Become a fan of Slashdot on Facebook

 


Forgot your password?
Close
typodupeerror
×
Space Government The Almighty Buck Politics Science

A Spaceport In Ohio? 107

Posted by kdawson from the hello-columbus dept.
UglyTool writes to alert us to an initiative by the state of Ohio and the city of Columbus to lure Canadian rocketeers PlanetSpace to launch from an area airport (the former Lockbourne Air Force Base, now called Rickenbacker International Airport). A decision on the incentives could be made by January. From the article: "Such a package could include tax credits, financing programs and training grants amounting to millions of dollars... PlanetSpace's chairman, Indian-American entrepreneur Chirinjeev Kathuria, told MSNBC.com he expected the incentives to amount to 'somewhere in the neighborhood of $20 million.'" Five other states have spaceports approved or planned.
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

A Spaceport In Ohio? More

A Spaceport In Ohio?

Comments Filter:

  • Saddle Up! (Score:5, Insightful)

    by El Torico ( 732160 ) on Saturday December 02, 2006 @11:02PM (#17086234)
    I always like reading about efforts to get humanity off this ball of rock and water. One thing about the location though, I thought that the closer to the equator, the better. How does that compare against tax breaks?

    • Re:Saddle Up! (Score:5, Insightful)

      by wasted ( 94866 ) on Saturday December 02, 2006 @11:17PM (#17086308)
      I thought that the closer to the equator, the better. How does that compare against tax breaks?

      The ship out of Ohio will be sub-orbital, so the extra velocity gained by being near the equator isn't useful. The tax-breaks will be useful, though.

    • Re:Saddle Up! (Score:5, Informative)

      by antispam_ben ( 591349 ) on Saturday December 02, 2006 @11:36PM (#17086426) Journal
      As the other poster said, it doesn't matter for a sub-orbital flight. But even for orbital flights, taxes are a lot larger percentage of a commercial entities expenses than the equator's speed is a percentage of orbital velocity.

      But it also depends on what orbit you want. For a polar orbit it doesn't matter where you launch from, as an east-west speed differential won't help you go north-south. The big problem with a polar launch for an equatorial orbit surely isn't the lack of equator velocity boost, but rather the fuel used to go from the pole to the equator and then making that 90-degree turn at the equator.
    • To go where? To another ball of rock without water?

      If you think "terraforming" is realistic you've been reading too much science fiction.

      • Re: (Score:2)

        by eno2001 ( 527078 )
        Feh. Terraforming is easy. If the Bush administration did it shortly after 9/11 with little effort, ANYONE can do it. Oh... not THAT "terra". ;P

      • Re: (Score:1, Funny)

        by Anonymous Coward
        Yore a fucking idiot. Terraforming can easily be done in a few minutes. All you need is a molecular seed bomb to start a chain reaction in the atmosphere guided by pre-programmed nanosystems. Using calculations of the target planet's current atmospheric conditions (gas mix, climatology, etc...) vs. the desired results, you would program the molecular seeds to bring the gas mix into balance, rebuild the outer layers of the atmosphere to either let in or keep out the desired amount of UV and Infrared radia

        • Re: (Score:1, Flamebait)

          by pipingguy ( 566974 ) *
          Insert sound of laughter into reader's brain. You misspelled "your", you moron.
        • Gee... Hmmm... Lets get an IPO going! We would need to find an subluna grotto where we could perform controlled tests. We could call the initial offering/ teaser: "Space Seed". Hey! How about getting Ricardo Montalban for a PR spokesman?

          BTW: the parent post didn't spell "your" incorrectly! ("You're" is the contraction of "You are"; e.g.: "No. You're the moron!")
    • Captain Kirk was born in Ohio. Go figure.

      • Spelling Error (Score:5, Informative)

        by wasted ( 94866 ) on Sunday December 03, 2006 @01:10AM (#17086870)
        Captain Kirk was born in Ohio. Go figure.


        I think it is spelled I O W A.
        • You mean he was a member of the Intersteller Ohio Workers Association? :P
        • And if you've driven through them, you'll realize the difference is moot. We could save a lot of effort by channeling the Bruces sketch in the Midwest. "This is Ohio where we grow soybeans, Ohio where we grow wheat, Ohio where we grow corn, and Ohio where we play Big-10 Football and also schedule our major flooding".
          • And if you've driven through them, you'll realize the difference is moot.



            Excepting that Iowa is landlocked and flat as a pancake, and Ohio is next to one of the Great Lakes and part of it is in the Appalachian Mountains, yeah. I guess there's also a five-fold difference in population density, which would probably affect what they would look like to drive through.

          • And if you've driven through them, you'll realize the difference is moot.

            I drove through both of them last month [eventualdecline.com], and they seemed very different to me. Now, Iowa and Nebraska, those were pretty similar IMO.

          • Re: (Score:2)

            by JimBobJoe ( 2758 )
            And if you've driven through them, you'll realize the difference is moot.

            The state's could not be any more different. Iowa is a mostly agricultural state with low population that sincerely earns the term "midwest."

            Ohio has the 25th largest economy in the world. The northeastern part of the state is culturally and demographically like the east coast, whereas the southern parts of the state are just as southern as you would expect below the Mason-Dixon (this explains why Ohio is such a violent swing state.)

            In
          • My experience is on both I-70 and I-80, where the terrain doesn't become interesting until around Youngstown. Before that, yes, there are signs that there are cities somewhere over the horizon, but my memory of 10 years of I-80, Illinois-NJ, and of first moving out there, where at Dawn I stopped at a Denny's somewhere along I-70, only because it was the only sign of anything that I'd seen in a couple of hours. I remember seeing the dawn breaking over the flat to the east, and the featureless dark to the w

    • Re: (Score:1)

      by PopeJM ( 956574 )
      Living in Ohio (at least in Cleveland) I can say that we have a huge amount of cloudy, rainy days so I wonder how they hope to ever get anything off the ground.

  • Never happen - you'll fly E over Washington, DC (Score:4, Insightful)

    by Gothmolly ( 148874 ) on Saturday December 02, 2006 @11:03PM (#17086236)
    Spaceships launch east, preferably from the equator. This will mean basically that a private company can launch ballistic payloads up into the air over DC. Nobody there will let this happen.

    • Re: (Score:3, Interesting)

      by MichaelSmith ( 789609 )
      Spaceships launch east, preferably from the equator

      But north of the equator they launch south east. Would that be safer? would it go south of Washington.

    • Re:Never happen - you'll fly E over Washington, DC (Score:5, Insightful)

      by balsy2001 ( 941953 ) on Saturday December 02, 2006 @11:45PM (#17086464)
      Back in 1999 I had an internship at a "spaceport" in idaho competing to be the home of Lockheed's failed Venture Star (X-33). The advantages in Idaho are you start at about 5000 feet elevation and if you want a polar orbit the farther north the better. Since the plan was to pick 2 sites idaho (like about 30 other sates) thought they could have a compelling reason to be the second, every one assumed florida would be one. Based on my experience there and the problems we were facing because we would have to fly close to calgary and edmonton I have to say flying over DC is definately a very long shot. The population density of the east coast will be very problematic for anyone trying to launch east that is not on the coast. If you launch from the mid west by the time you get to the coast your rocket will have enough velocity to bring many more cities into play during an error/failure than those you fly directly over (Boston, NYC, Phili, Baltimore, DC). I am not saying it is impossible but you will have a very hard time proving to the FAA and the public that there is a 10E-9 or even 10E-6 chance of killing someone during an error (these were the kinds of numbers we were trying to show for launching north from idaho). For reference population densities of canada can be seen at http://atlas.nrcan.gc.ca/site/english/maps/peoplea ndsociety/population/population2001/density2001 [nrcan.gc.ca] and population densities of america can be seen at http://atlas.nrcan.gc.ca/site/english/maps/peoplea ndsociety/population/population2001/density2001 [nrcan.gc.ca].

      • Re: (Score:1, Funny)

        by Anonymous Coward
        The population density of the east coast will be very problematic for anyone trying to launch east that is not on the coast.
        Take I-70 east from Columbus sometime. The only thing dense you'll see for a long, long way is cow shit.

      • The acceptable casualty rates for the FAA are 30E-6. There is currently no accepted fatality rates, though given an accident that is purely a debris event (instead of an explosion on the ground), a casualty expectation of 30E-6 will provide a fatality expectation around 5 - 25E-6.

        There's little extra for a polar orbit to be further north, except that there's probably less population to fly over. A launch from the midwest flying east will bring many more cities into play, but the key is that it will have

    • These are suborbital craft. They go straight up, and come straight down. The only way they'll leave Ohio airspace is by going high enough to be out of the atmosphere.

    • Landing in Ohio, launching from unknown location (Score:4, Informative)

      by Andrew Penry ( 969613 ) on Saturday December 02, 2006 @11:53PM (#17086498)
      The article mentions that the site for launching and landing could be different. Ohio seems to be bidding for a landing and manufacturing site, with launching as a possiblity only if it's approved by the FAA. The article even mentions the idea of launching off of a barge and landing in Ohio.
    • Even aside from that, all it will take is 1 Challenger-type catastropic failure raining debris all over populated areas to sway public opinion decidedly against an inland spaceport. Coastal launch sites have the distinct advantage of a (mostly) empty ocean right next to them. Likewise Arizona has vast expanses of undeveloped land. Granted Ohio has plenty of farmland, and the odds of hitting a farmhouse are low, but if such an accident happened early on it would cripple the project.

  • Strange ship, and why in Ohio? (Score:4, Insightful)

    by Salvance ( 1014001 ) * on Saturday December 02, 2006 @11:04PM (#17086238) Homepage Journal
    I'd be more than happy to ride on Burt Rattan's SpaceShipOne, but PlanetSpace's rocket looks more like an ICBM with a stealth fighter attached than something destined for sightseeing. I'm sure it's fine, but it doesn't have that "Cool" factor for me.

    I wonder why a Canadian team is paying that much money to fly from Ohio ... it seems like the vast Canadian tundra would be a far cheaper alternative, and the Canadian government would probably even lend some of their military airports to support Canada's image worldwide (not that it really needs much support).

    • Re:Strange ship, and why in Ohio? (Score:5, Funny)

      by MichaelSmith ( 789609 ) on Saturday December 02, 2006 @11:08PM (#17086252) Homepage Journal
      doesn't have that "Cool" factor for me.

      an ICBM with a stealth fighter attached isn't cool?

      • Re: (Score:1, Offtopic)

        by WilliamSChips ( 793741 )
        A giant pyramid is even cooler. Especially if you(not Lord Yu, you) are the one impersonating the god.
      • an ICBM with a stealth fighter attached isn't cool?

        Seriously, that sketch is neat looking. Very Dyna Soar-esque, and I have a soft spot for cancelled aerospace projects.

    • Re: (Score:1, Insightful)

      by Ironsides ( 739422 )
      The equator is the ideal place to launch something into orbit from. Ther further north you are, the more energy it takes to reach orbital velocity. This is due to the lower rotation of the earth at that latitude.

      • Re: (Score:2)

        by farrellj ( 563 )
        The Earth's equator is indeed the best place for launching into an equatorial orbit, but it really doesn't matter where you launch if you are going for a polar orbit. That is why the secondary Space Shuttle launch site was in California at Vandenberg, as it didn't matter.

        ttyl
        Farrell

        • Re: (Score:3, Informative)

          by Amazing Quantum Man ( 458715 )
          Actually, Vandenberg is a great place for polar launches. You launch south, and you're over ocean. None of those nasty populated landmasses to worry about dropping stuff on.
      • If this is the case, why not Mexico then? $20 Million would probably go a lot further in Mexico than Ohio, and it's not exactly like Ohio is a whole lot better than Canada if you're looking to be close to the equator.

        • Re: (Score:2)

          by farrellj ( 563 )
          One reason...Security.

          In a place where allegiance is constantly for sale, you cannot secure a space launch site.

          ttyl
                    Farrell
    • Where do you think Jerry Springer comes from? The former mayor of Cincinnati is obviously not from this planet, and that's where he's been hiding his intergalactic pimp ride.

      He's just found another way to cash in the general masses!
    • The "stealth aircraft" part of the system is not part of the original rocket (I've seen the original). It had a proper nose cone and looked very much like the V2 rocket that was the design's inspiration (See here [canadianarrow.com]).

      Besides, you have the story backwards. Canada is not looking to fly out of Ohio. Ohio is trying to enice them to come. As you noted, we have plenty of launch sites available here in the Great White North.

  • Obligatory "The Simpsons" Reference (Score:4, Insightful)

    by StefanJ ( 88986 ) on Saturday December 02, 2006 @11:11PM (#17086280) Homepage Journal
    MONORAIL!

    Um, this is a dumb idea

    As others have already noted, Ohio has two strokes against it:

    It is substantially farther from the equator than Florida (and other proposed SW "spaceports").

    There are heavily populated areas around and to the east of it it. Falling lower stages and strap-on boosters could end up mashing a house or highway or city block.

    I wonder if there's a bandwagon effect in action. Cities in the SW are starting to get publicity for hosting space ports, so why not Ohio?

    I can picture charming hucksters selling cities on space ports the way that con artist sold Springfield on thier monorail.

    • Re: (Score:2)

      by khallow ( 566160 )
      As others have mentioned, it sounds like Ohio is angling for the manufacturing.

    • I can picture charming hucksters selling cities on space ports the way that con artist sold Springfield on thier monorail.

      This happened in Queensland, Australia. A two person company supposedly backed by a consortium of many others got an undisclosed amount out of the taxpayers to plan a spaceport. The same corrupt politician who fell for this also was taken in by a perpetual energy car that ran on water - although it is possible he made something on the deal himself in both cases - he liked getting brow

  • Ohio story (Score:5, Funny)

    by lawpoop ( 604919 ) on Saturday December 02, 2006 @11:23PM (#17086340) Homepage Journal
    As an Ohioan, let me relay this narrative to you:
    • The Wright brothers, who developed and flew the first airplane, were from Ohio.
    • John Glenn, the first man in orbit, is an Ohioan.
    • Neil Armstrong, the first man on the moon, is an Ohioan.
    • Now, they are talking about building a spaceport in Ohio.
    It just shows what length men will go to to get the hell out of Ohio!
    • Not to mention the "The OSU" football team flying all the way to Arizona in January!

      • Re: (Score:3)

        by lawpoop ( 604919 )
        Nice!!1!!

        Go Bucks!!!
      • I think its great all you stupid Ohioians revel in your buckeyes while all around you, your state is going down the drain. I think the ultimate national championship game would be Michigan versus Ohio State. Two states whose fortunes rival each other in futility.

        Maybe if Ohio was concerned about EDUCATION and JOBS rather than a stupid football team, things wouldn't be so dire.

      • AMEN! Go Bucks! Beat Florida!

    • sigh. Whatever. At least we have the MTV spaceman on the Ohio quarter [usmint.gov]. Rickenbacker, as a foreign trade zone [rickenbacker.org], and a bigass flat open space besides, has financial and public support advantages in attracting travel facilities (never mind that several regional airlines have tried and failed while based there). I'm doubtful, however, that this idea will (shoot down this pun if you care to) get off the ground. Main Reason: the weather. Can a suborbital rocket ignore the usual NASA precautions and launch through

    • Re: (Score:1, Funny)

      by stonedcat ( 80201 )
      I tried to leave ohio once... only made it to southern dayton before I ran out of gas and ended up on someone's couch for a year and a half.

    • Re:Ohio story (Score:5, Informative)

      by Robot Randy ( 982296 ) on Saturday December 02, 2006 @11:46PM (#17086468)
      Actually, the first man to orbit the Earth was the Soviet Cosmonaut Yuri Gagarin, who orbited on April 12, 1961.

      John Glenn was the first AMERICAN to orbit the Earth, which he did on February 20, 1962.

      Alan Shepard was the first American into space. He was aboard Freedom 7 on a suborbital flight on May 5, 1961.

    • You forgot (Score:3, Informative)

      by plopez ( 54068 )
      Devo, the coolest nerds ever!

    • Re: (Score:1)

      by Zerbs ( 898056 )
      what length men will go to to get the hell out of Ohio

      sounds like my new Sig line...
    • You forgot one... rate of increase of jobs leaving Ohio equivilent to the speed of a rocket.

    • The Wright brothers, who developed and flew the first airplane, were from Ohio.

      The Wright brothers were way ahead of their time -- they knew that Ohio was no place for a spaceport. So they launched their first vehicle from KittyHawk, North Carolina for multiple reasons:

      1) They knew that since it was closer to the equator, it would be easier to go orbital. They only lacked the funding to make it happen.
      2) They knew that the radar and telemetry tracking capabilities were much superior in North Caroli

    • Re: (Score:2)

      by JimBobJoe ( 2758 )
      As an Ohioan, let me relay this narrative to you

      All kidding aside, Ohio was meant to play a bigger role in space than it has.

      When the space program was initially conceived, the Cleveland NASA center was the obvious choice for being the technical operation headquarters.

      However, dim-witted Ohio politicians (an unfortunately trend of the last 50 years) didn't know how important it was to make sure that Cleveland got the center (so they didn't bother to fight for it.)

      Texas Senator Lyndon Johnson said that there
  • ... due to it's closeness to the equator.

  • Remember New Mexico was going to build one [slashdot.org] too...

    offhand I'd think Ohio, being farther north, would be at a disadvantage.

    Ideally you'd want the highest altitude closest to the equator. Meaning Ecuador would be the logical place to put it.
    • Former Argentina's president Carlos Menem was going to do the same in the province of Cordoba (he even announced it on a speech)... I think he was drunk or something :D

      Maybe this is another "politicians school" thing they must do from time to time.
  • "Cincinnasty...You will never find a more wretched hive of scum and villainy. We must be cautious"

  • Rocket Science eludes Slashdot. (Score:5, Insightful)

    by camperdave ( 969942 ) on Sunday December 03, 2006 @12:24AM (#17086636) Journal
    Why all the comments about being close to the equator? This is a SUBORBITAL craft. It goes up, and then comes down. It travels no more than 50 miles horizontally. It makes no difference whatsoever where on the planet the craft is launched from. There are many places in Canada from which they can launch. Ohio just wants to grab a slice of the pie. In fact, the suggested airbase is actually not viable, because the first stage (the red and white rocket shaped part) is designed to splash down. There is no major lake near Rickenbacker.
  • Ignoring the fact that the launch site is far away from the equator, which is probably not that big of deal, there is still the issue of safety and the fact that rockets still blow up quite dramatically. To compensate for this eventuality, it seems common practice to launch over the ocean where the area can be cleared of humans and all that get killed are is the presumably non-sentient marine life. If the craft tracks toward the northeast, it could get over the ocean in several minutes, but that still se

  • This is not for launching. (Score:5, Informative)

    by damiangerous ( 218679 ) <1ndt7174ekq80001@sneakemail.com> on Sunday December 03, 2006 @12:45AM (#17086746)
    This proposal isn't for launching. It's for support facilities and landing.

    State and local officials in Ohio are considering an incentive package that would lead the Canadian-American rocket venture PlanetSpace to put the manufacturing and landing facilities for its suborbital spacecraft at a former military air base near Columbus
    The article does discuss that it's conceivable that at some point in the future this site could be used for suborbital launches, but that's even further off than this "very preliminary" plan.

    • Re: (Score:1)

      by Tychon ( 771855 )
      Way to ruin my dream of being an hour from a spaceport.
    • It doesn't sound like a plan with much of a future. If it's only for suborbital, then that's it, you get suborbital, no shot at orbital.

      But that's not my only concern. Because of the immense amount of energy needed to do a good suborbital launch, I am skeptical that it would ever be affordable to anyone but the wealthy. Energy isn't getting cheaper.
  • I wonder if an Ohio location has anything to do with Ohio State University. OSU has a top-notch engineering program and is the second-largest school in the US (and bigger than anything in Canada). If there were a space port in Ohio, OSU engineering students would be lining up to volunteer (for free) to help with the space program.

    That's gotta make the deal look juicy to the Canucks.
    • ...and is the second-largest school in the US.
      Make that first largest. [dispatch.com]

    • Re: (Score:2)

      by Peyna ( 14792 )
      Not that I give any credence to US News & World Report, but twenty-sixth [usnews.com] isn't all that impressive if they were placing something in a location solely to leech good students.

      And exactly why would being a large university have anything do with it at all?
      • Larger schools have more and better resources (both equipment and staff) available to motivated students. Average/lazy students might do better at smaller schools where they get individual attention basically forced on them. But self-motivated students will have far more opportunities to learn at a larger schools.

        Want to get involved with a robotics team at a small school? It might be possible--if you're lucky. At a big school? Which team would you like to join?

  • Don't forget Alaska (Score:3, Interesting)

    by AK Marc ( 707885 ) on Sunday December 03, 2006 @03:45AM (#17087556)
    I thought that Alaska was the only non-federally owned launch site in the US. It is the only location not in Florida that can lauch east and still be over water. It's the farthest north of any sites ever proposed (good for polar launches). It is good for launching test rockets for the missile defense (the other site approximates what would happen if New Zealand would attack the US, Alaska approximates a Russian, Chinese, or North Korean launch). And, it's a great place to hunt bears or fish if weather delays your launch. Not to mention it is cheaper than any other launch site for launch fees, thought getting the rocket there (and fuel for non-polar launches) might be more. Oh, and unlike other proposed non-federal sites, it's been operating for years.

    Go Alaska!
  • The last time something called the rickenbacker got involved in space travel, she [wikipedia.org] got involved.
  • Jeff Bezos (founder of Amazon.com) has Blue Origin in Kent, Washington and has chosen an area near Van Horn in West Texas for the spaceport. He has bought 290,000 acres of desert ranch land. They tested the rocket at the spaceport on November 13th and plan 10 suborbital tests in the next year. There have been articles in AP, The Wall Street Journal, MSNBC and other sources.
  • http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/System_Shock_2/ [wikipedia.org]

    System Shock 2 starts in 2114, forty-two years after the events in System Shock, with the TriOptimum starship Von Braun serving as its main setting. The Von Braun is on its maiden voyage as the first faster-than-light starship in human history, and is joined by a Unified National Nominate (UNN) military starship, the Rickenbacker, an armed escort for the journey into the unknown.

  • A port is, in transportation terminology, a place where commerce occurs and goods or people are transshipped. This isn't a port - it's an amusement park.
  • "There is nothing wrong with Ohio,
    except the snow and the rain."
  • It's almost ALWAYS been Rickenbacker Air Force Base. At least since WWI as Eddie Rickenbacker, a Ohio Native, was a ace during WWI. Not sure where in hell they got Lockbourne unless that was what it was named before it was Rickenbacker.

Slashdot Top Deals

"Tell the truth and run." -- Yugoslav proverb

Close