Spaceport Colorado

[jongoff]

Here's an article from Leonard David on the proposed spaceport east of Denver, Colorado (note: he quoted me a few times in the article): http://www.space.com/15829-colorado-spaceport-private-spaceflight.html

"Colorado is a nice place to live, and has plenty of advantages, but they’re only going to get customers out here if they can get things worked out with the FAA in a way that allows those customers the freedom to operate," Goff said.

Does anyone have any thoughts?

~Jon

[Lee Jay]

As a fellow resident of Colorado, I'm all for it, of course.  I've been to Front Range many times.

[jongoff]

As a fellow resident of Colorado, I'm all for it, of course.  I've been to Front Range many times.

I finally made it out there a few weeks back while waiting for my wife's plane to arrive at DIA. It actually feels more remote than Mojave in some ways. But it's right under DIA's Class B airspace. The regulatory issues will be interesting, but probably solvable. Finding a way to get the FAA to integrate at least reusable launch vehicles into the National Airspace would be a big step forward.

I just wish they hadn't drunk the "horizontal launch is so much safer" koolaid. Colorado would be a great place for VTVL operations too, but I'm doubting they'll try to address that at Spaceport Colorado due to preconceived (and IMO innacurate) notions.

~Jon

[Danderman]

Here's an article from Leonard David on the proposed spaceport east of Denver, Colorado (note: he quoted me a few times in the article): http://www.space.com/15829-colorado-spaceport-private-spaceflight.html

"Colorado is a nice place to live, and has plenty of advantages, but they’re only going to get customers out here if they can get things worked out with the FAA in a way that allows those customers the freedom to operate," Goff said.

Does anyone have any thoughts?

~Jon

Yeah, how come its not west of Denver?

[starsilk]

sounds like an air traffic nightmare.. with DIA, Buckley AFB, Centennial all within < 10 miles. (DIA and Buckley AFB are < 5 miles.. and the air force LOVES to tear around in their jets with no/little notice).

still. I could watch rocket launches from my back yard (about 6 miles.. maybe binoculars). might not be all bad..

[jongoff]

Here's an article from Leonard David on the proposed spaceport east of Denver, Colorado (note: he quoted me a few times in the article): http://www.space.com/15829-colorado-spaceport-private-spaceflight.html

"Colorado is a nice place to live, and has plenty of advantages, but they’re only going to get customers out here if they can get things worked out with the FAA in a way that allows those customers the freedom to operate," Goff said.

Does anyone have any thoughts?

~Jon

Yeah, how come its not west of Denver?

There are these things called the Rocky Mountains?

~Jon

[jongoff]

sounds like an air traffic nightmare.. with DIA, Buckley AFB, Centennial all within < 10 miles. (DIA and Buckley AFB are < 5 miles.. and the air force LOVES to tear around in their jets with no/little notice).

still. I could watch rocket launches from my back yard (about 6 miles.. maybe binoculars). might not be all bad...

Yeah, the airspace issues are the big ones, but from what I've heard the FAA actually does want to figure out how to integrate RLVs into the NAS, and have just been looking for the right guinea pig to work with.  I know that if XCOR or VG was launching out of Front Range, I'd find excuses to make it out that way on a regular basis.  Unfortunately we're far enough NW of there that I wouldn't likely see much from my place, unless it was a night launch.

~Jon

[starsilk]

sounds like an air traffic nightmare.. with DIA, Buckley AFB, Centennial all within < 10 miles. (DIA and Buckley AFB are < 5 miles.. and the air force LOVES to tear around in their jets with no/little notice).

still. I could watch rocket launches from my back yard (about 6 miles.. maybe binoculars). might not be all bad...

Yeah, the airspace issues are the big ones, but from what I've heard the FAA actually does want to figure out how to integrate RLVs into the NAS, and have just been looking for the right guinea pig to work with.

I'd bet the proximity to the AFB is more of a problem than the commercial airports. vertical launches have a striking similarity to ground-to-air missiles.

I know that if XCOR or VG was launching out of Front Range, I'd find excuses to make it out that way on a regular basis.  Unfortunately we're far enough NW of there that I wouldn't likely see much from my place, unless it was a night launch.

Buckley AFB is pretty much on a direct line between my house and the Front Range airport - it's about a mile. close enough to get a lot of noise when the air force decides to play at 2AM with afterburners for takeoff (all the way to supersonic occasionally..), actually close enough to see the tail of Air Force One when it sits on the runway (like now). I figure at 6 miles I'd get a pretty good view of a vertical launch from Front Range...

[Danderman]

Here's an article from Leonard David on the proposed spaceport east of Denver, Colorado (note: he quoted me a few times in the article): http://www.space.com/15829-colorado-spaceport-private-spaceflight.html

"Colorado is a nice place to live, and has plenty of advantages, but they’re only going to get customers out here if they can get things worked out with the FAA in a way that allows those customers the freedom to operate," Goff said.

Does anyone have any thoughts?

~Jon

Yeah, how come its not west of Denver?

There are these things called the Rocky Mountains?

~Jon

You say that like launching from altitude is a bug, not a feature.  I believe that the state of Colorado and the Federal government have developed something called "roads" which provide some sort of access to areas of higher elevation in the Rocky Mountains.

[Lars_J]

What exactly would be launching from these "spaceports"? It really seems like a "build it and they will come" hopeful plan.

New Mexico at least has Virgin Galactic as a future customer.

[simonbp]

Speaking as someone at 7,000 ft, there are advantages and disadvantages. For air-breathing vehicles, take-off might be difficult. Even from Denver, WK2 might need quite a take-off roll. For something like Lynx, Denver is probably fine, but finding a long enough runway further west might be challenging.

For a vertical vehicle, though, a nice high site (say, 8,000-10,000 ft) and close to an interstate (70, presumably) would be good. That said, any site near a major airport is best for tourism...

[Lee Jay]

sounds like an air traffic nightmare.. with DIA, Buckley AFB, Centennial all within < 10 miles. (DIA and Buckley AFB are < 5 miles.. and the air force LOVES to tear around in their jets with no/little notice).

I doubt it.

One time I was sitting on the taxiway at DIA listening to ATC and there was discussion about some F-16s taking off from Buckley and going vertical.  They noted this to everyone and proceeded to give clearance anyway.  As the plane I was on reached about 1000AGL, I could see the F-16s take off out of my window.  I saw them pull up and just slightly out-climb the airliner I was aboard (they disappeared into the deep blue about 20 seconds after liftoff from my perspective).

The point is, this sort of thing happens all the time at Buckley.  I've also been to the EIA fly in (RMRFI) at Front Range which, obviously, has a good bit of high-flying and high-climb-rate traffic and DIA dealt with that no problem.  Same with the same thing at Jeffco/Rocky Mountain.  So routing aircraft around a very occasional fast-vertically-accelerating vehicle probably isn't a big deal, and more likely, placing the spaceport in between normal routes and approaches should make that quite easy.

[Lee Jay]

Speaking as someone at 7,000 ft, there are advantages and disadvantages. For air-breathing vehicles, take-off might be difficult. Even from Denver, WK2 might need quite a take-off roll.

The international runway at DIA is 16,000 feet long.

[jimvela]

Does anyone have any thoughts?

Rocky Mountain is only a couple of miles from home for me, and one of my work campus locations is practically across the street from the runway.

I'm super happy about that.

I have no idea how it could actually work from a practical standpoint-

+  Too close to DIA and the other regional airports and AFB.
+  How do you get permission to launch anything from a land locked location like CO- you're inevitably going to fly over populated areas.
+  Just 10 miles straight west and for a thousand plus miles north and south are the rocky mountains- a bad place to abort over, and a worse place to drop flaming debris.
+  The neighbors over in Rock Creek/Superior are already NIMBYs, imagine how much complaining they'll be doing over ROCKETS (DAMNED, NOISY, DANGEROUS ROCKETS) overflying their precious new condos and houses.  THINK OF THE DEFENSELESS CHILDREN AND SUBARU DRIVERS!!

[edit- jimbo is wrong about the location. Duh. See later post]

[jimvela]

Speaking as someone at 7,000 ft, there are advantages and disadvantages. For air-breathing vehicles, take-off might be difficult. Even from Denver, WK2 might need quite a take-off roll.

The international runway at DIA is 16,000 feet long.

DIA is not Front Range.  Different airport entirely.

[starsilk]

Does anyone have any thoughts?

Rocky Mountain is only a couple of miles from home for me, and one of my work campus locations is practically across the street from the runway.

I'm super happy about that.

I have no idea how it could actually work from a practical standpoint-

+  Too close to DIA and the other regional airports and AFB.
+  How do you get permission to launch anything from a land locked location like CO- you're inevitably going to fly over populated areas.
+  Just 10 miles straight west and for a thousand plus miles north and south are the rocky mountains- a bad place to abort over, and a worse place to drop flaming debris.
+  The neighbors over in Rock Creek/Superior are already NIMBYs, imagine how much complaining they'll be doing over ROCKETS (DAMNED, NOISY, DANGEROUS ROCKETS) overflying their precious new condos and houses.  THINK OF THE DEFENSELESS CHILDREN AND SUBARU DRIVERS!!

fire hazard (from crashes, obviously) is an interesting one in this area.

[Lee Jay]

Speaking as someone at 7,000 ft, there are advantages and disadvantages. For air-breathing vehicles, take-off might be difficult. Even from Denver, WK2 might need quite a take-off roll.

The international runway at DIA is 16,000 feet long.

DIA is not Front Range.  Different airport entirely.

Yes, of course, I know that.  But there's no real reason something like WK2 couldn't takeoff from DIA.  Rockets probably couldn't, but I don't see why a more-or-less ordinary horizontal take off airplane couldn't, even if it did have a rocket attached.

[Lee Jay]

Rocky Mountain is only a couple of miles from home for me,...

Me too!

[jimvela]

Yeah, how come its not west of Denver?

There are these things called the Rocky Mountains?
~Jon

Uh, Front range IS west of DIA (and Denver).  NW, technically.

[edit- jimbo is wrong about the location. Duh. See later post]

[Lee Jay]

Yeah, how come its not west of Denver?

There are these things called the Rocky Mountains?
~Jon

Uh, Front range IS west of DIA (and Denver).  NW, technically.

Other way around.

[jimvela]

Yeah, how come its not west of Denver?

There are these things called the Rocky Mountains?
~Jon

Uh, Front range IS west of DIA (and Denver).  NW, technically.

Other way around.

You're showing DIA.  Note the directions go left (WEST) and up (North).

Front range IS NW of DIA.

[Lee Jay]

Yeah, how come its not west of Denver?

There are these things called the Rocky Mountains?
~Jon

Uh, Front range IS west of DIA (and Denver).  NW, technically.

Other way around.

You're showing DIA.  Note the directions go left (WEST) and up (North).

Front range IS NW of DIA.

No, Front Range is on my map (lower right).

[jimvela]

You're showing DIA.  Note the directions go left (WEST) and up (North).

Front range IS NW of DIA.

No, Front Range is on my map (lower right).

Then you have the wrong airport.

Front range is in Broomfield.  Formerly Jeffco (Jefferson County Airport).

US 36 and Wadsworth.

[edit- jimbo is wrong about the location. Duh. See later post]

[Lee Jay]

No, Front Range is on my map (lower right).

Then you have the wrong airport.

Front range is in Broomfield.  Formerly Jeffco (Jefferson County Airport).

US 36 and Wadsworth.

No, Jeffco is now Rocky Mountain Metropolitan.  Front Range is in Watkins.  Been there many times.  I've even stood out on the taxiway and tarmac.

[jimvela]

No, Jeffco is now Rocky Mountain Metropolitan.  Front Range is in Watkins.  Been there many times.  I've even stood out on the taxiway and tarmac.

RTFA.

I stand corrected.  Duh.

I had been thinking all this time that the proposal was for Rocky Mountain.

Front Range is a better fit- further away from the foothills, farther from population.

[Lee Jay]

Front Range is a better fit- further away from the foothills, farther from population.

And just about everything North, East and South is just a big bunch of nothing for hundreds of miles.  And if something were to splash in Limon, well, seems like every year a tornado does anyway.   

[jongoff]

Front Range is a better fit- further away from the foothills, farther from population.

And just about everything North, East and South is just a big bunch of nothing for hundreds of miles.  And if something were to splash in Limon, well, seems like every year a tornado does anyway.   

Yeah, I'm pretty sure you could do an orbital launch out of there that wouldn't pass over a populated area for hundreds of miles. You won't be launching expendables that drop stages, but for reusables might just make sense.

Now that I've gotten a copy of STK loaned to us, I may start trying to do some what ifs on trajectories out of there (assuming I find any spare bandwidth for fun in the next three months).

~Jon

[zaitcev]

I don't expect anything without drastic changes in the composition of the airport management. Locals saw a few of these intiatives before:

Call me when it happens. Let's see, what other revenue ideas have involved the area at or near FTG? Oh yeah, there was the NASCAR track, moving the National Western Stockyards, ATG's test center, a maintenance facility for Frontier,....

The answer is always "this time it's going to be different".

[Downix]

I don't expect anything without drastic changes in the composition of the airport management. Locals saw a few of these intiatives before:

Call me when it happens. Let's see, what other revenue ideas have involved the area at or near FTG? Oh yeah, there was the NASCAR track, moving the National Western Stockyards, ATG's test center, a maintenance facility for Frontier,....

The answer is always "this time it's going to be different".

THe NASCAR track does not even begin ground breaking until 2013, so how would this be the same for a project not yet begun?

[go4mars]

How much payload gain would an equivalent vertical takeoff rocket get by launching from 14000 feet versus 7000? 

(There are 55 mountain peaks in Colorado about 14000 feet)

[Lee Jay]

How much payload gain would an equivalent vertical takeoff rocket get by launching from 14000 feet versus 7000? 

Almost none.  And you aren't going to put a launch site on top of a fourteener anyway.

[jnc]

How much payload gain would an equivalent vertical takeoff rocket get by launching from 14000 feet versus 7000? 

Almost none.

Just curious, anyone have a number there? I mean, I know most of the energy needed to get to orbit is for kinetic, not potential,but still, it takes some fuel to get the rocket up to 14K, and some of that mass would turn into extra payload (some would be needed for the fuel to get the extra payload to orbit, it's not a 100% payback)... I've wondered about this every time I see one of those designs (e.g. very early shuttle concepts, IIRC) where the first stage is basically an airplane - and now that I think about it, Orbital did in fact use that approach for a while.

Noel

[baldusi]

Just curious, anyone have a number there? I mean, I know most of the energy needed to get to orbit is for kinetic, not potential,but still, it takes some fuel to get the rocket up to 14K, and some of that mass would turn into extra payload (some would be needed for the fuel to get the extra payload to orbit, it's not a 100% payback)... I've wondered about this every time I see one of those designs (e.g. very early shuttle concepts, IIRC) where the first stage is basically an airplane - and now that I think about it, Orbital did in fact use that approach for a while.

Almost all of the energy is horizontal, not vertical. What could benefit somehow from going higher, would be vacuum optimized nozzles. But the problems are such, that all the launch centers are low. Main consideration for a launch center is: logistics, attainable orbital inclinations, overflight risk and drop zones. Think of which high mountain top that is easy to access and has good logistics isn't surrounded by population centers. And remember that you have to take into consideration a line of may be 6000km.

[Lee Jay]

How much payload gain would an equivalent vertical takeoff rocket get by launching from 14000 feet versus 7000? 

Almost none.

Just curious, anyone have a number there?

0.06%, according to the CEPE spreadsheet.

[jnc]

the problems are such, that all the launch centers are low. Main consideration for a launch center is: logistics, attainable orbital inclinations, overflight risk and drop zones.

Actually, I was more interested in the 'height' aspect than the 'mountain' aspect (hence the mention of "first stage is basically an airplane").

Intesting point about the nozzle; so a 'launch' at say 40K feet (achievable with an air-breather) might actually do some good. (Now,whether that would be enough good to outweigh all the other factors involved in an air-launch....)

0.06%, according to the CEPE spreadsheet.

Thanks. Wow, that is a pretty small difference!

Noel