Houston Spaceport: Texas Society of Architects 2014 presentation
•
1 like•1,078 views
A Market Research Driven Design Process for Houston Spaceport
Recommended
Recommended
More Related Content
What's hot
What's hot (20)
Viewers also liked
Viewers also liked (20)
Similar to Houston Spaceport: Texas Society of Architects 2014 presentation
Similar to Houston Spaceport: Texas Society of Architects 2014 presentation (20)
Recently uploaded
Recently uploaded (20)
Houston Spaceport: Texas Society of Architects 2014 presentation
- 3. 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 Texas Society of Architects 75th Annual Convention 11/08/2014 NOTE: All market forecast projections presented herein relied on latest available 2013 data sets, and are overcome by events related to the Virgin Galactic explosion of the WhiteKnight2 spacecraft on 10/31/2014
- 4. 4 Study Scope STUDY COMPONENT INFORMS MASTER PLAN with: Market Assessment Analysis of launch market segments that could utilize EFD • Spacecraft technology type – Operational impacts to existing infrastructure Competitive Assessment Identifies existing or potential competing spaceports and contrast their facilities and incentive policies with EFD • Infrastructure services – Planned enhancements User Needs Assessment Identifies operational & facility needs of operators and related stakeholders • Facility requirements – New or re‐purposed facilities needed Demand Forecast Assessment Forecasts addressable launch demand at EFD (3 cases) • Phased development – Implementation planning Financial Reasonableness Provides financial projections that quantify the potential business viability of the commercial entities utilizing EFD • Planning viability – Growth scenarios Economic Impact Assessment Assess impact of spaceport activity on the local economy • Commercial activities – Ties revenue to growth scenarios Overview Relevance to Ellington Airport (EFD) Master Plan Texas Society of Architects 75th Annual Convention 11/08/2014
- 5. 5 Study Team Overview 5Texas Society of Architects 75th Annual Convention 11/08/2014
- 7. 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 Scope Market Assessment Vehicles capable of operating from EFD Capabilities of these vehicles Potential markets they can serve Texas Society of Architects 75th Annual Convention 11/08/2014
- 8. 8 Approach Market Assessment 8Texas Society of Architects 75th Annual Convention 11/08/2014 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. 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 Texas Society of Architects 75th Annual Convention 11/08/2014
- 10. 10 Market Segments Definition Source: FAA Annual Compendium of Commercial Space Transportation: 2012 Market Assessment Texas Society of Architects 75th Annual Convention 11/08/2014
- 12. 12 Low Earth Orbital Markets Communications • 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 Texas Society of Architects 75th Annual Convention 11/08/2014
- 13. 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 • Too large to be launched by vehicles than can fly from EFD Beyond Earth Orbit • Limited demand for such spacecraft, primarily government science missions • Too large to be launched by vehicles than can fly from EFD Market Assessment Texas Society of Architects 75th Annual Convention 11/08/2014
- 16. 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 Texas Society of Architects 75th Annual Convention 11/08/2014
- 17. 17 Spaceport Competitors Spaceports Compared with Ellington in this Study Competitive Assessment = FAA‐licensed Commercial Launch Sites Note: At the time of the study, Midland Spaceport had not yet received its FAA spaceport license Texas Society of Architects 75th Annual Convention 11/08/2014
- 18. 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 Competitive Assessment 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 Extension Feasibility? 0.5 Runway Composition? 0.5 Federal Incentives? 0 Texas Society of Architects 75th Annual Convention 11/08/2014
- 19. 19 Competition Ranking Matrix Spaceport Weight Houston Spaceport Cecil Field Front Range Airport Kalaeloa 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 Competitive Assessment Note: At the time of the study, Midland Spaceport had not yet received its FAA spaceport license Texas Society of Architects 75th Annual Convention 11/08/2014
- 20. 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). Competitive Assessment 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. Weakness 2 0 -1 -2 1 -1.5 0 3.5 Texas Society of Architects 75th Annual Convention 11/08/2014
- 21. 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. Competitive Assessment Texas Society of Architects 75th Annual Convention 11/08/2014
- 23. Scope Objective: • 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 Texas Society of Architects 75th Annual Convention 11/08/2014
- 24. 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 XCOR Generation Orbit Rocket CraftersThe Spaceship Company (Scaled Composites) Benchmarked Potential Types of Launch Service Operators: User Needs Assessment Texas Society of Architects 75th Annual Convention 11/08/2014
- 25. 25 Findings Developers 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 User Needs Assessment Texas Society of Architects 75th Annual Convention 11/08/2014
- 26. 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) User Needs Assessment Texas Society of Architects 75th Annual Convention 11/08/2014
- 27. Houston Spaceport Demand Forecast NOTE: All market forecast projections presented herein relied on latest available 2013 data sets, and are overcome by events related to the Virgin Galactic explosion of the WhiteKnight2 spacecraft on 10/31/2014
- 28. 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 Texas Society of Architects 75th Annual Convention 11/08/2014
- 30. 30 Overall Suborbital Reusable Vehicles (SRV) Forecast Demand Forecast Assessment Overall forecast based on existing reports (FAA/Tauri suborbital forecast; SpaceWorks smallsat forecast; 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 Launches $‐ $50 $100 $150 $200 $250 $300 $350 Revenue (millions) Low Revenue Baseline Revenue High Revenue Low Launches Baseline Launches High Launches Texas Society of Architects 75th Annual Convention 11/08/2014 NOTE: All market forecast projections presented herein relied are latest available 2013 data sets, and are overcome by events related to the Virgin Galactic explosion of the WhiteKnight2 spacecraft on 10/31/2014
- 31. 31 EFD Forecast Robust Scenario of Launches & Revenue Captured by EFD Compared to Total SRV Baseline Demand Forecast Assessment $‐ $50 $100 $150 $200 $250 $300 $350 0 50 100 150 200 250 300 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021 2022 2023 Revenue (millions) Launches Revenue Captured by Ellington (Robust) Addressable Baseline Revenue Addressable Baseline Launches Launches Captured by Ellington (Robust) Texas Society of Architects 75th Annual Convention 11/08/2014
- 32. 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 Demand Forecast Assessment Texas Society of Architects 75th Annual Convention 11/08/2014
- 33. Ellington Spaceport Business Case NOTE: All market forecast projections presented herein relied on latest available 2013 data sets, and are overcome by events related to the Virgin Galactic explosion of the WhiteKnight2 spacecraft on 10/31/2014
- 34. 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 Texas Society of Architects 75th Annual Convention 11/08/2014
- 35. 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 Business Case Assessment Texas Society of Architects 75th Annual Convention 11/08/2014
- 36. 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 Business Case Assessment … 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. Texas Society of Architects 75th Annual Convention 11/08/2014
- 37. 37 Frequency Based Projections High & Low Estimate – Average Number of Days Between Launch Events Business Case Assessment 100 Day Scale100 Day Scale Texas Society of Architects 75th Annual Convention 11/08/2014
- 38. 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 Flights Business Case Assessment Texas Society of Architects 75th Annual Convention 11/08/2014
- 39. 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 Business Case Assessment Texas Society of Architects 75th Annual Convention 11/08/2014
- 40. 40 Possible Activity Timelines Business 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 OPERATIONS 5 YEARS DEVELOPMENT 7 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 OPERATIONS 5 YEARS DEVELOPMENT 7 YEARS DEVELOPMENT Infrastructure Operations EFD Spacecraft Developer Texas Society of Architects 75th Annual Convention 11/08/2014
- 41. 41 EFD Based Developer Headcount Estimated Headcount for EFD Based Developer Business Case Assessment Texas Society of Architects 75th Annual Convention 11/08/2014
- 42. Market Segment Value 42 Business Case Assessment Texas Society of Architects 75th Annual Convention 11/08/2014
- 43. Integrated Assessment Robust Scenario 43 Business Case Assessment Texas Society of Architects 75th Annual Convention 11/08/2014
- 44. Integrated Assessment Constrained Scenario 44 Business Case Assessment Texas Society of Architects 75th Annual Convention 11/08/2014
- 46. Mission Statement Spaceport 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 aerospace innovation with a cluster of companies that will lead the nation in the transition from a government-driven to a commercially-driven space program by dramatically easing the access to space for future exploration and utilization and ultimately paving the way for rapid point-to-point travel between far flung points on the earth.” – Mario Diaz, Director Houston Airport System CHALLENGE MISSION 46Texas Society of Architects 75th Annual Convention 11/08/2014
- 47. 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 47Texas Society of Architects 75th Annual Convention 11/08/2014
- 48. 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 Academic partners Industry partners Community partners EFD / JSC Integrated Commercial Space Economic Development Plan Spaceport Operations Model 48Texas Society of Architects 75th Annual Convention 11/08/2014
- 49. 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 49Texas Society of Architects 75th Annual Convention 11/08/2014
- 50. EFD Spaceport Model Spaceport Operations Model 50Texas Society of Architects 75th Annual Convention 11/08/2014
- 51. Case Study Comparisons Spaceport 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‐Base Why 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, or aspects of what makes them successful or not successful as applied to Houston Spaceport 51Texas Society of Architects 75th Annual Convention 11/08/2014
- 52. Spaceport Development 52 Planned Development Features Texas Society of Architects 75th Annual Convention 11/08/2014
- 54. Infrastructure Projections Spaceport Development Area 54Texas Society of Architects 75th Annual Convention 11/08/2014
- 55. Infrastructure Projections Spaceport Facilities Based on facility projection models, the Houston Spaceport development plan build‐out includes 2.6 million square ft. of building area comprised of hangars, terminal, office, R&D space, 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 IV NNMI Manufact uring Terminal Visitor Center * Payload Processing/Cl ean Room * RLV Processing Facility - E Level II Techshop/M akershop Parking Garage Museum Static Display Grounds Producti on Facility 1 (runway access) Admin Offices Oxidizer Storage * Engine Test Pad * Level III EDGE Aerospace R&D Center Outdoor Parking Technology Park Visitor Center Producti on 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 Plant Classrooms 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 55Texas Society of Architects 75th Annual Convention 11/08/2014
- 56. Infrastructure Projections Runway Extension Options 56Texas Society of Architects 75th Annual Convention 11/08/2014
- 57. Infrastructure Projections Spaceport Facilities Dynamic Modelling 57 Spaceport Facilities Database Sq.Ft. Growth Projection Timelines for Facilities Robust Scenario Constrained Scenario Transp.R&DMfg.Flight OperationsRetail Texas Society of Architects 75th Annual Convention 11/08/2014
- 58. Facility Need Projection Robust Scenario 58 Integrated Assessment is used to model facility need projections Infrastructure Projections Texas Society of Architects 75th Annual Convention 11/08/2014
- 59. Facility Need Projection Constrained Scenario 59 Integrated Assessment is used to model facility need projections Infrastructure Projections Texas Society of Architects 75th Annual Convention 11/08/2014
- 61. 61 Preliminary Spaceport Master PlanInfrastructure Projections 61Texas Society of Architects 75th Annual Convention 11/08/2014
- 63. 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 Texas Society of Architects 75th Annual Convention 11/08/2014
- 64. Spaceport Layout Design Concept 64Texas Society of Architects 75th Annual Convention 11/08/2014
- 65. Spaceport Terminal (Airside) Design Concept 65Texas Society of Architects 75th Annual Convention 11/08/2014
- 66. Spaceport Entrance Design Concept 66Texas Society of Architects 75th Annual Convention 11/08/2014
- 67. Contact Info • Email: sximenes@explorationarchitecture.com Samuel W. Ximenes Managing Partner / Space Architect XArc Exploration Architecture Corporation 1218 E. Euclid, San Antonio, Texas 78212 T: 210‐404‐2981 l C: 713‐876‐7373 DBE‐MBE Certified l SBE/ESBE/HABE Certified (Metro) l Tx HUB Certified Experts in the field of architectural design for spaceports, space stations, planetary surface systems, and terrestrial space related facilities. www.xarc.com 67Texas Society of Architects 75th Annual Convention 11/08/2014