In the United States there are twelve commercial spaceports, two exclusive-use launch sites1, and five “Federal” spaceports2. Of these nineteen spaceports, seven have never hosted a launch3. There are also a number of existing and planned international launch sites in places like the U.K., Sweden, and Portugal. With the exception of Rocket Lab’s New Zealand launch site (which only Rocket Lab may use) these non-U.S. sites have not hosted a launch in years.
Most U.S. licensed commercial spaceports have never hosted a launch.
The majority of U.S. commercial launch activity occurs at the Federal Ranges, particularly Cape Canaveral Space Force Station (CCSFS) and Kennedy Space Center (KSC) in Florida. There is increasing attention to Kodiak Spaceport in Alaska.
There are several reasons why commercial launch operators prefer CCSFS, KSC, and Kodiak:
They’re on the coast. Inland facilities, even a few miles inland, are simply not workable for a vertical launch vehicle. That is, a rocket is unlikely to meet the FAA regulatory risk criteria if launching from an inland site. And a very large rocket - like the SpaceX Starship - won’t meet risk criteria for repeated launches even from a coastal site. That’s why SpaceX is building offshore launch platforms: to support high cadence launch once the vehicle is proven at Boca Chica.
Proven track record. The people at these facilities know how to launch.
Easier regulatory compliance. A commercial operator does not have to comply with certain FAA regulations if they agree to fly out of a Federal facility. For example: ground safety regulations, and certain flight safety analysis regulations (because the Federal range does it for the company).
A vertically-launched rocket is unlikely to meet FAA regulatory criteria if launching from an inland site.
What about the international sites? The process to obtain permission to operate a U.S. launch vehicle from a non-U.S. site can take years, even under the best of circumstances. This is because launch vehicles are treated as weapon systems for the purposes of export control, which makes gaining permission from the U.S. government to “export” them very, very difficult. The Curious Cosmonaut may outline the full process in another post soon. Suffice to say that it appears most U.S. launch companies would rather operate out of a handful of congested U.S. sites rather than brave the international approval process.
What does this mean for current inland spaceport operators and future spaceports?
Be on the coast.
Hope for more horizontal launch providers like Virgin Orbit and Virgin Galactic. Virgin Orbit has successfully launched several times from Mojave, which is very far inland, and Virgin Galactic is making a go of it from Spaceport America, also very far inland.
Diversify. Midland Spaceport and Ellington Spaceport in TX are doing a brisk business hosting “launch-adjacent” tenants without having actually hosted a launch. They’re more like space business parks than actual launch sites.
A future post will discuss if this is even a problem. Is the commercial launch industry’s demand satisfied by operating out of CCSFS, KSC, and Kodiak? Does the U.S. and the world even need more launch sites? The answer may surprise you. Stay tuned.
Blue Origin’s West Texas New Shepard launch site, and SpaceX’s Boca Chica launch site.
Cape Canaveral Space Force Station in FL, Vandenberg Space Force Base in CA, Reagan Test Site in Kwajalein Atoll, NASA’s Wallops Flight Facility in VA, and, of course, NASA’s Kennedy Space Center in FL.
Shuttle Landing Facility, Oklahoma Spaceport, Jacksonville Spaceport (Cecil Field), Midland TX Spaceport, Houston TX Ellington Spaceport, Colorado Air & Spaceport, Titusville FL Spaceport.