Houston Spaceport: Texas Society of Architects 2014 presentation

A Market Research Driven Design Process for Houston Spaceport

Texas Society of Architects75th Annual Convention and Design Expo

6‐8 November 2014Houston, Texas

Session Speaker:Samuel W. Ximenes, Assoc. AIA, Managing Partner

XArc Exploration Architecture Corporation

2

Spaceport VisionOverview

This vision involves conversion of a portion of Ellington Airport (EFD) into a spaceport and a focal point for aerospace innovation – a regional center for a cluster of aerospace entities acting as incubators and accelerators for aerospace technology development.

The proposed “Houston Spaceport” development is on 440 acres of greenfield land at the southeast section of the airport.

The Houston Airport System has a vision to create a commercial spaceport for aerospace innovation that allows support for horizontally launched spacecraft, known as Reusable Launch Vehicles (RLV’s).

Texas Society of Architects 75th Annual Convention11/08/2014

3

ContentsContents

Overview• Study Scope• Team ‐ XArc Spaceport Consultants (XSC)

Process Discussion Topics• Market Segment Assessment• Competitive Assessment• User Needs Assessment • Demand Forecast Assessment ‐ Scenarios• Business Case ‐ Pro Forma• Spaceport Operational Model• Infrastructure Projections for Economic Development

Spaceport Design Concept

Overview

Final Report Nov 15, 2013


NOTE: All market forecast projections presentedherein relied on latest available 2013 data sets, andare overcome by events related to the VirginGalactic explosion of the WhiteKnight2 spacecrafton 10/31/2014

4

Study Scope

STUDY COMPONENT INFORMS MASTER PLAN with:

Market AssessmentAnalysis of launch market segments that could utilize EFD

• Spacecraft technology type– Operational impacts to existing infrastructure

Competitive AssessmentIdentifies existing or potential competing spaceports and contrast their facilities and incentive policies with EFD

• Infrastructure services– Planned enhancements

User Needs AssessmentIdentifies operational & facility needs of operators and related stakeholders

• Facility requirements– New or re‐purposed facilities needed

Demand Forecast AssessmentForecasts addressable launch demand at EFD (3 cases)

• Phased development– Implementation planning

Financial ReasonablenessProvides financial projections that quantify the potential business viability of the commercial entities utilizing EFD

• Planning viability– Growth scenarios

Economic Impact AssessmentAssess impact of spaceport activity on the local economy

• Commercial activities– Ties revenue to growth scenarios

Overview

Relevance to Ellington Airport (EFD) Master Plan


5

Study TeamOverview

5Texas Society of Architects 75th Annual Convention11/08/2014

Houston SpaceportMarket Assessment

7

Objective: Provide an analysis of appropriate launch market segments that could utilize EFD (by customer type, orbit, and application) and market intelligence about those relevant segments.

Market Assessment task designed to define and analyze appropriate launch market segments for a spaceport at Ellington Airport

• Qualitative assessment that takes into account:

Provides basis for later tasks in this study

ScopeMarket Assessment

Vehicles capable of operating from EFD

Capabilities of these vehicles

Potential markets they can serve


8

ApproachMarket Assessment


Examine markets based on orbit• Suborbital • Low Earth Orbit (LEO) • Medium Earth Orbit (MEO) • Geosynchronous Earth Orbit (GEO) • Beyond Earth Orbit (BEO)

• Analysis based on published forecasts, internal Futron data, other industry perspectives

•Provides qualitative assessment of the size of various launch markets, particularly with respect to each other

In practice, no vehicles are removed from consideration by this criterion

Identify vehicles that can operate from Ellington given:

• Restrictions on spaceport operations (i.e., no vertical launches)

• Policy restrictions that make it unlikely vehicles developed in other nations by their governments could operate from a U.S. spaceport

9

Potential Vehicles

Suborbital: several suborbital winged vehicles under development

• Virgin Galactic SpaceShipTwo

• XCOR Aerospace Lynx

• RocketCrafters

Orbital: one air‐launch system operating today and several under development, limited primarily to small satellites

• Orbital Sciences Corporation Pegasus (operational)

• Virgin Galactic LauncherOne

• XCOR Aerospace Lynx Mark III

• Generation Orbit GO Launcher 2

• DARPA ALASA program (Boeing, Lockheed Martin, Virgin Galactic)

• Stratolaunch Systems Stratolauncher

NOTE: Specific vehicles may have runway, airspace, or other operational requirements that require changes to EFD, such as extended runways, to support space launch operations.

Market Assessment

Orbital Suborbital


10

Market Segments Definition

Source: FAA Annual Compendium of Commercial Space Transportation: 2012

Market Assessment


11

Suborbital Markets

Tourism•Best known and largest market

•Forecasts range from several hundred to thousands of customers per year within a decade

Research•Use of suborbital vehicles for a wide range of research applications, with or without scientists flying with experiments

•Growing interest in research community, but not well quantified

Technology Demonstration•Testing technologies in the space environment before incorporating them into other spacecraft

•Like research market, not well quantified yet

Other Markets•Much smaller demand expected for media, education, remote sensing

•Point‐to‐point transportation an interesting long‐term market, but not addressable by vehicles under development now

Market Assessment


12

Low Earth Orbital MarketsCommunications

• Constellations of small satellites (like Iridium and ORBCOMM) for data and voice services

• No new systems planned, but possible demand for occasional replacements

Remote Sensing• Use of small satellites (in constellations) to provide imagery—model pursued by Skybox

Imaging

• Potential growing market niche here

Science• Small satellites for earth and space science applications; already being done now to a small

degree

• SpaceWorks forecast sees this as larger market than remote sensing

Technology Demonstration• Satellites to test space technologies, also for educational use

• SpaceWorks forecast sees this market similar in size to science

Market Assessment


13

Other Orbits

Medium Earth Orbit• Used primarily by navigation satellites

• Too large to be launched by vehicles than can fly from EFD

Geostationary Earth Orbit• Extensively used by communications and weather satellites


Beyond Earth Orbit• Limited demand for such spacecraft, primarily government science missions


Market Assessment


14

Potential Market Findings

Given available vehicles that can, in principle, operate from Ellington Spaceport, key markets are in suborbital and low Earth orbit regimes:

Suborbital: Tourism by far the largest market, followed by research and technology demonstration

LEO: Science and technology demonstration likely the largest, followed by remote sensing and communicationsNOTE: orbital markets limited to smallsats given vehicle capabilities

Combined, these markets could provide significant demand for an Ellington spaceport, but…

Ellington is not the only spaceport available for these vehicles, and many already have arrangements with other facilities

Market Assessment


Houston SpaceportCompetitive Assessment

Scope

Objective: Identify existing or potential competing spaceports and contrast their facilities and incentive policies with EFD.

Approach: Spaceports are compared on several technical, geographical, and economic/political criteria, and grouped by whether they are more, less, or similarly competitive to Ellington.

• Identified those spaceports that can support launches in markets addressable to EFD

• Analyzed the state of their development, existing and planned infrastructure, and proximity to major population centers and transportation hubs

• Identified any state incentives (tax credits, grants, regulatory policies) that can attract operators

• Created SWOT analyses of each spaceport comparing the strongest competing spaceports to EFD

16

Competitive Assessment


17

Spaceport Competitors

Spaceports Compared with Ellington in this Study


= FAA‐licensed Commercial Launch Sites

Note: At the time of the study, Midland Spaceport had not yet received its FAA spaceport license


18

Ellington vs. Competition

Compared several weighted characteristics of Elington’s infrastructure and location to the eight spaceports in the United States which intend to serve as launch sites of horizontal spacecraft to both suborbital and orbital trajectories.

Spaceports were ranked on each listed aspect in relation to Houston Spaceport, i.e. for each given characteristic, is each spaceport stronger than Ellington, weaker, or the same?

Superior to

Ellington

Same as

Ellington

Inferior to

Ellington

Key


Characteristic Weight

Operational? 1

FCC Licensed? 1

State Space Industry Authority? 0.5

Anchor Client? 1

Space Industry Presence? 1

Federal Funding? 0.5

State/Local Funding? 1

State/Local Incentives? 1

Proximity to International Airport? 1

Orbital Flight Eligibility? 1

Runway ExtensionFeasibility? 0.5

Runway Composition? 0.5

Federal Incentives? 0


19

Competition Ranking Matrix

Spaceport Weight Houston Spaceport Cecil Field Front Range

AirportKalaeloa Spaceport

Midland Airport

Mojave Air & Space Port

Oklahoma Spaceport

Shuttle Landing Facility

Spaceport America

Operational? 1 No No No No No Yes No No Yes

FAA Licensed? 1 No Yes No No No Yes Yes No Yes

State Space Industry Authority? 0.5 No Yes No Yes No No Yes Yes Yes

Anchor Client? 1 No Yes Yes No Yes Yes No No Yes

Space Industry Presence? 1 Yes No Yes No No Yes No Yes Yes

Federal Funding? 0.5 No Yes Yes Yes No Yes Yes No Yes

State/Local Funding? 1 No No No Yes Yes No No No Yes

State/Local Incentives? 1 Yes Yes Yes No Yes No No Yes Yes

Proximity to International Airport 1 Yes Yes Yes Yes No No No No No

Orbital Flight Eligibility? 1 Yes Yes No Yes No Yes No Yes No

Runway Extension Feasibility? 0.5 Existing

Space Un‐needed Existing space No space Little space Existing

space Un‐needed Un‐needed Un‐needed

Runway Composition? 0.5 Concrete Concrete/ Asphalt Asphalt Asphalt Asphalt Concrete/

Asphalt Concrete Concrete Concrete

Federal Incentives? 0 Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes


Note: At the time of the study, Midland Spaceport had not yet received its FAA spaceport license


20

Comparison Results

The above table shows the cumulative scores of the competing spaceports in relation to Houston Spaceport.

• Spaceport America and Cecil Field emerged as the most competitive spaceports for Ellington, with Mojave close behind. Mojave and Spaceport America are mostly distinguished by the size of their facilities and their already‐operational status as spaceflight research and development centers as well as strong local government support. Spaceport America in particular is the frontrunner in the competition to be a viable commercial spaceport. Cecil Field surfaces as a strong competitor mostly due to the recent announcement of Generation Orbit to base its GO2 launcher operations from Cecil for the emerging smallsat suborbital market.

• Kalaeloa Spaceport, Midland Airport, and Oklahoma Spaceport emerged as the weakest competitors for Houston Spaceport, though they were hampered for different reasons. Kalaeloa Spaceport suffered from limited infrastructure as well as little activity to date at the site, while both Midland Airport and Oklahoma Spaceport suffered from little recent commercial activity (a factor that is changing for Midland) and remote geographic location. Midland Airport does have an anchor tenant (XCOR).


CECIL FIELD

FRONT RANGE

AIRPORT

KALAELOA SPACEPORT

MIDLAND AIRPORT

MOJAVE AIR & SPACE PORT

OKLAHOMA SPACEPORT

SHUTTLE LANDING FACILITY

SPACEPORT AMERICA

Stronger than Ellington 3.5 1.5 2 2 3.5 2.5 1 5.5

Same as Ellington 5 7 5 4 4 3.5 8 2.5

Weaker than Ellington 1.5 1.5 3 4 2.5 4 0 2

*Strengths vs.

Weakness2 0 -1 -2 1 -1.5 0 3.5


21

Incentives

Types of incentives spaceports are using to lure tenants:– cash incentives (e.g. XCOR received $10M from Midland; $3M offer

from Space Florida)

– construction or new facilities or refurbishment of existing ones

– reduced or nominal ($1/year) leases of facilities

– tax credits

– friendly regulatory environment (liability indemnification, etc.)

– workforce training and/or education programs

Note that some of these would have to be done in conjunction with a local or state government.



Houston SpaceportUser Needs Assessment

ScopeObjective:

• Identify significant facility needs of the spacecraft operators and stakeholders and the related capacity of the spaceport

• Identify significant operational impacts and limitations by the operators, stakeholders and spaceport

• Identify rough schedule/timelines of the operator and spaceport

Four components:• Commercial Operators and Related Stakeholders Needs Assessment• EFD Facilities Analysis• Gap Analysis• Future Facility Requirements

Information gathered via:• Research of public sources• E‐mail• Phone calls• Visits

Performed User needs and Related Stakeholder Needs Assessment together

23

User Needs Assessment


24

Launch Service Operators

Developed Findings

• Related Stakeholders• Orbital Research Support• Payload Processing Support• EFD Facilities Analysis/Gap

Analysis• Key Site Selection Criteria • Workforce Profile• Range Safety

Mapping the benchmarked suppliers’ operation plans reveals that the following system types may eventually be licensed to operate out of Houston Spaceport:

• Large carrier aircraft (not manufactured at Ellington) ‐ Strato and Virgin after runway extension; Orbital today; Generation Orbit in 10 years

• Medium size boosters with hybrid propulsion systems ‐Generation Orbit

• Small boosters with solid propulsion systems ‐ Orbital

• Space tourism spacecraft with hybrid propulsion systems ‐ Virgin

Mapping the benchmarked suppliers’ operation plans reveals that the following system types may eventually be licensed to operate out of Houston Spaceport:

• Large carrier aircraft (not manufactured at Ellington) ‐ Strato and Virgin after runway extension; Orbital today; Generation Orbit in 10 years

• Medium size boosters with hybrid propulsion systems ‐Generation Orbit

• Small boosters with solid propulsion systems ‐ Orbital

• Space tourism spacecraft with hybrid propulsion systems ‐ Virgin

Stratolaunch Systems Virgin Galactic Orbital

Sciences XCORGeneration

OrbitRocketCraftersThe Spaceship Company (Scaled Composites)

Benchmarked Potential Types of Launch Service Operators:



25

FindingsDevelopers vs. Operators:

• No one is only an operator today• Vertical integration ‐many valid and invalid reasons• Economic reality ‐market does not support buying from manufacturer then operating for

profit• Must attract developers early in their cycle before another site captures them with better

incentives• Developer/Operator has longer business life and more economic impact if self‐funding

Key Site Selection Criteria:• Cash incentives• Freedom from interference by spaceport, local, and state government

Workforce Profile – Key Capabilities:• Composite design and development specialists• Advanced plastics design and development specialists• Rocket propulsion design and testing specialists

Range Safety Systems:• Not necessary to develop a system• Use Wallops portable system



26

Future Capabilities Needed

Protect Footprint for Future Capabilities• Runway expansion for large systems: Runways 12,500 feet long, 200 feet wide, and

capable of carrying 1.3 million pounds• Liquid oxygen storage area• Liquid oxygen transfer to spacecraft (mounted on carrier) area• Nitrous Oxide storage area• Nitrous Oxide transfer to spacecraft (mounted on carrier) area• Clear zone of 1250 foot around spacecraft/booster fueling area and travel paths (or

ability to operationally clear area)• Space tourist support facility of 30,000 sq. ft.• Operations and mission control 10,000 sq. ft. facility • Hangar for spacecraft processing and testing 10,000 sqft • Small booster assembly and payload integration facility 30,000 sqft • Hangar to support an aircraft 285 ft. L x 385 ft. W x 50 ft. H• Life sciences research laboratory of 120,000 square feet capable of performing BSL‐2

(Biological safety level – 2) activity• Payload processing facility of 10,000 sq. ft. capable of hazardous spacecraft fueling

(1250 foot clearance)• Rail service (cargo)



Houston SpaceportDemand ForecastNOTE: All market forecast projectionspresented herein relied on latestavailable 2013 data sets, and areovercome by events related to the VirginGalactic explosion of the WhiteKnight2spacecraft on 10/31/2014

Scope

Objective: Develop a forecast of addressable launch demand for EFD and three scenarios of launch activity.

Launch forecasts are intended to help determine the potential level of suborbital and orbital launch activity at Ellington Spaceport.

Process starts with an overall forecast of the market size based on seat/cargo equivalents, then estimates launch activity in the markets that can be served by the vehicle types operating out of Ellington.

Three scenarios provide low, medium, and high estimates of market size and launch events from Ellington based on its ability to attract launch operators.

• Used data collected from the Market Assessment task of this project, coupled with other analysis to provide an overall forecast of “addressable” launches for EFD

• Low, medium, high scenarios based on different estimates of market share EFD captures in the various market segments with resulting number of launches and estimated value.

28

Demand Forecast Assessment


Market Groupings

Forecast based on published reports and other analyses of the forecasted demand for suborbital and orbital launches in addressable markets for:

SuborbitalSpace tourismResearchOther

OrbitalSmall satellite launches

Scenarios then estimate the fraction of those launches taking place from Ellington as a function of market and time.(those that, in theory, could take place from EFD based on the customers and their technical requirements)

Market Segment Groupings Used in Forecast



30

Overall Suborbital Reusable Vehicles (SRV) Forecast Demand Forecast Assessment

Overall forecast based on existing reports (FAA/Taurisuborbital forecast; SpaceWorks smallsatforecast; Futron analyses)

For suborbital launches, assumed an average of 3.5 seats per launch (based on range of available seats of 1‐6 per flight on proposed vehicles)

Per‐launch revenues for suborbital and orbital flights gradually decline over the forecast period as new entrants and competition drive down prices.

0

100

200

300

400

500

600

2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021 2022 2023

Laun

ches

$‐

$50

$100

$150

$200

$250

$300

$350

Revenu

e (m

illions) Low Revenue

Baseline Revenue

High Revenue

Low Launches

Baseline Launches

High Launches


NOTE: All market forecast projections presented herein relied are latest available 2013 datasets, and are overcome by events related to the Virgin Galactic explosion of theWhiteKnight2 spacecraft on 10/31/2014

31

EFD Forecast

Robust Scenario of Launches & Revenue Captured by EFD Compared to Total SRV Baseline


$‐

$50

$100

$150

$200

$250

$300

$350

0

50

100

150

200

250

300

2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021 2022 2023Re

venu

e (million

s)

Laun

ches Revenue Captured by Ellington (Robust)

Addressable Baseline Revenue

Addressable Baseline Launches

Launches Captured by Ellington (Robust)


Forecast Conclusions

• Baseline overall market grows from 104 to 266 launches per year over the next ten years

• Overall market revenue grows from $118M to $157M per year over the next ten years– Year‐to‐year variation as number of launches grows but launch prices

decline

• Size of overall market could range from 89 to 499 launches per year by 2023

• Scenarios for EFD based on Baseline forecast show it could host between 28 and 69 launches per year by 2023– suborbital tourism the largest market, plus several smallsat launches

per year

32



Ellington SpaceportBusiness CaseNOTE: All market forecast projectionspresented herein relied on latestavailable 2013 data sets, and areovercome by events related to the VirginGalactic explosion of the WhiteKnight2spacecraft on 10/31/2014

Original Intent of Pro Forma Analysis

• Estimate of the financial implications of private enterprises based on or near EFD engaged in the development operations and/or support of space launch and landing systems that can operate out of EFD

– Projections of future demand for space access by systems operating out of EFD might support the

• Local development of new systems based at EFD• Local support to systems based at other sites that would frequently operate out of

EFD• Local support to systems based at other sites that would infrequently operate out

of EFD

• The proposed Pro Forma projections were meant to focus on the local development of new systems based at EFD

– This type of activity would represent a new and growing high tech firm that would design, develop, test and operate out of EFD

34

Business Case Assessment


Alternative Operating Scenarios

• A design, development and operational firm would take, depending on the specifics of the systems design that could fly out of EFD and based on prior analyses, 5 to 7 years to bring a system to full scale test

– It appears that the current market conditions make an estimate for the initiation of such an enterprise at least several years in the future

• It is probable that the start of such an enterprise would be a few years after other first‐to‐market operators prove the safety and efficiency of the systems and the size of the market

– If first‐to‐market operators commence operational flights in 2015, the start of a new development system based at EFD would not start before 2017 or 2018. An additional 5 to 7 years of development and test would mean an initial operational capability in 2022 to 2025 – well downstream of a time frame of financial significance to current decisions

35

… for Systems Operating Out of EFD Spaceport



Alternative Operating Scenarios

• If the initiation of space launch activities at EFD is based on support to operators not based at EFD the direct financial benefit to the local community is greatly reduced.– The Pro Forma derived financial implications for operators based elsewhere is irrelevant

to EFD operations except to the extent that such first‐to‐market operators will exist and when they will seek alternative points of operations other then their own base.

36


… for Systems Operating Out of EFD Spaceport

Scenario 1 For launch event frequencies of once or twice a year the operational scenario for any new spaceport will be to provide shelter and utilities for an outside operator crew and support equipment.

Scenario 2 For launch event frequencies equal to or less then once a week the operational scenario for any new spaceport will be to have locally stationed crew, equipment, offices, hangar space and access to consumables and utilities.


37

Frequency Based Projections

High & Low Estimate – Average Number of Days Between Launch Events


100 Day Scale100 Day Scale


38

• It is anticipated that the earliest flights out of EFD would occur as a result of being more attractive a site then other spaceports. It is therefore likely that EFD would have to pay for the privilege of hosting early flights as opposed to receiving fees in order to establish the Houston area market. It could be that this condition lasts for the first 2 or 3 visits by first‐to‐market operators.

• Based on market share projections frequency of tourism flights more than once a month would occur sometime starting between 2017 and 2020.

– Before that period of time and beginning either when EFD is licensed as a Spaceport or low estimates of market expansion prevail Scenario 1 is the most likely operating scheme

– After the period of more then a flight a month (2017 to 2020) Scenario 2 is the most likely operating scheme

Earliest FlightsBusiness Case Assessment


39

Activity Timelines Assumptions

Applicable to both High and Low Estimates

• Earliest probable start date for Business and Technology Research Park

• First Visiting Flight out of EFD based on EFD capture assessment

• Preparation for initial Visiting Flight in prior 2 years

• Visiting Flights duration lasts until frequency becomes less then once per month (Scenario 1)

• Preparation for initial Base of Operations for Visiting Flights (Scenario 2) occurs over 2 years before Visiting Flights Base of Operations begins

• EFD Based Developer begins 2 years after start of EFD Visiting Flights

– EFD Based Developer takes 5 to 7 years to achieve Initial Operations



40

Possible Activity TimelinesBusiness Case Assessment

LOW ESTIMATE 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021 2022 2023

RESEARCH & SUPPORT BUSINESS PARK

PREPARATION FOR 1ST VISITING FLIGHT

VISITING FLIGHTS

EFD BASED DEVELOPER

PREPARATION FOR 1ST VISITING FLIGHT WITH EFD BASED OPS

VISITING FLIGHTS WITH EFD BASE OPERATIONS

EFD BASED DEVELOPER INITIAL OPERATIONS5 YEARS DEVELOPMENT7 YEARS DEVELOPMENT

HIGH ESTIMATE 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021 2022 2023

PREPARATION FOR 1ST VISITING FLIGHT

VISITING FLIGHTS

EFD BASED DEVELOPER

PREPARATION FOR 1ST VISITING FLIGHT WITH EFD BASED OPS

VISITING FLIGHTS WITH EFD BASE OPERATIONS

EFD BASED DEVELOPER INITIAL OPERATIONS5 YEARS DEVELOPMENT7 YEARS DEVELOPMENT

Infrastructure Operations EFD Spacecraft Developer


41

EFD Based Developer HeadcountEstimated Headcount for EFD Based Developer



Market Segment Value

42



Integrated Assessment Robust Scenario

43



Integrated AssessmentConstrained Scenario

44



Houston SpaceportOperations Model

Mission StatementSpaceport Operations Model

Branding the spaceport as a cluster for aerospace technology innovation to attract talented researchers and entrepreneurs will require pioneering models of operation that a new youth generation of scientist and engineers can relate to. Their philosophy is one of openness, sharing, collaboration and communities, i.e., open source software/open source hardware.

“The mission of the Houston Spaceport is to create a focal point for aerospaceinnovation with a cluster of companies that will lead the nation in the transition froma government-driven to a commercially-driven space program by dramaticallyeasing the access to space for future exploration and utilization and ultimatelypaving the way for rapid point-to-point travel between far flung points on theearth.” – Mario Diaz, Director Houston Airport System

CHALLENGE

MISSION


Level II:Techshops at EFD & JSC‐ rapid prototyping

Level III:General Dynamics EDGE Model joint EFD/JSC/Academia initiative at EFD‐ research & development

Level IV:National Network for Manufacturing Initiative (NNMI) facility at EFD‐ aerospace manufacturing

Innovation & Invention Environment

Level I:Grassroots Makerspace at EFD‐ trial & error “hackerspace”

• Grassroots DIY Community Space• Basic Equipment/Tools/Safety Training• Limited Space, Equipment, Technology• Membership Fees; Community or EFD Sponsored

• Larger Space, Better Equipment/Safety Training• Equipment Owned/Maintained/Floor Plan (well laid out)• Membership & Equip Use Fees (EFD only)• Dedicated Staff Counselors; Training• Owner Operated at EFD; NASA operated at JSC

• Industry/Academia/Government Collaboration• Think Tank; Idea to Implementation (Rapid)• Access to Test/Research Labs• GD Sponsored; Membership Fees

• $1B Presidential Initiative to Resurrect Mfg.• Legislation to establish 15 Institutes for

Manufacturing Innovation & R&D• Competitive Selection Process• Domestic Products to Market (Rapid)• Training Pipeline• City/State Sponsored

Spaceport Operations Model


EFD Spaceport Economic

Development Zone

JSC Commercial Space Technology Development Zone

JSC SPACE TECHNOLOGIES INCUBATOR FOR COMMERCIAL SPACE COMPANY START‐UPS:

• Pushes out JSC developed technology

• Provides Level II Techshop facility open civil servants and contractors

• Companies ready for manufacturing phase transitioned to operate at EFD

EFD COMMERCIAL AEROSPACE TECHNOLOGIES R&D AND MANUFACTURING:

• Provides Level I Makershop & Level II aerospace Techshop facilities open to general population innovators, inventors, & entrepreneurs

• Provides Level III R&D Center for NASA/Industry/Academia partnership for specific technology areas

• Provides aerospace manufacturing facilities and lease space

• Provides access to suborbital and orbital space through spaceport operations Joint client services for entrepreneurship, marketing, investment, and education

Academicpartners

Industrypartners

Communitypartners

EFD / JSC Integrated Commercial SpaceEconomic Development Plan Spaceport Operations Model


Point‐to‐Point Technology Research

Source: FAA Center of Excellence for Commercial Space Transportation Year 1 Annual Report

Areas of FAA R&D for Commercial Space Transportation

Focus on Enabling P2P Technology Research

Leverage JSC Intellectual Capital, Test and Lab Facilities for P2P Research

Leverage UTMB Health for P2P Research

Spaceport Operations Model


EFD Spaceport Model Spaceport Operations Model


Case Study ComparisonsSpaceport Operations Model

Port San Antonio

How has Port San Antonio established

itself as an aeronautics hub?

Which strategies should be applied to conversion of Ellington Field into a spaceport and innovation hub for aeronautics research?

One‐north, Singapore

What are the ingredients driving

one‐north’s innovations?

How can these ingredients be

applied to plans for Ellington

Spaceport?

Brooks City‐BaseWhy has City‐Base

failed to develop into a functional Science and

Technology Park?

What lessons can we learn when developing Ellington Spaceport

into a focused business model?

Relevant Questions of Case Study Approach

Three case studies of technology hubs were assessed to discover lessons learned, oraspects of what makes them successful or not successful as applied to Houston Spaceport


Spaceport Development

52

Planned Development Features


Houston SpaceportInfrastructure Projections for Economic Development

Infrastructure ProjectionsSpaceport Development Area


Infrastructure ProjectionsSpaceport Facilities

Based on facility projection models, the Houston Spaceportdevelopment plan build‐out includes 2.6 million square ft. ofbuilding area comprised of hangars, terminal, office, R&Dspace, shop space, manufacturing facilities, classrooms, labs,museums, and conference and education centers.

FLIGHT OPERATIONS R&D TRAN. RETAIL MFG.

Passenger Prep Area *

Spaceflight Training

Center with Equipment *

RLV Processing Facility – D

*

Level I Makerspace

Metro Station

Aerospace Museum *

Level IVNNMI

Manufacturing

Terminal Visitor

Center *

Payload Processing/Clean Room *

RLV Processing Facility - E

Level IITechshop/M

akershop

Parking Garage

Museum Static

Display Grounds

Production

Facility 1 (runway access)

Admin Offices

Oxidizer Storage *

Engine Test Pad *

Level IIIEDGE

Aerospace R&D Center

Outdoor Parking

Technology Park Visitor

Center

Production

Facility 2(truck

access)

Passenger Terminal *

Fuel Storage Area *

Runway Extension *

Office Areas

Road Network

& Utilities

Hotel & Conference

Center

Medical Facility

RLV Processing Facility - A

Spaceport Tarmac & Pavement

Conference Areas

SE Access Road

Shops & Food Court

Oxidizer & Passenger Loading Area w/

Taxiway *

Combined RLV &

Payload Processing Facility - B

Spaceport Physical

PlantClassrooms Rail

Spurs

Parks / buffer zones

Mission Control *

RLV Processing Facility - C

Multi-purpose Buildings

* = equivalent spaceport facility as identified in RS&H Technical Feasibility Study


Infrastructure ProjectionsRunway Extension Options


Infrastructure ProjectionsSpaceport Facilities Dynamic Modelling

57

Spaceport Facilities Database Sq.Ft. Growth Projection Timelines for Facilities

Robust Scenario

Constrained Scenario

Transp.

R&D

Mfg.

Flight Ope

ratio

nsRe

tail


Facility Need ProjectionRobust Scenario

58

Integrated Assessment is used to model facility need projections

Infrastructure Projections


Facility Need ProjectionConstrained Scenario

59

Integrated Assessment is used to model facility need projections

Infrastructure Projections


60

Facility Inter‐relationshipsInfrastructure Projections

60

•Bubble diagrams used as a tool for a first order approximation of interrelationships of facilities

•Bubble shapes arranged for determining interrelationship within a facility’s primary group to establish degree common functionality exists for optimizing housing within a single building structure or compound

• External relationships of facilities to different group categories were assessed to determine what degree of cohesiveness could be accomplished for planning and layout of zoning areas in the master plan


61

Preliminary Spaceport Master PlanInfrastructure Projections


Houston SpaceportDesign Concept

Spaceport Branding• A spaceport is a highly emblematic project, which should be iconic in its character, thus the

vision must also be translatable into a brand and marketing message that can be communicated to a larger audience, beyond those most directly associated with the project– For visualization, marketing, and business development purposes, a spaceport design concept was created and

illustrated by XArc | Trost & Associates Architecture based on the results of our market driven research process.

– A promotional video produced by XArc describing the spaceport vision with 3‐D animations of the spaceport design concept created by XArc | Trost & Associates Architecture helps brand and deliver the spaceport message

63

Design Concept


Spaceport LayoutDesign Concept


Spaceport Terminal (Airside)Design Concept


Spaceport EntranceDesign Concept


Contact Info

• Email: [email protected]

Samuel W. XimenesManaging Partner / Space ArchitectXArc Exploration Architecture Corporation1218 E. Euclid, San Antonio, Texas 78212

T: 210‐404‐2981 l C: 713‐876‐7373DBE‐MBE Certified l SBE/ESBE/HABE Certified (Metro) l Tx HUB CertifiedExperts in the field of architectural design for spaceports, space stations,planetary surface systems, and terrestrial space related facilities.www.xarc.com


Date post:	15-Jul-2015
Category:	Design
Upload:	sam-ximenes
View:	94 times
Download:	0 times