developers gathered in Arlington, Virginia Tuesday at a conference on space transportation sponsored by the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA). The FAA, which licenses the projects, also released a review of existing and proposed spaceports and their plans.
A case in point regarding the wide variety of launch vehicles is a proposed Oklahoma spaceport.
"In our state it wouldn’t be too wise to launch Expendable Launch Vehicles," said Robert Triplett, chairman of the Oklahoma Aeronautics and Space Commission. Triplett’s state organization is pushing the idea of a commercial rocket-launching site in a land-locked locale.

“We’re are ready to accommodate whomever may come our way."

Expendable rockets launching from there would by necessity drop empty stages and other rocket parts onto the populated prairie and near other cities and urban regions. As a result, Triplett said his state would seek to site some of the new proposed re-usable space vehicles under design. "We’re ready to accommodate whomever may come our way," he said.
But none of the struggling small re-usable firms are close to obtaining full financing to make their dreams of commercial rocket flight take off. Still, backers of spaceports like Triplett are optimistic. "This industry will change greatly in the next five to 10 years," Triplett predicted.
No Texas space trash
Re-useable launch vehicles (RLVs) are also the solution for backers of a Texas-sized spaceport for that southwestern state.
"For us, the answer must be an RLV," said Thomas Moser, executive director of the Texas Aerospace Commission. Moser's group is studying three potential locations all perched on the edge of the Gulf of Mexico. "The Gulf isn’t big enough for us to use expendables," Moser said.
Moser said that re-usable vehicles could easily be developed today, given the technology. And while he expected that the radical new craft would take flight in the next five years, lack of Wall Street support wasn’t the biggest obstacle to their creation.
"The biggest problem today is the federal government saying the technology isn’t ready," he said. "Government confusion about this is the biggest impediment to our success."
Government should 'get on with it'
Triplett also said that competition among the states to build the rocket bases wasn’t a problem. "It’s not a problem between the states. Our enemies are foreign competition," Triplett said.
Both Triplett and Moser suggested that the federal government remove regulatory roadblocks and other restrictions now in the way of commercial space development and join with states and industry to accelerate re-usable rocket technology. "We have to just get on with it," Moser said.
Alaska’s spaceport isn’t on the drawing board. It’s more than 70 percent completed. "We’re ready for our first orbital launch this September," said Pat Ladner, executive director of the Alaska Aerospace Development Corporation.
A Lockheed Martin Athena rocket will blast off and head south over the Pacific Ocean. Its payload will be a NASA Earth resources satellite. But Ladner said that his facility had already been tested by a pair of suborbital rocket launches, conducted while the spaceport was still under construction.
Mix of government, commercial customers
"That was a challenge for us," Ladner said. Eventually, when fully operational, the Alaskan base will be able to support four launches per year. Initially these will be government satellites and payloads. But future expansion of the site will allow other types of all-commercial launchers to fly from the pad there.
In all, the FAA has issued licenses for four spaceports at Cape Canaveral, Vandenberg, Alaska and Wallops Island, Virginia. All were established on or near existing military or NASA bases, except for the Alaskan site.
Seven more spaceports are under active development. In addition to Texas and Oklahoma, they include Montana, Nevada, Utah and a proposed base in Australia.