CAPE CANAVERAL SPACEPORT LAND USE PLANNING EFFORTS

B. Renee’ Ponik, NASA, Cape Canaveral Spaceport Business Office Kennedy Space Center, FL 32899 USA

ABSTRACT

Completed in July 2002, the U.S. Air Force, NASA, Department of the Navy, State of Florida, Port Canaveral, Department of Interior (U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service and National Park Service) worked together to establish a first of it’s kind, 75-year Master Plan for the Cape Canaveral Spaceport in Florida, accomplishing their respective diverse missions through a unified vision. Together, these agencies developed a master plan to position 157,000 acres as a singular, integrated national asset and premier, world gateway to space. This paper explores the ongoing joint planning within the local National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA), the Air Force (AF), and Florida Space Authority (FSA) for current land use development. The specific planning process for the Spaceport will be outlined. In addition, general market assessments and planning recommendations for the Spaceport will be highlighted. Finally, continuing development activities will be discussed, including collaboration and cooperation opportunities, as well as infrastructure reinvestment options.

INTRODUCTION The Air Force has had a presence at Cape

Canaveral Air Station (the Cape) longer than NASA, but the two have worked together since NASA’s inception in several key areas, such as range control and monitoring. While cooperating, both federal entities have had different objectives and goals for the programs they hosted at the Cape. Until recently, a unified space alliance of the two agencies was not a concept even considered. However, with a growing interest in commercialization of space, reduced operating budgets for both federal entities, and the state of Florida’s interest in economic growth through technology development, space industry planning has emerged as a leading topic in the aerospace field.

The Cape is still one of the premiere launch sites in the world. However, customer surveys reveal a reluctance to do business with either federal entity, largely based on the bureaucratic process imposed on them. This paper can not begin to address all the issues associated with that process; however, land use planning has begun on both sides of the river and with consideration of the interest of the federal, state and local governments, as well as industry and academia. This paper will take a look at the historical and current land use, as the two federal entities move toward a common shared landmass, and commercial customers attain a sense of “certainty” for the future of the Cape Canaveral Spaceport.

HISTORICAL LAND USE NASA had operated on the Atlantic

Missile Range (Cape Canaveral) under the management of the Air Force prior to the Apollo Program. In 1961 NASA bought land north and west of the Cape Canaveral Missile Test Annex. It was at this point that master planning for the two pieces of land divided12. While some functions remained common, each federal entity created separate base operations to support the various programs each sponsored. As a result, both properties hosted launch facilities, support facilities, industrial areas, airfields, etc. The Air Force (AF) retained the “fuel farms” and added a deep-water port, while NASA created a barge docking and railroad facility. In other words, each created as much autonomy as possible.

As the shuttle program matured and the “cold war” subsided, military and civil launches saw a decreased demand. The new federal administration was pushing for less government involvement in day-to-day operations, military bases were being closed, and visible government programs were being questioned, resulting in operating budgets that affected both sides of the Banana River being downsized. Meanwhile, private industry was showing a growing interest in the economic potential from launching commercial satellites into space. Initial efforts began with the 1958 Space Act3. More recent legislation (1994) was enacted, mandating the commercialization of the space industry4 (Commercial Space Launch Activities Legislation).

Then in the middle 1990’s, Air Force and NASA joined together once more, for mutual benefit. The concept of a joint base operations

Space 200323 - 25 September 2003, Long Beach, California

AIAA 2003-6397

This material is declared a work of the U.S. Government and is not subject to copyright protection in the United States.

contractor was conceived. In October 1998, a Joint Base Operations Service Contractor (JBOSC) was awarded operational work on both sides of the river. A joint management office was formed with both Air Force and NASA representation to oversee the contract.

Concurrently, the State of Florida recognized the potential economic strength of the space industry and formed the Florida Space Authority (FSA) in 19895. Their offices are now located at the Southgate area of the Cape, for visibility and interface opportunities with private, local and federal entities. In 1999, the State of Florida recognized the Cape Canaveral Spaceport as a space transportation node6, enabling funding from transportation sources to meet the growing demands for infrastructure development of the real estate.

NASA began a strategic move toward research and development under the leadership of Dan Goldin7 in 1996. Kennedy Space Center’s previous Center Director, Mr. Roy Bridges, followed this initiative with a center-wide “road map” for meeting the strategic initiatives laid out by the agency8. The establishment of KSC as a center of excellence for launch and payload processing systems, followed by clear goals and guiding principles eventually led to the understanding of the center’s Core Business, “To provide space systems processes, test, and launch techniques and develop associated technologies”. Mr. Bridges realigned government personnel in 2000, to correspond with the center’s move toward a Spaceport Technology Center9.

Beginning with the Air Force’s 45th Space Wing Commander Brigadier General Randall Starbuck, and continuing with Brigadier General Donald P. Pettit and ongoing with Brigadier General Greg Pavlovich, NASA (Mr. Bridges) and AF created a strong alliance for the good of the Spaceport, the federal government, and the commercial space lift industry. Both acknowledge this alliance must also include strong working relationships with the community, state, industry and academia10. This alliance resulted in a two-year comprehensive planning process, resulting in the first of its kind Cape Canaveral Spaceport Master Plan.11

MASTER PLANNING PROCESS Based on the strategic direction of the

federal agencies and the opportunities for commercialization, AF, NASA, and the new joint base operations contractor, Space Gateway Support (SGS) saw great potential for joint master

planning. An Integrated Product Team (IPT) was established with members from each federal entity, SGS, other base contractors, FSA, and most recently the Naval Ordnance Test Unit (NOTU). The intent was to utilize widely recognized planning and development procedures, creating “certainty” for future development customers.

The working group established basic goals and objectives. As follow-on to these activities, NASA with cooperation and funding from FSA and AF hired an Architecture and Engineering (A&E) firm to perform specific task concerning a long-term plan for the Spaceport. The firm selected was ZHA, Inc. of Orlando, FL, who had extensive international experience in commercial airport market demand driven planning.

The four basic planning activities included: (1) visioning, (2) inventory and forecasting, (3) alternatives development and analysis, and (4) implementation planning. The Leadership developed a vision statement that “points the way to the future and provides clear direction and purpose for those who are eager to continue the adventure of space”12 Additionally, the planning criteria supported the Spaceport’s long-term vision.

For the first time, a comprehensive map of the existing land uses within the Spaceport’s entire property was created using GIS technology. Land use categories range from spaceport management to wildlife refuge to seaport to launch.

Besides traditional inventory tasking, the inventory included the review of primary land uses in the communities adjacent to the Spaceport to support consistency in planning and to promote balance with the growth management plans of the Spaceport’s neighbors.

Because the master planning process responds to a variety of internal (i.e. vision, existing land use) and external (i.e. public policy, market demand, competition) factors, the plan

2 American Institute of Aeronautics and Astronautics

needed to respond to markets and reflect business opportunities and constraints. Thus, markets that drive demand, such as launch and tourism, were evaluated. Recognizing that competition exists, the plan incorporates a business model to take advantage of future market growth spurred by new technology and reduced costs.

Factors such as the environment, safety, security, transportation, tourism, technology, and processing were evaluated and incorporated into the final plan. Three planning horizons were developed based on an existing conditions of 21 launches/year, $4,000/lb costs, average market penetration: (1) 30 launches/year, $4,000/lb costs, aggressive market penetration; (2) 44 launches/year, $1,000/lb costs, aggressive market penetration; (3) 251 launches/year, $100/lb costs, aggressive market penetration.

Note that a calendar year is not associated with the planning horizons. The unique and appropriate market based approach to land use planning allows

this plan to be market responsive and not constrained by time.

Amazingly, based on good stewardship and sound redevelopment planning techniques, the Spaceport can potentially realize a launch rate of 251+ launches/year yet only impact 3.3% of the conserved land. The total launch and recovery facilities will grow over these horizons from 9 to 16, with vertical requirements subdivided by payload weight class. The plan assumes there will be an incremental shifting from vertical to horizontal launches as technology advances.

The final land use map lays out use of the entire property for increased launch and landing processes (including commercial), expanded public outreach opportunities, and increased research and development and academic activities. An expanded map follows.

The remainder of this paper will explore these land use areas and the activity that is occurring as more and more customers and programs approach the spaceport for opportunities to utilize the unique real estate called the Cape Canaveral Spaceport.

AREA DEVELOPMENT

The Kennedy Space Center is located on the Merritt Island Wildlife Refuge. In addition, the Canaveral National Seashore occupies the northern portion of the coastline of the center. While this arrangement may seem to create inherent conflict, the working relationship has provided benefits to all parties. The Spaceport receives added security and a “built-in” safety buffer from populated areas with our ever-present wildlife, most notably the

3 American Institute of Aeronautics and Astronautics

3000 plus alligators. The wildlife enjoys open and relatively undisturbed land on which they’re protected, and thus can thrive. It is this balance of

technology and environment that guides the development of the resources at the Spaceport. Therefore, redevelopment is always preferred over

4 American Institute of Aeronautics and Astronautics

new development in undisturbed pristine areas. The Fish and Wildlife Department are currently developing their own master plan for the property based on the collaborative plan.

NASA continues to focus on Return to Flight activities at the Spaceport. There are currently no funded plans to develop a second horizontal runway or launch system, but the following graphics illustrate one of the concepts NASA is exploring. In addition, several entities, including a commercial one, have expressed interest in developing a multiple user crosswind runway for vehicle launch and landing.

The Spaceport is currently studying emerging launch vehicle programs to better understand the use and reuse of existing pads and launch processing facilities along the east coast. Potential clients include military, civil, and commercial vehicles, including the new class of sub-orbital vehicles competing for the X Prize. The Spaceport continues to position itself for growth from these emerging customers while accommodating the business and technical needs of her current customers.

Further south on the property, the Spaceport has just completed a study of the port area (see sub area C on the future land use map). The study encourages taking advantage of the Air Force’s Enhanced Use Leasing authority and allowing the Spaceport’s southern neighbor, Canaveral Port Authority, to perform targeted development and management of this area, keeping National safety, security, and missions in mind.

NASA and AF are finishing up a joint study on utility privatization options. Currently, AF is mandated to privatize their utilities, yet NASA has no such directive or authority. The study explored utilities as a system, and possible options for the privatization and management of these assets.

Much near term development and study continues on the KSC property in the current Industrial and Visitor Complex areas (see sub area A). Most notably, the Space Experimentation and Research Processing Laboratory facility, located south of the Visitor complex, adjacent to the developing International Space Research Park,

which is bordered on two sides by the newly constructed, 24-hour public access Space Commerce Way road. This lab replaces an outdated, old Air Force converted Airplane hanger. In addition, the road and building were not constructed using NASA facility funds, but through their partnership with the State of Florida.

The Park will also host academic and commercial tenants aligned with the needs and missions of the Spaceport tenant base. The Park property may be the first user of the newly acquired Enhanced Use Leasing authority granted to Kennedy Space Center, NASA, with revenues returning to the Spaceport for further development. An academic study team has identified existing real time needs that will be translated into requirements for an academic facility within the Park.

To the north of the Park, the Visitor Complex resides as a premiere gateway to the public for space understanding. The Spaceport concessionaire is currently updating the area development plan to embrace the public need. The master plan wants to take advantage of all levels of space tourism (both earth and space bound).

Outreach opportunities exist with the Air Force, and for safety and security reasons, all Spaceport

5 American Institute of Aeronautics and Astronautics

CAPITAL INVESTMENT launch and landing viewing is envisioned to take place here.

Traditional capital investment at the Spaceport included two major funding streams, military (MILCON) and civil (CofF). Both were federal resources, and development complied with the rules and regulations laid out by Congress. Basically, all development followed a 5 year plan, with capital for facility and infrastructure development disbursed over a one or two year period. It would be like a homeowner building a house and paying for all of it in cash over a 2-year construction period (no financing). Obviously, this procurement method has some limitations.

Concerts, exhibitions, and other public venues could be hosted in these facilities. Finally, because of the relationship of the Spaceport to the Central Florida Tourism market, visitor experiences at the Spaceport will be varied and begin to assimilate the public into space travel to capture the imagination of not only the nation, but the world.

The final area of consideration is the existing KSC Industrial area. This area is historically significant with aging buildings from the Apollo days. The master plan envisions non-operational personnel interacting in a campus like environment with other engineers, scientists, and support personnel. NASA is currently investigating upgrading and consolidating the aging laboratories and test beds in this secure area. The idea is to consolidate and intensify development in this area. Below is the current density of the area.

Even before Air Force and NASA had Enhanced Use Leasing authority, the Spaceport in partnership with the State of Florida and industry had substantial capital investment outside of federal government funding sources. Industry leased and improved property for commercial launches. The state developed an airfield hangar, visitor complex component, and made transportation improvements. However, with Enhanced Use Leasing, the Spaceport can allow private investment into real property development more easily and under more commercial business practices. It is a changing role of the government and the Spaceport is still adjusting to the new legislation and opportunities this authority provides them.

CONCLUSION I conclude as I have concluded other

papers on the planning of Cape Canaveral Spaceport, with a personal perspective. My family moved to the Cape Canaveral area when I was three and my father went to work for the Gemini program. NASA was a young agency, with much enthusiasm and support by the administration and public. I didn’t know what my father did really, but I knew he went to work early, and when I did see him, he was watching the news intently, taking us to church, or heading to bed early. My mother pleaded for my father to move away from the space coast and so we moved west of Orlando; we saw even less of my father. We learned to love my Dad’s work, and I didn’t miss a single Apollo launch, and when the Shuttle came along, I drove thirteen hours from an out-of-state college to see the initial launch. It seemed only natural that I would work in the space industry after graduation, and so I did, first with a contractor and then with NASA, in a number of organizations.

As compared to the envisioned density:

Note the large commons area of the complex. Multiple spaceport tenants, including military personnel could be hosted in this campus. Development activity continues between the established partners as well as new partners and stakeholders of the Spaceport.

I give you this history, to help you understand my perspective. I love working for this

6 American Institute of Aeronautics and Astronautics

agency, I love being a part of the most defining industry of Florida. My son often speaks of going to Mars, and my daughter recently asked if she could be an engineer too - of course she can. This pride is not built on what I have done, but what thousands before me have laid out for me to enjoy and build upon. The Spaceport is at a turning point. My children will not see the same systems, the same landscape, and the same programs, to which I have spent a lifetime contributing. But they will see more launches, more programs, more entities and less and less government.

I envision pleasure trips originating all over the world, culminating at the Spaceport via a local airport connected to the Spaceport via a high-speed rail system. Guests will stay in local or on-site hotels as they prepare for launch to space getaways located on the moon or just above our atmosphere. This traffic will be mingled with scientists and engineers bustling to get to the latest experiments in outer space laboratories. Much like an airport, the passengers’ will all process through common gates and be whisked to their destinations via local transit systems. Friends and family will be able to watch from the comfort of an air-

conditioned terminal as loved ones leave this atmosphere.

Vehicles will launch and land vertically and horizontally. Payload assembly will move to the area in support of the processing on-site. On-site laboratories and storage, fueling, and maintenance facilities will grow as launch activities increase. Vehicles will be processed in hangars with multiple users in each. Utilization of space will be very efficient as commercial entities are charged for the space they occupy or use. Aesthetics will be paramount. Wildlife will continue to be treasured and protected, for the visual and environmental pleasure they provide the guests and the natural treasured resource they are.

This is my vision. The beauty of planning is that my vision is tempered and enhanced with those of all the other parties that, too, have a history and a passion for this industry. I look forward to the continued planning effort of the Cape Canaveral Spaceport and am always open to new and varying ideas of anyone that wants to share them. What is your vision of a national space transportation enterprise?

1 Benson, Charles D. and Faherty, William Barnaby, Moonport, A History of Apollo Launch Facilities and Operations, published by Scientific and Technical Information Office, NASA, Washington, D.C., 1978 2 3 42USC Section 2541(ET SEQ), Aeronautics and Space Act, 1958. 4 Title 49, Chapter 701, Commercial Space Launch Activities, 1994. 5 Spaceport Florida Authority, Chapter331, Part Two, Florida Statutes, 1989 6 Florida Senate Bill 2540, Commercial Space Industry Act 1999. 7 Goldin, Dan, NASA Strategic Plan, 1996 8 Bridges, Roy D., Kennedy Space Center Implementing NASA’s Strategies, 1998, KDP-KSC-S-2000 9 Bridges, Roy D., Briefing to employees concerning KSC2000 personnel realignment, 1999 10 Bridges, Roy D. and Pettit, Brigadier General Donald P., 5th Annual Florida Space Launch Symposium, Panel Session 1, “The Cape Canaveral Spaceport: The Way Ahead” Government Perspective, November 1999 11 Bridges, Roy D. and Pettit, Brigadier General Donald P., 45 SW 15E-2-13, KCA-2101, Rev. Basic, “Memorandum of Understanding between the National Aeronautics and Space Administration’s John F. Kennedy Space Center and the United States Air Force’s 45th Space Wing regarding the Cape Canaveral Spaceport Master Plan”, 6 June 2002 12 Bridges, Roy D., Pettit, Brigadier General Donald P., Gormel, Edward, “Vision Statement”, Cape Canaveral Spaceport Master Plan, July 2002.

7 American Institute of Aeronautics and Astronautics