Spaceport race is going global

There’s a global groundswell of support to build spaceports.

In the United States alone, political and financial muscle is at work to install spaceports in a number of states, be it in New Mexico, Oklahoma, Texas … as well as Wisconsin. Other states, especially Florida, are busy trying not to be left behind in the spaceport sweepstakes by pushing for new space-industry legislation.

On the world scene, a Scotland spaceport has been touted. So too is building a spaceport in the United Arab Emirates. Also being advanced is Spaceport Singapore.

Still, with all this hustle and bustle, key questions remain: What is a spaceport anyhow? Moreover, can they be designed to accommodate the projected hunger for public space travel?

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/12835483/wid/11915829

...I grew up on Heinlein and his brethren, and after July 20, 1969, I thought all this was going to happen pretty much right away... Alas, it wasn't to be--but am delighted to see it finally starting right now. I'd love to go, if my bones could take it at my age...:-(...

Anyone who takes a jaunt into space for a nice view and a minute or two of weightlessness is using serious amounts of energy, probably fossil-fuel derived. Of all the future projects to work on now, this has got to be the most frivolous.

We may need these "spaceports". A double edge sword.

There are already places we can launch satellites from. There's no need for launching huge amounts of things into space, at huge cost in terms of energy and expertise, when there are so many things to be fixed here on Earth. The effort needed to sustain any practical project in space, whether manned or unmanned, is orders of magnitude more than doing the equivalent on earth. Far from being a 'need', it's a waste. Furthermore, these spaceports are aimed at the leisure market.

But air travel slowly became more accessible to the masses until the recent spike in fuel prices.

As with airplanes, the rich are going to get first crack at space tourism. It may be the only way that further development is financed so that our children may have a chance to fly to the moon without having to sell the house first.

Hardly anyone goes up in a plane for the sake of going up in a plane - they do it to go somewhere. The last plane that did exist for it own sake - Concorde - wasn't financially viable. People use planes as transport. Planes can compete financially with trains or cars because they use the same order of magnitude of fuel (they are perhaps 5 times more inefficient than a train), and aren't restricted by tracks, which have to be maintained as well. Even so, with portable energy becoming more and more expensive, their future isn't guaranteed. But rockets that can go outside the atmosphere use much more fuel, since they have to carry their oxidant, and can't use the atmosphere to give themselves lift. There's also what happens when something goes wrong - mechanical failure is much more serious in a rocket than a plane. The cost will be enormous, and the only advantage over a plane is a few hours gained on the very longest routes.

Going to the moon is the leisure market, too. There's no need for it. If you think our average children will be able to do that, when we don't even know if they be able to own a car, then you must have discovered a whole new energy source.

If chloroflurocarbons are a by-product of a fuel's breakdown and decomposition, they could do serious damage to the ozone layer. More skin cancer cases, possible species extinctions, etc. could result.

I think nuclear could be the way to go for spaceflight. True, there is always a risk, but if you're hitching a ride to space, the danger is always the same no matter what fuel you use.

On the other hand, come to think of it, magnetic propulsion could be an attractive alternative, reducing dependency on fuel if you can develop a vertical rail system that's efficient enough.