to develop larger engines for potential

use on sub-orbital RLVs.

Propellant Production – Andrews

Space & Technology, Inc.

Andrews Space & Technology, Inc. of Seattle,

Washington, has proposed the development of a

propulsion system that would generate liquid oxygen

propellant from the atmosphere. The “Alchemist” Air

Collection and Enrichment System (ACES) would take

high-pressure air from a turbofan jet engine and liquefy it by passing it through a heat exchanger cooled by

Enabling Technologies 2002 U.S. Commercial Space Transportation Developments and Concepts

26 Federal Aviation Administration/Associate Administrator for Commercial Space Transportation

XCOR EZ-Rocket
liquid nitrogen and/or liquid hydrogen. Liquid oxygen

would then be separated out and stored in propellant

tanks for use by a liquid hydrogen-liquid oxygen rocket engine. This would allow a horizontal takeoff launch

vehicle to leave the ground without any oxidizer,

reducing its takeoff weight. The company has proposed

ACES in conjunction with its own TSTO RLV design

as well as for use in other horizontal-takeoff launch

vehicles.65

Andrews Space & Technology carried out initial

studies of the ACES concept, in cooperation with Pratt

& Whitney, using internal funds and a NASA Small

Business Innovative Research (SBIR) contract. A

detailed feasibility and risk analysis study is in progress

under a NASA SLI contract.

RLV Technologies – NASA/The Boeing

Company X-37 and X-40A

NASA and Boeing are currently developing the

X-37 reusable aerospace vehicle under a cooperative

agreement signed in July 1999. Based on the design of

a proposed Air Force Space Maneuver Vehicle, the X37 will serve as a test bed for 40 airframe, propulsion,

and operations technologies intended to reduce the

cost of space transportation operations. X-37 flights

will permit the testing of a wide variety of experiments

and technologies, including a highly durable, hightemperature thermal protection system; storable, nontoxic liquid propellants; and new aerodynamic features.

In addition, the X-37 has a 2.1-by-1.2-meter (7-by-4-

foot) experiment bay, which will allow the testing of

additional technologies in the future.66 Initial unpowered X-37 drop tests are planned for later this year from

a NASA B-52 at Edwards AFB. 

X-40A is a concurrent test program designed to

explore the low-speed atmospheric flight dynamics of

the X-37 design. Originally developed as a prototype of

the Air Force’s proposed Space Maneuver Vehicle, the

X-40A is an 85-percent scale atmospheric precursor to

the X-37. It uses the X-37’s guidance, navigation, and

control software and simulates its aerodynamic performance. It also uses the X-37’s flight operations control

center. The X-40A has completed a flight test program

of seven successful flights at NASA’s Dryden Flight

Research Center, with the last flight completed in May

2001. During these flights, the uncrewed X-40A was

released from a CH-47 Chinook helicopter at 4,570

meters (15,000 feet), and autonomously guided itself to

the target runway and landed in a fashion similar to a

conventional aircraft.

2002 U.S. Commercial Space Transportation Developments and Concepts Enabling Technologies

Federal Aviation Administration/Associate Administrator for Commercial Space Transportation 27

X-37

X-40A
Enabling Technologies 2002 U.S. Commercial Space Transportation Developments and Concepts

28 Federal Aviation Administration/Associate Administrator for Commercial Space Transportation
Spaceports are the nation’s gateways to space. Although

their individual capabilities vary, these facilities characteristically house launch pads and runways as well

as the infrastructure, equipment, and fuels needed to

process launch vehicles and their payloads prior to

launch. The first spaceports in the United States emerged

in the 1940s and 1950s, when the federal government

began to build and operate space launch ranges and

bases to meet a variety of national needs. While U.S.

military and civil government agencies were the original and still are the primary users of these facilities,

commercial payload customers have become frequent

users of federal spaceports as well.

Federal spaceports are not the only portals to

orbit. Indeed, the commercial dimension of U.S. space

activity is evident not only in the annual numbers of

commercially-procured launches but also in the expanding list of commercial launch sites supplementing federally operated sites.67 Today, four licensed commercial

launch sites exist. These spaceports serve commercial

payload customers as well as government payload owners that have commercially procured launch services.

The recently formed National Coalition of Spaceport

States (NCSS) is working to advance the development

of additional state and commercially owned and operated

spaceports through a variety of grant and legislative

activities (see box below).

This section describes both the federal and

licensed commercial spaceports capable of supporting

launch and landing activities that currently exist in the

United States. A sub-section detailing state and private

proposals for future commercial spaceports with

launch and landing capabilities is also included. In

each subsection, the spaceports are presented in alphabetic order. The information about the spaceports was

obtained from publicly available sources and interviews with the spaceport operators and proposers and

related organizations. Table 4 shows a summary of the

types of spaceports by state. 

2002 U.S. Commercial Space Transportation Developments and Concepts Spaceports

Federal Aviation Administration/Associate Administrator for Commercial Space Transportation 29

Spaceports

National Coalition of Spaceport States68

In October 2000, the states of California and Florida convened a space summit meeting in Washington, D.C.

Representatives from all states with interests in spaceports attended the meeting and decided to form a coalition in order

to create a mechanism for influencing space policy and commercial space development, including the development of

spaceports. Fourteen states established the NCSS on February 5, 2001. The NCSS vision is for the United States to develop a strong, internationally competitive, commercial space launch industry utilizing the infrastructure of spaceports and

space operations nationwide. The members aim to accomplish this goal by improving existing infrastructure and promoting

the development of new spaceports in the Coalition states.

The goals of the NCSS for the next five years are to work with policy makers and space-related federal agencies to

shape space policy and to create a framework that permits the development of spaceports. In July 2001, the NCSS

released its views on seven key space transportation policy issues including export licensing, space access modernization, spaceport development bonds, and space flight safety.

Voting member states of the NCSS must have submitted a formal request for membership from their governors’ offices

and must have a formal plan to develop a physical spaceport with at least either a launch or landing site. States without

spaceport plans or plans not yet approved by their governments may become associate, non-voting members. The founding member states of NCSS are: Alabama, Alaska, California, Florida, Montana, Nevada, New Mexico, Oklahoma, South

Dakota, Texas, Utah, Virginia, Washington, and Wisconsin. Nebraska joined the NCSS as an associate member in the

fourth quarter of 2001.

State Commercial Federal Proposed

Alabama

Alaska

California

Florida

Montana

Nebraska

Nevada

New Mexico

Oklahoma

South Dakota

Texas

Utah

Virginia

Washington

Wisconsin

*Current as of December 2001

Table 4: Spaceport Summary by State
Federal Spaceports

Since the first licensed commercial launch in

1989, the federal ranges have continually supported

commercial launch activity. (See Table 5 for an

overview of the ranges.) The importance of commercial

launch is evident in the changes taking place at federal

launch sites. Launch pad development with commercial,

federal, and state government support is continuing at

the two major federal sites for U.S. orbital launches—

Cape Canaveral Spaceport (Cape Canaveral Air Force

Station [CCAFS] and Kennedy Space Center [KSC])

and Vandenberg Air Force Base [VAFB]—for the latest

generation of the Delta and Atlas launch vehicles (Delta

3 and Atlas 3) and the upcoming Evolved Expendable

Launch Vehicles (EELV). With the transition underway

to EELV and the phase out of some vehicle variants

imminent, the number of launch pads utilized by Delta,

Atlas, and Titan launch vehicles at both sites will eventually decrease from ten to four standardized pads.

Anticipating a continuing demand for commercial launches from federal sites and recognizing that

the ranges are aging, the U.S. government is engaged

in range modernization. This effort includes the ongoing Range Standardization and Automation program, 

a key effort to modernize and upgrade the Eastern

Range at CCAFS and portions of the Western Range

at VAFB. The Air Force, the Department of Commerce,

and the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) will

sign a memorandum of agreement in early 2002 to

establish a process for collecting commercial sector

range support and modernization requirements, communicating these requirements to the Air Force, and

considering these requirements in the existing Air

Force requirements process.

Cape Canaveral Spaceport

Cape Canaveral Spaceport, consisting of Cape

Canaveral Air Force Station (CCAFS) and the National

Aeronautics and Space Administration’s (NASA) John

F. Kennedy Space Center (KSC), is located on the

“Florida Space Coast” at Cape Canaveral and is colocated with the commercially-oriented Spaceport

Florida (see the Spaceport Florida description below).69

The Cape Canaveral area has endured several name

changes and an expanding list of tenants. In 1949, the

Banana River Naval Air Station was transferred to the

Spaceports 2002 U.S. Commercial Space Transportation Developments and Concepts

30 Federal Aviation Administration/Associate Administrator for Commercial Space Transportation

Key:

Commercially-Licensed Spaceport

U.S. Federal Spaceport

Proposed Spaceport

California Spaceport

Vandenberg AFB

Cape Canaveral Spaceport

(KSC/CCAFS)

Spaceport Florida 

Virginia Space

Flight Center

Wallops Flight

Facility

Edwards AFB

Mojave Civilian Test

Flight Center White Sands Missile Range

Southwest Regional Spaceport

Montana Spaceport

Texas Spaceport

(3 proposed sites)

Nevada Test Site Utah Spaceport Authority

·

*

Kodiak Launch Complex •

Oklahoma Spaceport

Wisconsin Spaceport

Alabama Spaceport

South Dakota Spaceport

Spaceport Washington

*

*

*

*

*

*

*

• •

•

•

•

·

·

·

·

U.S. Spaceport Locations
Air Force for use as a joint service missile range.

NASA’s Launch Operations Center was renamed for

President Kennedy in 1963. Air Force Space Command

“re-designated” Cape Canaveral Air Station as CCAFS

in February 2000. The Cape developed rapidly during

the space race of the 1950s and 1960s supporting

Mercury, Gemini, and Apollo programs as well as 

ballistic missile testing.

Today, CCAFS encompasses six active launch

pads for Delta, Atlas, Titan and Athena launch vehicles while the Space Shuttle operates from two pads at

KSC. NASA oversees launch operations for the Space

Shuttle and checkout of its payloads while the 45th

Space Wing, headquartered at nearby Patrick AFB,

conducts flight operations and provides range support

for military, civil, and commercial launches.

The 45th Space Wing’s Range Operations

Control Center provides flight safety, weather, scheduling, and instrumentation control, along with target

designation information and tracking data to/from

inter- and intra-range sensors in real or near-real time

for each missile, space launch, or space-track support.

The Eastern Range extends over the Atlantic Ocean as

far north as Canada and as far southeast as Africa.

There is currently one active launch complex (LC) 40,

for remaining Titan 4 vehicles launching from the East

Coast. In 1999, Lockheed Martin began to work on

new facilities for Atlas 5 at LC-41 including the

implosion of the launch tower used by Titan 4. The

Florida Space Authority has entered into an arrangement for ownership of LC-41 and support integration

facilities and will lease them to Lockheed Martin.

Refurbishing and construction of the launch pad,

gantry, and support facilities was completed in 2001.

Lockheed Martin also completed construction of the

launch control center and a horizontal launch facility

in 2001. The first Atlas 5 launch is scheduled to take

place from LC-41 in early May 2002. Boeing has a

similar agreement with the Florida Space Authority

for lease of the Delta 4 integration facility. LC-37 has

been inactive since the 1960s when it served as the

site for eight Saturn 1 and Saturn 1B launches. The

launch tower and launch pad at LC-37 were completed in 2001 the complex is ready for operations. The

first Delta 4 launch also is scheduled for 2002.

KSC maintains its own launch complex, LC-39.

LC-39’s pads A and B were originally built to support

the Apollo program. After the end of the lunar landing

program in 1972, they served to launch Skylab,

Apollo-Soyuz, and now the Space Shuttle. LC-39

launch and processing facilities are all located on

Merritt Island, between the Florida mainland and

Cape Canaveral. LC-39 support facilities include the

Vehicle Assembly Building, the Launch Control

Center, the Mobile Launcher Platform, the Crawler

Transporter, the Orbiter Processing Facilities, the

2002 U.S. Commercial Space Transportation Developments and Concepts Spaceports

Federal Aviation Administration/Associate Administrator for Commercial Space Transportation 31

Spaceport: CCAFS

Operating authority: U.S. Air Force

Year of first orbital launch: 1957

Total orbital launches: 551

Vehicles served: Atlas 1, Atlas 2, Atlas 3, Atlas 5, Blue

Scout, Delta 2, Delta 3, Delta 4, Juno, Jupiter, Pegasus,

Saturn, Thor-Able, Titan 2, Titan 3, Titan 4, Vanguard

Orbits served: LEO, MEO, GEO, EXT, ELI

Spaceport: KSC

Operating authority: NASA

Year of first orbital launch: 1967

Total orbital launches: 127

Vehicles served : Pegasus, Saturn, Shuttle

Orbits served: LEO, MEO, GEO, EXT, ELI
Payload Processing Facility, and the Shuttle Landing

Facility, all of which are now dedicated to the Space

Shuttle. KSC also provides five hangars for non-hazardous payload processing, the Shuttle Payload

Integration Facility, the Satellite Assembly Building,

and an explosive safe area.

In 2001, KSC began construction of a new office

building near the vertical assembly building. The building is expected to be complete by 2003. Also in 2001,

KSC broke ground for the new Space Experiments

Research and Processing Laboratory that will replace

CCAFS’s Hangar L for International Space Station

(ISS) experiment processing and constructed a road

leading into a 1.6-square-kilometer (400-acre) area that

may be developed as an international space research

park. The state of Florida provided $26 million for the

development of the Space Experiments Research and

Processing Laboratory and another $4 million for road

construction in the facility’s vicinity.

Edwards Air Force Base

Located in Mojave, California, Edwards AFB

was the original landing site for the Space Shuttle.70 The

first two Shuttle flights landed on Rogers Dry Lake, a

natural hard-pack riverbed measuring about 114

square kilometers (44 square miles). Unfortunately,

the normally dry lakebed was flooded in 1982, rendering the site unavailable for the third Shuttle landing

(the Space Shuttle landed at White Sands, New

Mexico, instead). As a result, a 4.5-kilometer (2.8-

mile) runway was built at Edwards AFB to be used for

future Shuttle landings. Today, NASA prefers to use

KSC as the primary landing site for the Space Shuttle

and uses Edwards AFB as a back-up site.

Before its cancellation, X-33 was to use Edwards

AFB as a test site. In December 1998, NASA completed

construction of a launch site at Edwards AFB. The site

consisted of an X-33-specific launch pad, a control 

center to be used for launch monitoring and mission

control, and a movable hangar, where the vehicle was to

be housed and serviced in a horizontal position. The site

was equipped with hydrogen and nitrogen gas tanks, as

well as liquid-hydrogen and oxygen tanks capable of

holding more than 291,000 gallons (1.1 million liters) 

of cryogenic materials. A water tower with a height of

76 meters (250 feet) could supply nearly 265,000 gallons (one million liters) of water to the concrete flame

trench during launch. X-33 telemetry and tracking functions would have been performed using existing Air

Force and NASA facilities at Edwards AFB and Wallops

Flight Facility, Virginia. With X-33’s cancellation, no new

X-33-specific infrastructures are planned, and the government and associated contractors are redistributing 

the components of the X-33 infrastructure for the SLI

Program.

The federal government is investing several 

million dollars into refurbishing and modernizing two

generic rocket test stands that were formerly used by

the Air Force to test a range of launch vehicles. One is

a component test stand and the other is an engine test

stand. Plans are also being developed to continue

refurbishing additional rocket stands in the future for

purposes of rocket testing.

Edwards AFB, along with co-located NASA’s

premier aeronautical flight research facility, Dryden

Flight Research Center, hosts other NASA reusable 

X-vehicle demonstration programs. In 2001, NASA

used a Pegasus XL launch vehicle to conduct a drop

test of the X-43A demonstrator. The Air Force used a

helicopter to conduct seven successful X-40A flight

tests during 2001. The Air Force will continue funding

X-37 testing at Edwards AFB through late 2002. The

X-38, a demonstrator for the ISS Crew Return Vehicle

(CRV), continues to be tested at Edwards AFB.

Vandenberg Air Force Base

In 1941, the Army activated this site in Lompoc,

California, as Camp Cook.71 In 1957, Camp Cook 

was transferred to the Air Force, and in 1958 it was

renamed Vandenberg AFB (VAFB) in honor of General

Hoyt S. Vandenberg, the Air Force’s second Chief of

Staff. VAFB is currently the headquarters of the 30th

Space Wing, which conducts space and missile launches and operates the Western Range. The Range extends

into the Pacific Ocean as far west as the island of

Spaceports 2002 U.S. Commercial Space Transportation Developments and Concepts

32 Federal Aviation Administration/Associate Administrator for Commercial Space Transportation
Kwajalein, with boundaries to the north as far as

Alaska and to the south near Central America.

VAFB infrastructure includes a 4,500-meter

(15,000-foot) runway, launch facilities, payload processing facilities, tracking radar, optical tracking and

telemetry facilities, and control centers. The 401-

square-kilometer (155-square-mile) base also houses 53

government organizations and 49 contractor companies

in 1,100 buildings. VAFB hosts a variety of federal

agencies and attracts commercial aerospace companies

and activity, including the California Spaceport effort

(see the California Spaceport description below).

VAFB partnered with Boeing to develop launch

infrastructure for the Delta 4 EELV. The Space

Launch Complex (SLC) 6 is being converted from a

Space Shuttle launch pad into an operational facility

for the Delta 4. The refurbished SLC-6 is currently

under construction and is expected to be complete by

2003. The new launch table, which arrived at VAFB in

October 2001, weighs 650,000 kilograms (1.4 million

pounds) and stands 7 meters (23 feet) high, 14 meters

(46 feet) wide, and 26 meters (85 feet) long. Other

construction at SLC-6 will include enlarging the existing mobile service tower and completing the construction of the West Coast Horizontal Integration Facility,

where the Delta 4 will be assembled.

VAFB is also upgrading its range instrumentation

and control centers to support the space launch industry.

These upgrades are scheduled to be completed by 2008.

In addition, the state of California is looking into refurbishing some launch pads that are not currently in use to

make “generic” pads available for academic research in

the future. In 2001, VAFB opened a customer support

office to provide a centralized interface for customers of

launch and base services.

Current launch vehicles using VAFB include

Atlas 2, Delta 2, Titan 2, Titan 4, Taurus, Minotaur,

and Pegasus XL. SLC-2, from which Delta 2 vehicles

are launched, is owned by NASA. Construction is

underway at SLC-6 for Delta 4. Pegasus XL vehicles

are processed at Orbital Sciences’ facility at VAFB

and then flown to various worldwide launch areas.

Two RLV developers have contacted VAFB to

inquire about launch services: Pioneer Rocketplane

and Kelly Space and Technology. Both have expressed

interest in using VAFB facilities for testing purposes

and possibly for launch activities once the testing

sequence is completed.

At this time, VAFB has partnerships with nine

private organizations in which VAFB provides launch

property and launch services and the private companies use the government facilities to do their own payload and booster processing work.

Wallops Flight Facility

The National Advisory Committee for

Aeronautics, the predecessor of NASA, established a

range at Wallops Island, Virginia in 1945.72 Since then,

over 14,000 small rocket launches have taken place

from the site, which is currently operated by NASA’s

Goddard Space Flight Center. The first orbital launch

was in 1961, when a Scout launch vehicle deployed

Explorer 9 to study atmospheric density. There have

been 29 orbital flight attempts from Wallops, including six Pegasus launches (when the carrier airplane

originated from Wallops), the most recent in 1999.

The retired Scout made its last orbital launch from

Wallops in 1985.

In April 1996 the Air Force designated Wallops

as a launch site for converted Minuteman 2 missiles

under the Orbital/Sub-orbital Program (along with

Kodiak Launch Complex and the California

Spaceport), so possible future users include the

Minotaur vehicle developed under that program.

2002 U.S. Commercial Space Transportation Developments and Concepts Spaceports

Federal Aviation Administration/Associate Administrator for Commercial Space Transportation 33

Spaceport: Vandenberg AFB

Operating authority: U.S. Air Force

Year of first orbital launch: 1959

Total orbital launches: 619

Vehicles served: Athena, Atlas 1, Atlas 2, Delta 2, Delta

4, Minotaur, Pegasus, Scout, Taurus, Thor, Thor-Able,

Titan 2, Titan 3, Titan 4

Orbits served: Polar
Although Wallops has not attempted any orbital

flights (beyond support of the air-launched Pegasus)

since the Conestoga failure in 1995, NASA is committed to maintaining the existing infrastructure that

would be used by both orbital and sub-orbital missions. Three blockhouses and payload preparation

facilities are operational. Wallops launches about ten

to 20 sub-orbital vehicles per year. The facility also

supports northerly launches from KSC or CCAFS as

well as worldwide orbital and sub-orbital launches

with transportable range instrumentation and safety

equipment. Wallops equipment was used to support

the first orbital launch from Kodiak, Alaska. The

Virginia Space Flight Center (VSFC) is co-located

with Wallops. Wallops also contains several research

facilities, a research airport, machine shops, and a

center that consolidates the control of launch range

and research airport operations. Wallops assets also

support aeronautical testing and U.S. Navy testing.

White Sands Missile Range

Situated 26 kilometers (16 miles) northeast of

Las Cruces, New Mexico, White Sands Missile Range,

which includes the NASA White Sands Flight Test

Center, covers 8,100 square kilometers (3,127 square

miles). It is operated by the U.S. Army and is used

mainly for launching sounding rockets. White Sands

also supports Ballistic Missile Defense Organization

(now the Missile Defense Agency) flight-testing and is

used as a test center for rocket engines and experimental spacecraft. Facilities at White Sands include seven

engine test stands and precision cleaning facilities

including a class-100 clean room for spacecraft parts.

White Sands is also the Space Shuttle’s tertiary

landing site (after Edwards AFB and KSC). This landing site consists of two 11-kilometer- (6.8-mile-) long,

gypsum-sand runways.

Licensed Commercial Spaceports

In order to operate a commercial launch or landing site in the United States, it is necessary to obtain a

license from the federal government through FAA/AST.

While the majority of licensed launch activity still

occurs at U.S. federal ranges, much future launch and

landing activity may originate from private or stateoperated spaceports. To date, FAA/AST has licensed

four non-federal launch sites (see Table 6). Three of

these are co-located with federal launch sites, including

the California Spaceport at VAFB, Spaceport Florida at

Cape Canaveral, and the Virginia Space Flight Center

(VSFC) at Wallops Flight Facility. The fourth licensed

non-federal spaceport is Kodiak Launch Complex in

Alaska. The first orbital launch from an FAA/ASTlicensed site occurred on January 6, 1998, when a

Lockheed Martin Athena 2 carrying NASA’s Lunar

Prospector spacecraft successfully lifted off from

Spaceport Florida.

Spaceports 2002 U.S. Commercial Space Transportation Developments and Concepts

34 Federal Aviation Administration/Associate Administrator for Commercial Space Transportation

Spaceport: Wallops Flight Facility

Operating authority: NASA

Year of first orbital launch: 1960

Total orbital launches: 29

Vehicles served: Conestoga, Pegasus, Scout

Orbits served: LEO
California Spaceport

On September 19, 1996, the California Spaceport

became the first commercial launch site licensed by

FAA/AST.73 In 2001, FAA/AST renewed the spaceport’s

license for another five years. The California Spaceport

is a commercial launch services company operated and

managed by Spaceport Systems International (SSI), L.P.,

a limited partnership between ITT Federal Service

Corporation and California Commercial Spaceport, Inc.

Co-located with VAFB on the central California coast,

SSI signed a 25-year lease in 1995 for 0.44 square kilometers (0.17 square miles) of land. Located at 34o North

latitude, the California Spaceport can support a variety

of mission profiles to low polar orbit inclinations, with

possible launch azimuths ranging from 220o to 150o.

Initial construction at California Spaceport’s

Commercial Launch Facility (CLF) began in 1995 

and was completed in 1999. The CLF design concept

is based on a “building block” approach. Power and

communications cabling is routed underground to provide a “flat pad” with the flexibility to accommodate a

variety of different launch systems. Although the CLF

currently is configured to support solid propellant

vehicles, plans are in place to equip the CLF with

commodities required by liquid fueled boosters. The

current configuration of the CLF consists of the following infrastructure: pad deck, support equipment

building, launch equipment vault, launch duct and

stand, communications equipment, and launch control

room. Final CLF configuration awaits customer

requirements. When fully developed, the CLF will 

be able to accommodate a wide variety of launch

vehicles including the Minuteman-based Minotaur, 

the Delta 3, and Castor 120-based vehicles.

Originally, the focus of the California

Spaceport’s payload processing services was on the

refurbishment of the Payload Preparation Room. This

room, located near SLC-6, is a clean room facility

designed to process three Space Shuttle payloads

simultaneously. It is now leased and operated by the

California Spaceport as the Integrated Processing

Facility (IPF). Today, payload-processing activities

occur on a regular basis. The IPF supports booster

processing and administrative activities. The IPF is

capable of handling all customer payload-processing

needs. This includes Delta 2- and Delta 4-class payloads as well as smaller payloads as required.

The spaceport receives limited financial support

from the state in the form of grants. In 2000, it received

about $180,000 to upgrade the breech load doors in the

IPF transfer tower. The modification was completed in

March 2001 and the new transfer tower is now capable

of accommodating 18-meter (60-foot) payloads. This

will enable SSI to process and encapsulate satellites 

in support of the EELV program. In May 2001, SSI

received approximately $167,000 to upgrade the satellite command and telemetry systems.

The state of California has also provided some

support for promoting California Spaceport business.

In 2001, legislation was passed to remove the “sunset”

clause on tax-exemptions for commercial satellites

and boosters launched from VAFB, including

California Spaceport.

With the CLF and the IPF, the California

Spaceport provides both payload processing and orbital

launch support services for commercial and government users. The California Spaceport provided payloadprocessing services for the NASA Lewis satellite and

has contracts to provide payload processing for two

Earth Observation System satellites. The California

Spaceport’s first orbital launch occurred when it supported the launch of JAWSAT, a joint project of the 

Air Force Academy and Weber State University, on a

Minotaur launch vehicle in July 2000. To date, the site

has launched two Minotaur launch vehicles.

2002 U.S. Commercial Space Transportation Developments and Concepts Spaceports

Federal Aviation Administration/Associate Administrator for Commercial Space Transportation 35

Spaceport: California Spaceport

Operating authority: SSI/California Spaceport

Year of original FAA license: 1996

Year of first orbital launch: 2000

Total orbital launches: 1

Vehicles served: Delta 3, Minotaur, Castor 120-based

vehicles

Orbits served: Polar
The National Reconnaissance Office has contracted with SSI to provide space vehicle processing

until 2011. This includes Delta 4-class payload processing support for multiple missions to be launched

from VAFB. NASA and commercial Delta-class payloads are also processed for launch on the Delta 2,

launched from of SLC-2W on VAFB.

Kodiak Launch Complex

In 2000, the Alaska Aerospace Development

Corporation (AADC) completed the $40 million, twoyear construction of the Kodiak Launch Complex at

Narrow Cape on Kodiak Island, Alaska.74 This launch

complex is the first new U.S. launch site since the 1960s

and is the only FAA/AST-licensed spaceport not colocated with a federal launch site. In 1991, the Alaska

state legislature created the AADC as a public company

to develop aerospace-related economic, technical, and

educational opportunities for the state of Alaska. Owned

by the state of Alaska and operated by the AADC, the

Kodiak Launch Complex has received funding from the

Air Force, Army, NASA, the state of Alaska, and private

firms. The commercial spaceport on Kodiak Island is

located on a 12.4-square-kilometer (4.8-square-mile) site

about 419 kilometers (260 miles) south of Anchorage

and 40 kilometers (25 miles) southwest of the city of

Kodiak. The launch site itself encompasses a nearly 

5-kilometer (3-mile) arch around Launch Pad 1.

Kodiak facilities currently include the Launch

Control Center; the Payload Processing Facility, which

includes a class-100,000 cleanroom, an airlock, and 

a processing bay; the Integration and Processing

Facility/Spacecraft Assemblies Transfer Facility; and

the Launch Pad and Service Structure. These facilities

are designed such that they allow the transfer of vehicles and payloads from processing to launch without

exposure to the outside environment. This protects both

the vehicles and those working on them from exterior

conditions, allowing all-weather launch operations.

There are no permanent range assets currently on site;

however, there are plans to build a range safety system

that is expected to be operational by March 2003. The

system will consist of Global Positioning System tracking, S-band telemetry, and command destruction.

The AADC is also supporting the development

of ground station facilities near Fairbanks, Alaska, in

cooperation with several commercial remote-sensing

companies. The high-latitude location makes the

Fairbanks site favorable for polar-orbiting satellites,

which typically pass above Fairbanks several times

daily. NASA’s Wallops Flight Facility currently provides mobile tracking equipment.

Located at 57° North latitude, Kodiak provides 

a wide launch azimuth and unobstructed downrange

flight path. Kodiak’s target markets are government and

commercial telecommunications, remote sensing, and

space science payloads of up to 990 kilograms (2,200

pounds). These can be delivered into LEO, polar, and

Molniya orbits. Kodiak is designed to launch Castor

120-based vehicles, including the Athena 1 and 2, and

has been used on a number of occasions to launch military sub-orbital rockets.

Kodiak has conducted a total of five launches to

date. The first launch from Kodiak was that of a suborbital vehicle, Ait-1, built by Orbital Sciences for the

Air Force in November 1998. A second Ait launch followed in September 1999. A joint NASA-Lockheed

Martin Astronautics mission on an Athena 1 became the

first orbital launch from Kodiak on September 29, 2001.

Spaceport Florida

Established by the state of Florida as the

Spaceport Florida Authority in 1989, the Florida Space

Authority (FSA), renamed as such in 2001, is empowered like an airport authority to serve the launch industry and is responsible for statewide space-related economic and academic development.75 FSA owns and

operates space transportation-related facilities on about

Spaceports 2002 U.S. Commercial Space Transportation Developments and Concepts

36 Federal Aviation Administration/Associate Administrator for Commercial Space Transportation

Spaceport: Kodiak Launch Complex

Operating authority: AADC

Year of original FAA license: 1998

Year of first orbital launch: 2001

Total orbital launches: 1

Vehicles served: Athena 1, Athena 2, Castor 120-based

vehicles

Orbits served: Polar
0.29 square kilometers (0.11 square miles) of land at

CCAFS owned by the Air Force. FAA/AST issued the

state organization a license for Spaceport Florida’s

operations on May 22, 1997.

Under an arrangement between the federal government and FSA, underutilized facilities at CCAFS

have been conveyed to FSA for improvement and use

by commercial entities on a dual-use, non-interference

basis with Air Force programs. FSA’s efforts have concentrated on CCAFS’s LC-46, an old Trident missile

launch site. LC-46 has been modified to accommodate

small commercial launch vehicles as well as the Navy’s

Trident. The philosophy guiding the development of

LC-46 was to build a public transportation infrastructure

for several competing launch systems rather than to 

tailor a facility for a single launch system. As a result,

LC-46 can currently accommodate a variety of launch

vehicle configurations with lift capacities of up to 1,771

kilometers (1,100 miles) to LEO. In the future, LC-46

could accommodate vehicles carrying payloads in

excess of 585 kilograms (1,300 pounds) to LEO.

Currently, LC-46 is configured for Castor 120 or

similar solid-motor-based vehicles. Its infrastructure

can support launch vehicles with a maximum height of

36 meters (120 feet) and diameters ranging from 1 to 3

meters (3 to 10 feet). An Athena 2 carrying NASA’s

Lunar Prospector was the first vehicle launched into

orbit from Spaceport Florida in January 1998.

FSA has also recently upgraded LC-20, made up

of former Titan 1, Titan 2, and sub-orbital pads, to service a variety of small launch vehicles for both orbital

and sub-orbital launches. LC-20 includes three launch

pads, a launch control blockhouse, and an on-site facility

for small payload preparation and storage. FSA hopes to

use these facilities to provide a rapid response capability for various types of LEO payloads. FSA plans to

refurbish the LC-20 blockhouse to offer a multi-user

launch control and data monitoring system that will

serve a variety of vehicle and payload systems. In addition, LC-20 facilities are being assigned to the custody

of the Florida National Guard for use in support of

NASA’s Advanced Technology Development Center, a

cryogenic development facility to be co-located at LC-20.

Thus far the FSA has invested over $500 million

in new space industry development. It has upgraded

LC-46 and LC-20, built a reusable launch vehicle

(RLV) support complex (adjacent to the Shuttle landing site on KSC grounds), and developed a new space

operations support complex. It has also financed the

Atlas 5 launch facilities at CCAFS, financed and constructed the Delta 4 Horizontal Integration Facility for

Boeing, and provided financing for a Titan 4 storage/

processing facility.

The FSA is in the process of obtaining a five-year

license from the Air Force to use the LC-47 facility 

to support sub-orbital sounding rocket launches and

educational initiatives.

The FSA is currently managing the development

and construction of the Space Experiments Research

and Processing Laboratory. This facility is funded by 

a $26 million appropriation from the state of Florida.

In addition, FSA is directing a $4 million grant from

the Florida Department of Transportation for road

upgrades in the vicinity of the facility.

2002 U.S. Commercial Space Transportation Developments and Concepts Spaceports

Federal Aviation Administration/Associate Administrator for Commercial Space Transportation 37

Spaceport: Spaceport Florida

Operating authority: FSA

Year of original FAA license: 1997

Year of first orbital launch: 1998

Total orbital launches: 2

Vehicles served: Athena

Orbits served: LEO, EXT
Virginia Space Flight Center

The Virginia Space Flight Center (VSFC) traces 

its beginnings to the Center for Commercial Space

Infrastructure (CCSI), created in 1992 at Virginia’s

Old Dominion University to establish commercial

space research and operations facilities in the state.76

CCSI worked with NASA’s Wallops Flight Facility 

on Wallops Island, Virginia, to develop a commercial

launch infrastructure at Wallops. In 1995, CCSI became

the Virginia Commercial Space Flight Authority

(VCSFA), a public organization focused on developing

a commercial launch capability in Virginia.

On December 19, 1997, FAA/AST issued VCSFA

a commercial launch site operator’s license for the VSFC.

The VSFC is designed to provide “one-stop shopping”

for space launch facilities and services for commercial,

government and scientific and academic users. In 1997,

VCSFA signed with NASA a Reimbursement Space Act

Agreement to use the Wallops center’s facilities in support of commercial launches. This 30-year agreement

allows VCSFA access to NASA’s payload integration,

launch operations, and monitoring facilities on a noninterference, cost-reimbursement basis. Both NASA and

VSFCpersonnel work together to provide launch services,

providing little, if any, distinction in the areas of responsibility for each.

The VCSFA has a partnership agreement with

DynSpace Corporation, a subsidiary of DynCorp, of

Reston, Virginia, to operate the spaceport. Funded by a

contract with the state and through spaceport revenues,

DynSpace operates the VSFC for the VCSFA. The

state maintains ownership of the spaceport’s assets.

The federal government owns 90 percent of the spaceport’s land and makes it available under a long-term

use agreement. The VCSFA receives $700,000 a year

in direct support from the state government as well as

resources from several state agencies.

VCSFA owns two launch pads at Wallops. Launch

pad (LP) 0-B, its first launch pad, was designed as a

“universal launch pad,” capable of supporting a variety

of small- and medium-sized expendable launch vehicles

(ELV) with gross liftoff weights of up to 225,000 kilograms

(496,000 pounds) that can place up to 4,500 kilograms

(9,900 pounds) into LEO. Phase 1 construction of LP

0-B, including a 1,750-square-meter (18,830-square-foot)

pad made of reinforced concrete, above-ground flame

deflector, and launch mount, took place between March

and December 1998. In subsequent phases, a 60-meter

(200-foot) service tower and 68,000-kilogram (150,000-

pound) bridge crane will be added. The site also includes

a complete command, control, and communications

interface with the launch range. No launches have yet

been conducted from LP 0-B.

In March 2000, VSFC acquired a second pad at

Wallops, LP 0-A. EER Systems of Seabrook, Maryland,

built this site in 1994 for its Conestoga launch vehicle.

The Conestoga made one launch from LP 0-A in

October 1995 but failed to place the METEOR microgravity payload in orbit. VSFC started refurbishing LP

0-A and its 25-meter (82-foot) service tower in June

2000, a project it expects to complete in April 2002.

LP 0-A will support launches of small ELVs with gross

liftoff weights of up to 90,000 kilograms (198,000

pounds), capable of placing up to 1,350 kilograms

(3,000 pounds) into LEO.

From its location on Virginia’s southeastern

Atlantic coast, VSFC can accommodate a wide range

of orbital inclinations and launch azimuths. Optimal

orbital inclinations accessible from the site are between

38 and 60 degrees; other inclinations, including sunsynchronous orbits (SSO), can be reached through 

in-flight maneuvers. LP 0-A can support a number of

small solid-propellant boosters, including the Athena 1,

Minotaur, and Taurus. LP 0-B can support larger vehicles, including the Athena 2. VSFC also has an interest

in supporting future RLVs, possibly using its launch

pads or three runways at Wallops Flight Facility.

Spaceports 2002 U.S. Commercial Space Transportation Developments and Concepts

38 Federal Aviation Administration/Associate Administrator for Commercial Space Transportation

Spaceport: Virgnia Space Flight Center

Operating authority: VCSFA

Year of original FAA license: 1997

Year of first orbital launch: N/A

Total orbital launches: 0

Vehicles served: Athena1, Athena 2, Minotaur, Taurus

Orbits served: LEO
VSFC also provides an extensive array of services including the provision of supplies and consumables

to support launch operations, facility scheduling, maintenance, and inspection to ensure ground processing

and launch operations, and coordination with NASA on

behalf of its customers. VSFC is in the process of constructing a $4 million logistics and processing facility,

capable of handling payloads up to 5,700 kilograms

(12,600 pounds). The facility, which includes high bay

and clean room environments, is scheduled for completion in October 2003.

Proposed Commercial Spaceports

Several states are planning to develop spaceports offering a range of launch and landing services. 

Two common characteristics of many of the proposed

spaceports are their inland geography-a contrast to the

coastal location of all present-day U.S. spaceportsas well as their interest in hosting RLV operations.

Descriptions of specific efforts to establish spaceports

are presented below and summarized in Table 7. All

states from which these proposals have emerged are

full members of the NCSS.

Alabama Spaceport

The Alabama Spaceport plans to create a fullservice launch facility with departure and return capability for government and commercial customers.77 It is

targeting 3rd generation RLVs for launches to LEO,

medium-Earth orbits (MEO), and geosynchronous

(GEO) orbits and expects to become operational in ten

years. The Alabama Commission on Aerospace and the

governor’s office are working to develop the Alabama

Aerospace Development Authority and are in the

process of creating a spaceport development plan. The

Alabama Commission on Aerospace has proposed

Baldwin County, across the bay from the city of

Mobile, as the site for a future spaceport. The state of

Alabama would like to lease part of the land for the

flight safety zone and would purchase part of the land

for construction of the launch and landing site. The proposed site currently consists of open field space with

basic power, water, and utilities. Future launch infrastructure development will depend on customer needs.

Gulf Coast Regional Spaceport

The Gulf Coast Regional Spaceport is one of three

independent Texas spaceport proposals being supported

by the Texas Aerospace Commission.78 The Gulf Coast

Regional Spaceport Development Corporation has proposed constructing a spaceport in Brazoria County,

Texas, 80 kilometers (50 miles) south of Houston, which

would begin operations in ten to 15 years. The spaceport

would be used primarily for medium- and heavy-lift

commercial RLVs to LEO, MEO, and GEO. The

Corporation has identified a potential site—undeveloped

land currently used for agriculture—and is working with

the private owner of the land to acquire the property.

The Corporation is currently working on an official

development plan for the spaceport that will determine

what infrastructure is necessary. Local governments

have invested nearly $300,000 in the project over the

last three years, primarily for site selection work.

Mojave Civilian Flight Test Center

The East Kern County, California, government 

established the Mojave Airport in 1935 in Mojave,

California.79 The original facility was equipped with

taxiways and basic support infrastructure for general

aviation. A few years later, the airport was taken over

by the federal government and converted into a Marine

Corps auxiliary air station. In 1961, East Kern County

re-acquired the airport and turned the facility into the

Civilian Flight Test Center.

East Kern Airport owns and operates the facility

and the local government is in the process of creating

a development plan for the 13.4 square kilometers (5.1

square miles) on which the Civilian Flight Test Center

is located. The spaceport would conduct payload processing, payload integration, testing, and launch services for horizontal launches of RLVs.

The Civilian Flight Test Center consists of four

rocket test sites, three runways, an air control tower, a

rotor test stand, engineering facilities, and a high bay

building. Plans to build another taxiway are being developed. East Kern County is working on the preliminary

planning stage for the taxiway, and funding is expected

to become available in October 2002. Construction of

the new taxiway is scheduled for completion in 2003.

2002 U.S. Commercial Space Transportation Developments and Concepts Spaceports

Federal Aviation Administration/Associate Administrator for Commercial Space Transportation 39
In the last two years, XCOR Aerospace has been

performing flight tests at this facility and recently had

multiple successful tests with the EZ-Rocket. Between

1998 and 2000, Rotary Rocket Company used a small

portion of the Mojave site for manufacturing and testing. During those years, Rotary built its Rotor Test

Stand and a complex that included an engineering

“workshop and campus” and a high bay. The infrastructure that was constructed by Rotary still exists, although

the company is in the process of selling its facilities.

Montana Spaceport

The state of Montana established the Montana

Space Development Authority under the state’s

Department of Commerce to coordinate and lead

Montana’s commercial space efforts.80 Montana’s

space strategy involves creating the organizational 

and educational infrastructure necessary to support

state space activities and to ultimately construct a

licensable commercial spaceport.

The state of Montana has $20 million in aerospace bonding (state general obligation bonds) available to finance activities directly related to aerospace

research and development or the development of

spaceport infrastructure. Commercial proposals for

incentive financing will be evaluated in terms of the

number of jobs created and tax revenues generated by

the project. Companies will not have to repay the state

for any bonding covered by increased tax revenues.

Montana had proposed to launch RLVs from 

two sites: one site is at Malmstrom AFB in Great Falls,

Montana and the other is a former military base in

Glasgow, Montana. In 2000, the spaceport worked with

officials from both Lockheed Martin’s VentureStarTM

program and Rotary Rocket to bring commercial space

launch to the state. The Montana Space Development

Authority had begun consultations with FAA/AST to

apply for a commercial spaceport license for the Great

Falls site; however, since the VentureStarTM program

has been cancelled, the licensing process has been put

on hold. The future of the spaceport is uncertain, and

the state of Montana is not actively pursuing development of the spaceport at this time.

Nevada Test Site

The Nevada Test Site, located 100 kilometers

(62 miles) northwest of Las Vegas, is a remote, highly

secure facility covered by restricted airspace.81 Kistler

Aerospace Corporation selected it as a spaceport for

the K-1 RLV in addition to their Woomera, Australia,

facility in order to increase scheduling flexibility and

to widen the range of launch azimuths available to

customers. Although it does not have any launch

infrastructure, the Nevada Test Site has existing basic

infrastructure such as a paved runway, water, roads,

and power that can be used to support launch and

landing activities.

The Nevada Test Site Development Corporation

obtained an economic development use permit in 1997

from the U.S. Department of Energy. Shortly thereafter, the Corporation issued a sub-permit allowing

Kistler to operate a launch and recovery operation at

the Nevada Test Site.

Oklahoma Spaceport

The state of Oklahoma is interested in developing

a broader space industrial base and a spaceport.82 In 2000,

the Oklahoma state legislature passed an economic

incentive law offering tax credits, tax exemptions, and

accelerated depreciation rates for commercial spaceportrelated activities. A year earlier, the legislature passed a

law creating the Oklahoma Space Industry Development

Authority (OSIDA). OSIDA, consisting of five full-time

employees and directed by seven governor-appointed

board members, promotes the development of spaceport

facilities, space exploration, space education, and spacerelated industries in Oklahoma. The state of Oklahoma

provides operating costs for the OSIDA.

The former Clinton-Sherman AFB at Burns Flat

is one of the designated sites for a future spaceport in

Oklahoma. Existing infrastructure includes a 4,100-meter

(13,500-foot) runway, a large hangar space, utilities, a

rail spur, and 12.4 square kilometers (4.8 square miles)

of open land. There are plans to build a rocket engine

manufacturing plant and training facilities. The OSIDA

expects to break ground in June 2002 to begin construction of these facilities.

The city of Clinton currently owns the spaceport

and will convey ownership to the OSIDA in the near

future. As an inland site, the Oklahoma Spaceport will

be limited to launch and support services for RLVs

and may become operational in late 2006 or early

2007. The OSIDA has signed a memorandum of

understanding with Pioneer Rocketplane for Pioneer’s

use of the Burns Flat site along with six other vehicle

companies. In September 2001, the OSIDA also

signed a memorandum of understanding with

FAA/AST to define each of their roles in the development and licensing of the commercial spaceport.

Spaceports 2002 U.S. Commercial Space Transportation Developments and Concepts

40 Federal Aviation Administration/Associate Administrator for Commercial Space Transportation
South Dakota Spaceport

The state of South Dakota has identified a site 

in the western part of the state, near Ellsworth AFB,

where it could construct a spaceport.83 While South

Dakota may own a portion of the proposed spaceport

site, the spaceport’s operating entity has not been

determined. Most of South Dakota’s planning to date

has come in response to NASA and private expressions of interest in a South Dakota spaceport. All

planning to date has involved a mix of local and state

officials and members of the National Guard. No

infrastructure exists, and the size of the site and any

future infrastructure will depend on government or

commercial needs.

Southwest Regional Spaceport

The state of New Mexico proposes to construct

and operate the Southwest Regional Spaceport for use

by private companies and government organizations

conducting space activities and operations.84 The proposed site of the spaceport is a 70-square-kilometer

(27-square-mile) parcel of open land in the south central part of the state. The spaceport proposal is to support all classes of RLVs serving equatorial, polar, and

ISS orbits, providing support for payload integration,

launch, and landing. The facility will be able to

accommodate vertical launches and horizontal landings and include two launch complexes, a landing

strip, an aviation complex, a payload assembly complex, support facilities, and a cryogenic plant.

The Southwest Regional Spaceport is supported

by the state through the New Mexico Office of Space

Commercialization, part of the New Mexico

Economic Development Department. In 2001, the

state legislature approved $1.5 million in funds for fiscal years 2002 through 2004 for spaceport development, including environmental studies and land acquisition. However, this funding is contingent on the state

receiving a written commitment from a private company or government organization to host an RLV program. The state has provided several other incentives

for the spaceport, including tax deductions, bonds, and

investment and job training credits.

Spaceport Washington

Spaceport Washington, a public/private partnership, has identified Grant County International Airport

in central Washington, 280 kilometers (174 miles) east

of Seattle, as the site of a future spaceport.85 The airport, formerly Larson AFB and now owned and operated by the Port of Moses Lake, is used primarily as a

testing and training facility. Spaceport Washington

proposes to use Grant County International Airport for

horizontal and vertical takeoffs and horizontal landings of all classes of RLVs. The airport has a 4,100-

meter (13,452-foot) main runway and a 3,200-meter

(10,500-foot) crosswind runway, and is certified as an

emergency-landing site for the Space Shuttle. No

additional infrastructure has been planned for the site.

Spaceport Washington has received $350,000 and staff

support from the State of Washington.

Utah Spaceport Authority

In 2001, the state of Utah passed the Utah

Spaceport Authority Act, creating a Utah Spaceport

Authority with the power to develop and regulate

spaceport facilities in the state.86 The Act also created

a seven-member advisory board appointed by the governor to advise the Authority on spaceport issues.

Since the Act was signed into law, the advisory board

has been created but no other actions have been taken.

The Wah Wah Valley Interlocal Cooperation

Entity proposes to construct and operate a commercial

launch site utilizing approximately 280 square kilometers (108 square miles) of Utah state trust lands located 50 kilometers (31 miles) southwest of Milford,

Utah. The proposed spaceport’s mission is to provide

a cost-effective launch and recovery facility for RLVs.

There is no existing or planned infrastructure at

this time. However, the proposed spaceport would

include construction of a new 4,575-meter-long

(15,000-foot-long) space vehicle recovery and aircraft

runway at an elevation of 1,525 meters (5,000 feet)

above sea level and two space-vehicle launch facilities

located 2,300 meters (7,550 feet) above sea level.

Additionally, assembly, testing, processing, and office

facilities would be constructed.

2002 U.S. Commercial Space Transportation Developments and Concepts Spaceports

Federal Aviation Administration/Associate Administrator for Commercial Space Transportation 41
The state of Utah appropriated $300,000 to conduct a spaceport feasibility study and appointed a

Spaceport Advisory Board to research the economic

development opportunities of the X-33 and other

RLVs. The study was put on hold after the cancellation of the X-33 and VentureStarTM programs. No

additional action is being taken at this time.

West Texas Spaceport

The West Texas Spaceport is one of the three

Texas spaceport proposals being supported by the

Texas Aerospace Commission.87 The Pecos County/

West Texas Spaceport Development Corporation,

established in mid-2001, has proposed the development of a spaceport 16 kilometers (10 miles) south of

Fort Stockton, Texas. The spaceport would serve vertical-takeoff and -landing RLVs, with a particular

emphasis on Kistler Aerospace Corporation’s K-1, as

well as sub-orbital sounding rockets. The spaceport

would include a launch site with a 4,570-meter

(15,000-foot) safety radius, an adjacent recovery zone

4,570 meters (15,000 feet) in diameter, and payload

integration and launch control facilities. The spaceport

would be able to support launches into GEO, SSO,

and ISS orbit.

Willacy County Spaceport

The Willacy County Spaceport is one of the

three Texas spaceport proposals being supported by the

Texas Aerospace Commission.88 In December 2001,

the Willacy County Commissioners Court established

the Willacy County Development Corporation for

Spaceport Facilities. The Corporation is investigating

the feasibility of developing a spaceport on a 40-

square-kilometer (15.4-square-mile) parcel of unused

land on the Gulf coast, 150 kilometers (93 miles) south

of Corpus Christi. The spaceport would be designed

primarily to support commercial RLVs, although some

expendable orbital and sub-orbital rockets could also

use the facility. The Willacy County project replaces an

earlier proposal for a spaceport in neighboring Kenedy

County, 65 kilometers (40 miles) to the north, which

met opposition from county residents.

Wisconsin Spaceport

On August 29, 2000, the Wisconsin Department

of Transportation officially approved the creation of

the Wisconsin Spaceport located on Lake Michigan in

Sheboygan, Wisconsin.89 The goal of the spaceport is

to support space research and education through suborbital launches for student projects. The city of

Sheboygan owns the spaceport; “Rockets for

Schools,” a program run by Space Explorers, Inc., and

developed by the Aerospace States Association runs

the student program. The spaceport began operating

approximately four years ago. While sub-orbital

sounding rocket launches to altitudes of up to 55 kilometers (34 miles) have been conducted to date, future

plans include adding the capability of orbital launches

of RLVs. The existing infrastructure includes a vertical pad for sub-orbital launches in addition to portable

launch facilities, such as mission control, which are

put up and taken down as needed. Plans for developing launch infrastructure are uncertain at this time.

Spaceports 2002 U.S. Commercial Space Transportation Developments and Concepts

42 Federal Aviation Administration/Associate Administrator for Commercial Space Transportation
2002 U.S. Commercial Space Transportation Developments and Concepts Spaceports

Federal Aviation Administration/Associate Administrator for Commercial Space Transportation 43

Licensed Commercial Spaceports

Spaceport Location Owner/Operator Launch Infrastructure at Site Current Development Status

California 

Spaceport

Lompoc, 

California

Spaceport Systems 

International, L.P.

Existing launch pads, runways, 

payload processing facilities, 

telemetry and tracking 

equipment.

Currently in place are the 

concrete flame ducts, 

communication, electrical, and 

water infrastructure.

Kodiak Launch 

Complex

Kodiak Island, 

Alaska

Alaska Aerospace 

Development 

Corporation

Launch control center, payload 

processing facility, and 

integration and processing 

facility. Limited range support 

infrastructure (uses mobile 

equipment). 

Construction for the launch 

control center, the payload 

processing facility and the 

integration and processing facility 

were completed in 2000.

Spaceport 

Florida

Cocoa Beach, 

Florida

Florida Space 

Authority (FSA)

Two launch complexes 

including pads and a control 

center, a small payload 

preparation facility and an RLV 

support facility.

FSA has invested over $200 million 

to upgrade LC 46 and LC 20, build 

an RLV support complex adjacent 

to the Shuttle landing facilities, and 

develop a new space operation 

support complex.

Virginia Space 

Flight Center

Wallops Island, 

Virginia

Virginia Commercial 

Space Flight 

Authority

Launch pad and service tower, 

payload processing facility, 

downrange tracking facility.

Pad 0-B was completed in 

December 1998. VSFC obtained a

commercial license from the FAA 

in 1997.

Federal Spaceports 

Spaceport Location Owner/Operator Launch Infrastructure at Site Current Development Status 

Cape Canaveral 

Spaceport 

(CCAFS/KSC) 

Cocoa Beach, 

Florida 

U.S. Air Force, 

NASA, 

Florida Space 

Authority 

Telemetry and tracking facilities, 

jet and shuttle capable runways, 

launch pads, hangar, vertical 

processing facilities and 

assembly building. 

Development of RLV spaceport 

and processing facilities is in 

progress. 

Edwards AFB Mojave, 

California 

U.S. Air Force Telemetry and tracking facilities, 

jet and shuttle capable runways, 

X-33 launch pad, operations 

control center, movable hangar, 

fuel tanks, water tower. 

Site is operational. 

Vandenberg 

AFB 

Lompoc, 

California 

U.S. Air Force Launch pads, vehicle assembly 

and processing buildings, 

payload processing facilities, 

telemetry and tracking facilities, 

control center, engineering office 

space, shuttle-capable runway. 

VAFB has started negotiations 

with several commercial 

companies. Existing infrastructure 

is operational. Upgrades may or 

may not be required depending 

on vehicle requirements. 

Wallops Flight 

Facility 

Wallops Island, 

Virginia 

NASA Launch pads, blockhouses and 

processing facilities. 

Wallops Flight Facility has not 

supported any orbital flights since 

the failure of Conestoga in 1995. 

NASA is committed to maintain 

the existing infrastructure. 

White Sands 

Missile Range 

White Sands, 

New Mexico 

U.S. Army Telemetry and tracking facilities, 

runway. Engine and propulsion 

testing facilities. 

NASA Flight test center is 

operational. RLV-specific upgrades 

will probably be required. 

Table 6: Licensed Commercial Spaceports: Infrastructure and Status

Table 5: Federal Spaceports: Infrastructure and Status
Spaceports 2002 U.S. Commercial Space Transportation Developments and Concepts

44 Federal Aviation Administration/Associate Administrator for Commercial Space Transportation

Proposed Commercial Spaceports 

Spaceport Location Owner/Operator Launch Infrastructure at Site Current Development Status 

Alabama 

Spaceport 

Baldwin 

County, 

Alabama 

Alabama 

Commission on 

Aerospace 

No launch infrastructure at this 

time. Basic utilities infrastructure 

available. 

Plans for developing launch 

infrastructure are uncertain at this 

time 

Mojave Civilian 

Flight Test 

Center 

Mojave, 

California 

Mojave Airport 

Authority 

Air control tower, runway, rotor 

test stand, engineering facilities, 

high bay building. 

The infrastructure in place is part of 

a $5.5 million project. 

Montana 

Spaceport 

Great Falls, 

Montana 

Montana Space 

Development 

Authority 

No infrastructure at this time. Montana Spaceport is primarily seeking 

RLV business. The Montana Space 

Development Authority is in the process 

of obtaining a commercial spaceport 

license for the Great Falls site. 

Nevada Test 

Site 

Nye County, 

Nevada 

Department of 

Energy/Nevada Test 

Site Development 

Corporation 

(NTSDC) 

No launch infrastructure at this 

time. Power and basic facilities 

available. 

NTSDC has issued a sub-permit 

allowing Kistler to operate a launch 

and recovery operation. NTSDC is 

actively promoting the site as a 

spaceport for both RLVs and 

conventional launchers. 

Oklahoma 

Spaceport 

Washita 

County, 

Oklahoma 

Oklahoma Space 

Industry 

Development 

Authority (OSIDA) 

4,130-meter (13,552-foot) main 

runway and 1,000-meter (3,280-

foot) overrun. Power and basic 

facilities available. Air control tower, 

high bay hangers (B-52 size). 

OSIDA designated the old ClintonSherman AFB at Burns Flat as the 

future spaceport. No state money has 

been allocated for development yet. 

South Dakota 

Spaceport 

Near Ellsworth 

AFB, South 

Dakota 

To be determined No infrastructure at this time. All planning to date has involved a 

mix of local and state officials and 

members of the National Guard 

Southwest 

Regional 

Spaceport 

White Sands, 

New Mexico 

New Mexico Office of 

Space 

Commercialization 

No infrastructure at this time. Plans for this site include a 

Spaceport central control facility, an 

airfield, a maintenance and 

integration facility, a launch and 

recovery complex, a flight operation 

control center, and a cryogenic plant.

Spaceport 

Washington 

Grant County 

International 

Airport, 

Washington 

Port of Moses Lake 4,100-meter (13,452-foot) main 

runway and a 3,200-meter 

(10,500-foot) crosswind runway. 

The site is certified as an emergencylanding site for the Space Shuttle. No 

additional infrastructure has been 

planned for the site. 

Texas 

Spaceport 

To be 

determined 

State of Texas 

Spaceport Authority 

No infrastructure at this time. The final Texas Spaceport site(s) has 

not been selected yet. Three sites 

are being considered at this time.

Utah Spaceport Wah Wah 

Valley, Utah 

Utah Spaceport 

Authority 

No infrastructure at this time. Plans for the proposed Utah 

Spaceport include a central 

administrative control facility, an 

airfield, a maintenance and 

integration facility for both payloads 

and craft, launch pads, a flight 

operation control center, and a 

propellant storage facility. 

Wisconsin 

Spaceport 

Sheboygan, 

Wisconsin 

Owner: City of 

Sheboygan; 

Operator: Rockets 

for Schools 

A vertical pad for sub-orbital 

launches in addition to portable 

launch facilities, such as mission 

control. 

Plans for developing additional 

launch infrastructure are uncertain 

at this time. 

Table 7: Proposed Commercial Spaceports: Infrastructure and Status
i 1998 LEO Commercial Market Projections, FAA Associate

Administrator for Commercial Space Transportation (AST),

May 1998

ii 2001 Commercial Space Transportation Forecasts, FAA

Associate Administrator for Commercial Space Transportation

(AST), May 2001

3 Foust, Jeff, “NASA Kills X-33 and X-34,” Spaceflight Now

(March 1, 2001)

4 Although used in a multinational venture, Sea Launch’s Zenit

3SL is included here because of a U.S. company’s (Boeing)

strong involvement in the venture and also because FAA/AST

licenses Sea Launch launch operations.

5 Lockheed Martin Space Systems. “Athena – Facts”

(http://www.ast.lmco.com/launch_athenaFacts.shtml), accessed

23 January 2002.

6 Lockheed Martin Space Systems. “Atlas – Facts”

(http://www.ast.lmco.com/launch_atlasFacts.shtml), accessed 

23 January 2002.

7 The Boeing Company. “Delta II Medium Launch Vehicle”

(http://www.boeing.com/defense-space/space/delta/

delta2/delta2.htm), accessed 23 January 2002.

8 The Boeing Company. “Delta III Launch Vehicle”

(http://www.boeing.com/defense-space/space/delta/delta3/

delta3.htm), accessed 23 January 2002.

9 U.S. Air Force “Fact Sheet: The OSP Space Launch Vehicle

(‘Minotaur’)” (http://www.losangeles.af.mil/SMC/PA/

Fact_Sheets/minotaur_fs.htm), accessed 23 January 2002.

10 Orbital Sciences Corporation. “Pegasus”

(http://www.orbital.com/LaunchVehicles/Pegasus/pegasus.

htm), accessed 23 January 2002.

11 Orbital Sciences Corporation. “Taurus”

(http://www.orbital.com/LaunchVehicles/Taurus/taurus.htm),

accessed 23 January 2002.

12 Spaceflight Now. “Investigators find problem that doomed

Taurus launch.” (http://spaceflightnow.com/taurus/

t6/011107update.html), accessed 23 January 2002.

13 Lockheed Martin Space Systems. “Titan II – Facts”

(http://www.ast.lmco.com/launch_titanIIfacts.shtml), accessed

23 January 2002.

14 Lockheed Martin Space Systems. “Titan IV – Facts”

(http://www.ast.lmco.com/launch_titanIVfacts.shtml), accessed

23 January 2002.

15 Sea Launch. “Sea Launch Launch Vehicle” (http://www.sealaunch.com/special/sea-launch/launch_vehicle.htm), accessed

23 January 2002.

16 Air Force Space Command. “Fact Sheet: Evolved Expendable

Launch Vehicle”

(http://www.spacecom.af.mil/hqafspc/library/facts/eelv_fs.html),

accessed 23 January 2002.

17 Lockheed Martin Space Systems. “Atlas – Facts”

(http://www.ast.lmco.com/launch_atlasFacts.shtml), accessed 

23 January 2002.

18 The Boeing Company. “Delta IV Launch Vehicle”

(http://www.boeing.com/defense-space/space/delta/

delta4/delta4.htm), accessed 23 January 2002.

19 Boeing Phantom Works. “AirLaunch System”

(http://www.boeing.com/phantom/als.html), accessed 

23 January 2002.

20 Interview with Jim Rooney, AirLaunch program manager, 

8 January 2002.

21 E’Prime Aerospace. “EPAC Eagle S-Series”

(http://www.eprimeaerospace.com/eagle.htm), accessed 

23 January 2002.

22 Rocket Propulsion Engineering Company. “LV-1”

(http://www.rocketprop.com/lv-1.htm), accessed 23 January

2002.

23 Interview with James Grote, Rocket Propulsion Engineering

Company, 9 January 2002.

24 Berry, James V., Robert E. Conger, and Jack Kulpa.

“Affordable Launcher for Small Spacecraft Missions.”

(http://www.smad.com/scorpius/alssm.pdf), accessed 

23 January 2002.

25 Microcosm, Inc. “Successful Launch of SR-XM”

(http://www.smad.com/scorpius/press6.html), accessed 

23 January 2002.

26 Interview with Jacob Lopata, President, Space Launch

Corporation, 10 January 2002.

27 NASA Integrated Space Transportation Plan website

(http://std.msfc.nasa.gov/istp/aboutistp.html), accessed 

7 January 2002.

28 NASA Integrated Space Transportation Plan website

(http://std.msfc.nasa.gov/istp/aboutistp.html), accessed 

7 January 2002.

29 NASA News Release 01-180, “NASA Launches Next

Generation Space Transportation Effort,” May 17, 2001.

30 NASA Integrated Space Transportation Plan website

(http://std.msfc.nasa.gov/istp/aboutistp.html), accessed 

7 January 2002.

31 NASA Integrated Space Transportation Plan website

(http://std.msfc.nasa.gov/istp/aboutistp.html), accessed 

7 January 2002.

32 NASA Press Release 01-373, “NASA Awards More than 

$94 Million to Advance Next Generation Space Transportation

Effort,” December 17, 2001.

33 NASA Press Release 01-373, “NASA Awards More than 

$94 Million to Advance Next Generation Space Transportation

Effort,” December 17, 2001.

34 NASA Press Release J01-97, “New Johnson Space Center

Office to Develop Technologies for the Next Generation of

Human Spaceflight,” October 25, 2001.

35 NASA Integrated Space Transportation Plan website

(http://std.msfc.nasa.gov/istp/aboutistp.html), accessed 

7 January 2002.

36 Final Report of the Cost Analysis Support Team on

International Space Station (ISS) Program Costs to the ISS

Management and Cost Evaluation Task Force, October 31,

2001, page 53.

37 Interview with Roger Krueger and Michael Kelly, Kelly

Space and Technology, 9 January 2002.

38 SLI news website (http://www.slinews.com/partnerscommercial-05-01.html), accessed 7 January 2002.

2002 U.S. Commercial Space Transportation Developments and Concepts Endnotes

Federal Aviation Administration/Associate Administrator for Commercial Space Transportation 45

Endnotes
39 Interview with Debra Lepore, Kistler Aerospace Corporation,

January 8, 2002.

40 Pioneer Rocketplane, Operations Concept (http://www.rocket

plane.com/OpsConcept.html).

41 Interview with Chuck Lauer, Pioneer Rocketplane, 

8 January 2002.

42 Interview with Chuck Lauer, Pioneer Rocketplane, 

8 January 2002.

43 Interview with Chuck Lauer, Pioneer Rocketplane, 

8 January 2002.

44 Interview with Mitchell Clapp, CEO, Pioneer Rocketplane,

January 4, 2001.

45 “Space Access’ Launch System Based on Airbreathing Ejector

Ramjet,” Aviation Week and Space Technology, 

30 March 1998, pp. 75-77.

46 “Rocket Planes,” Popular Science, February 1999, pp. 44-45.

47 “Space Access’ Launch System Based on Airbreathing Ejector

Ramjet,” Aviation Week and Space Technology, 

30 March 1998, pp. 75-77.

48 “Space Access’ Launch System Based on Airbreathing Ejector

Ramjet,” Aviation Week and Space Technology, 

30 March 1998, pp. 75-77.

49 Interview with Stephen Wurst, SPACE ACCESS®, LLC, 

3 January 2001.

50 Interview with Stephen Wurst, SPACE ACCESS®, LLC, 

3 January 2001.

51 Interview with Greg Maryniak, X PRIZE, 9 January 2002.

52 X PRIZE Press Release

(http://biz.yahoo.com/prnews/011204/dctufns1_1.html),

accessed 7 January 2002.

53 Interview with Peter Siebold, Scaled Composites, 

8 January 2002.

54 Benson, Jim, SpaceDev, email sent 10 January 2002.

55 SpaceDev. “Launch Vehicles by SpaceDev”

(http://www.spacedev.com/products/launchvehicles.html),

accessed 23 January 2002.

56 Interview with Jim Benson, President, SpaceDev, 

10 January 2002.

57 Dryden Flight Research Center

(http://www.dfrc.nasa.gov/Projects/hyperx/x43.html), accessed

23 January 2002.

58 The Boeing Company. “Rocketdyne XRS-2200 Linear

Aerospike Engine” (http://www.boeing.com/defensespace/space/propul/XRS2200.html), accessed 23 January 2002

59 NASA Marshall Space Flight Center press release

(http://www1.msfc.nasa.gov/NEWSROOM/news/releases/

2001/01-264.html), accessed 23 January 2002.

60 Interorbital Systems. “Sounding Rockets” (http://www.interorbital.com/Sounding_Rockets.htm), accessed 23 January 2002.

61 Interview with Randa Milliron, CEO, Interorbital Systems, 

8 January 2002.

62 Rocket Propulsion Engineering Company. “SV-1 and 

SV-2” (http://www.rocketprop.com/sv-1_and_sv-2.htm),

accessed 23 January 2002.

63 XCOR Aerospace. “The EZ-Rocket”

(http://www.xcor.com/ez.html), accessed 23 January 2002.

64 XCOR Aerospace. “Engine Projects”

(http://www.xcor.com/engines.html), accessed 23 January 2002.

65 Andrews Space & Technology. “ACES Alchemist”

(http://www.andrews-space.com/en/corporate/Alchemist.html),

accessed 23 January 2002.

66 Boeing Phantom Works. “X-37 Reusable Spaceplane/X-40A

Space ManeuverVehicle.” (http://www.boeing.com/phantom/

x37.html), accessed 23 January 2002.

67 “Commercial” is a blanket reference to both state and private

initiatives and is applied here to all non-federal spaceport initiatives. The operations of both state and private spaceports are subject to FAA/AST regulations and licensing.

68 Interview with National Coalition of Spaceport States, 

21 December 2001.

69 Interview with Air Force Joint Planning and Customer Service

Office, 18 December 2001; Interview with NASA Kennedy

Space Center, 18 December 2001.

70 Interview with California Space and Technology Alliance, 

12 December 2001.

71 Interview with the Customer Support Office, 30th Space

Wing, 13 December 2001.

72 Interview with Virginia Space Flight Center (VSFC), 

11 December 2001.

73 Interview with Spaceport Systems International, 

14 December 2001.

74 Interview with Alaska Aerospace Development Corporation,

10 December 2001.

75 Interview with Florida Space Authority, 19 December 2001.

76 Interview with Virginia Space Flight Center (VSFC), 

11 December 2001.

77 Interview with Aerospace Development Center, 

21 December 2001.

78 Interview with Brazoria County Partnership (representing

Brazoria County, Texas), 14 December 2001.

79 Interview with the Finance Office of the East Kern Airport

District, 14 December 2001.

80 Interview with Montana Department of Commerce, 

7 December 2001; Interview with High Plains Development and

Port Authority, Inc., 7 December 2001.

81 Interview with Space Technology Group, 10 December 2001.

82 Interview with Oklahoma Space Industry Development

Authority (OSIDA), 7 December 2001.

83 Interview with South Dakota Governor’s Office, 

6 December 2001.

84 Interview with New Mexico Office for Space

Commercialization, 2 January 2002.

85 Interview with Washington Office of Trade and Economic

Development, 12 December 2001.

86 Interview with Utah National Business Development, 

10 December 2001.

87 Interview with Texas Aerospace Commission (representing

West Texas Spaceport), 10 December 2001.

88 Interview with Shiner Moseley and Associates (representing

Willacy County, Texas), 14 December 2001.

89 Interview with Space Explorers, Inc. (representing

Wisconsin), 6 December 2001.

Endnotes 2002 U.S. Commercial Space Transportation Developments and Concepts

46 Federal Aviation Administration/Associate Administrator for Commercial Space Transportation