Spaceports Join Forces to Share Lessons Learned and Develop Standards

A group of existing and proposed spaceports are joining forces to share lessons learned and potentially develop standards for launch facilities around the world.

Eight spaceports in six countries signed a memorandum of understanding Oct. 13 during an event held on the sidelines of the International Astronautical Congress (IAC) in Milan, Italy. The agreement outlines plans for the launch facilities to work together to address issues in the development and operation of their facilities.

“This partnership demonstrates our collective commitment to underscore the importance of spaceports, supporting their future, and enabling a new era of innovation, security and economic growth in the space industry,” said Roosevelt “Ted” Mercer, head of the Virginia Spaceport Authority, which operates the Mid-Atlantic Regional Spaceport (MARS) on Wallops Island, Virginia, in a statement.

The announcement did not disclose specific issues that the group will tackle, although it noted they will discuss “establishing international spaceport standards.” The initial group of eight spaceports will meet to determine key topics for collaboration.

The spaceports range from established to proposed facilities. MARS, for example, hosts launches by companies like Northrop Grumman and Rocket Lab, while the other U.S. spaceport to join, Pacific Spaceport Complex-Alaska, has served small launch vehicle companies such as ABL Space Systems and Astra. Sweden’s Esrange Space Center has been a launch site for suborbital sounding rockets for decades and is preparing to host orbital launches.

Two spaceports in the United Kingdom that signed the agreement, SaxaVord Spaceport Sutherland Spaceport, are developing facilities with plans to host orbital launches as soon as 2025. The other three spaceports — Hokkaido Spaceport in Japan, Space Centre Australia and Stargate Peru — are still in early stages of development and it is unclear when, or if, they will support orbital launches.

“By working together to establish standardized practices, we can enhance the resilience and responsiveness of launch systems,” said James Palmer, chief executive of Space Centre Australia, in a statement.

The MOU signing took place at the end of a closed-door meeting held at IAC hosted by the Federal Aviation Administration and the Global Spaceport Alliance (GSA), an organization of existing and proposed spaceports. That meeting discussed topics from regulation to economic development of spaceports around the world.

The wide range of spaceports participating in the meeting and signing the MOU illustrated the challenge of comparing launch facilities. Another IAC conference presentation presented one approach for doing so.

“Each spaceport is unique,” said Janet Tinoco of consultancy Runways to Space during a presentation at the IAC Oct. 17. “How do you really compare and contrast different spaceports and different regulatory regimes in a fair, equitable and reliable manner?”

The approach that she and Patrick McCarthy of Space Florida adopted is the “Spaceport Readiness Level,” a one-to-nine scale modeled on the technology readiness level methodology used by agencies like NASA. The scale examines technical and regulatory capabilities to host a wide range of launch activities.

In that scale, a spaceport with a rating of one would be a proposed site that has outlined its basic concept but has yet to secure regulatory approvals or build infrastructure. A spaceport rated four would have “limited” operational capability for a single customer while one at nine can handle “mature and rapid” operation of multiple vehicles.

“The objective of this is to give governments or private companies to ability to weigh the ability of their prospective spaceport or operational spaceport to support different kinds of customers at different rates,” McCarthy said. “The whole idea is to give an objective scale as opposed to just listening to the marketing and business development people.”

As part of the presentation McCarthy and Tinoco offered case studies of several spaceports. MARS, for example, is rated a six, meaning it has mature operational capability for a single user or vehicle class and is developing initial capability for other users. SaxaVord was rated three as it has built infrastructure and received a site license but has yet to host a launch. Cape Canaveral topped out at nine.

“Not every spaceport desires or really needs to achieve the highest level,” McCarthy said, such as those owned and operated by a single company like Blue Origin’s Launch Site One in West Texas for its New Shepard suborbital vehicle and SpaceX’s Starbase site for Starship/Super Heavy. “They can be sufficiently active at level four or five because they’re supporting a single customer.”