Having the taxpayers pay for this "spaceport" strikes me as being wrong. Of course, I'm also against paying for stadiums for private sports franchises...
To be consistent, you should then also be against any money going to NASA or to build airports or bridges. In any event, the companies that use the facilities pay a rental fee. It's not very different from an airport.
Quote from: yg1968 on 07/03/2011 05:25 amTo be consistent, you should then also be against any money going to NASA or to build airports or bridges. In any event, the companies that use the facilities pay a rental fee. It's not very different from an airport. I thought about that, but this seems more like subsidizing an amusement park for the ultra-wealthy.
Fair enough, I'll concede on this one. (It just rubs me the wrong way when necessary infrastructure projects, like upgrading our neglected transportation system for example, keep getting attacked as wasteful when nobody seems to have a problem with things like this.)
In the popular view - that is if you asked people to say where is America's Space Port, it would be KSC, if only because the Shuttle is launched from there.
$125,000 to the Virginia Commercial Space Flight Authority’s Mid-Atlantic Regional Spaceport to improve security and remote monitoring; $125,000 to the East Kern Airport District’s Mojave Air and Space Port in California for a Supplemental Environmental Assessment; and $249,378 to the New Mexico Space Port Authority’s Spaceport America to construct a mobile structure to prepare larger rockets before launch.
BTW, what ever happened to the rocket launching facilities on an Texas coastal island where the one and only Conestoga rocket was launched?