Michigan Spaceport Oscoda-Wurtsmith Airport Site-Specific Feasibility Study

In collaboration with:

Michigan Spaceport Site Specific Feasibility Study

Final Report

Prepared for:

DC3S Building 7205 Sterling Ponds Court Sterling Heights, Michigan 48312

Prepared by:

4582 South Ulster Street Denver, CO 80237

In collaboration with:

July 31, 2020

This document contains information proprietary to the Michigan Aerospace Manufacturing Association PROPRIETARY Michigan Spaceport Site Specific Feasibility Study

This page is intentionally left blank.

Michigan Spaceport Site Specific Feasibility Study PROPRIETARY

Executive Summary

Kimley-Horn of Michigan, Inc., in collaboration with BRPH, PLLC., completed a site- specific feasibility analysis to evaluate the feasibility of conducting horizontal launch operations out of Oscoda Wurtsmith Airport (OSC). The study approach consisted of the following four elements: 1) evaluate potential concept vehicles, 2) develop a proposed concept of operations, 3) prepare a preliminary explosive site plan, and 4) evaluate spaceport infrastructure needs. The study concluded with the development of a proposed scope of services needed to apply for a Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) launch site operator license.

Based on the results of the study analysis, the consulting team has determined that Oscoda-Wurtsmith Airport meets the requirements to safely operate a commercial spaceport capable of supporting air-launched captive carry launch vehicles as well as stratospheric balloons.

While other launch or reentry systems could also be supported, it is not recommended that they be pursued at this time to optimize the value of the license in pursuing near-term opportunities.

Concept Vehicle Evaluation

The various launch vehicle categories identified in Figure I are all able to operate from an air and space port, similar to the proposed spaceport at OSC. While the site-specific feasibility study determined that all of the concepts could reasonably be supported at OSC, only two concepts were recommended due to their near-term operational potential.

Figure I. Vehicle Concepts

i PROPRIETARY Michigan Spaceport Site Specific Feasibility Study

The concept vehicles identified above were analyzed to determine the operations that are most compatible with existing conditions at OSC and the current state of the industry. The results of the evaluation are shown below in Figure II, with higher numbers indicating more favorable results. This evaluation resulted in a recommendation that both the Concept Z orbital launch vehicle and stratospheric balloon concept be further evaluated and pursued. Operators of both of these concepts have indicated potential interest in the site.

Figure II. Vehicle Concept Evaluation

ii Michigan Spaceport Site Specific Feasibility Study PROPRIETARY

Proposed Concept of Operations

The results presented in Figure II were used to determine the vehicle concepts that would be further analyzed in the study and pursued within a proposed Concept of Operations (CONOPS). The elements of the CONOPS that were evaluated within this study were 1) potential launch azimuths for orbital missions, 2) notional flight profiles, 3) notional flight corridors, 4) infrastructure requirements, and 5) explosive siting considerations.

Launch Azimuths

The launch azimuth is the heading (in degrees), clockwise from north, that a launch vehicle travels. The latitude at the ignition point in combination with the launch azimuth determines the orbital inclinations that are achievable for a launch vehicle. The launch azimuths that were defined as part of this study were developed to satisfy potential sun- synchronous, polar, and high inclination orbits while minimizing rocket-powered overflight of land.

Notional Flight Profiles

Notional flight profiles and phases of flight were developed using publicly available information or information provided by potential launch operators. The notional flight profiles were used to develop ground tracks of the potential flights and identify regions where expendable launch vehicle stages would potentially return to Earth. Additionally, the phases of the flight profiles were defined for each concept vehicle analyzed as part of this study.

Notional Flight Corridors

A flight corridor is the region along the ground trace of a flight profile where potential debris from an off-nominal launch is contained. For this study, notional flight corridors were generated based on the notional flight profiles. The flight corridors for the Concept Z flight profiles were developed using guidance from 14 CFR Part 420. The high-altitude balloon flight corridor was developed to approximately encompass all portions of flight with some additional buffer. Detailed flight corridors for each concept vehicle and operating area will need to be developed at a later time when preparing a launch site operator license application.

Infrastructure Requirements

Each concept vehicle has infrastructure that is required to support launch operations. For the proposed Concept Z vehicles, the most critical piece of infrastructure needed to support operations is a runway of sufficient length. For more non-traditional launch vehicle types, such as a high-altitude balloon, the infrastructure requirements are heavily dependent on the proposed operations. For a high-altitude balloon, the most critical infrastructure is a launch pad location that can be used for all ground operations, including balloon inflation. Both concept vehicles that are evaluated as part of this study require the use of infrastructure, such as propellant storage areas, to support launch operations.

iii PROPRIETARY Michigan Spaceport Site Specific Feasibility Study

Optional infrastructure may also be developed to support future manufacturing, testing, maintenance, processing, and passenger service operations.

Explosive Siting Considerations

Concept Z orbital type launch vehicles can use either liquid fuels/oxidizers or solid fuel as propellants. Due to the flammability or potential explosive nature of the propellants, hazardous ground operations related to Concept Z type launch vehicles include fuel storage, oxidizer storage, oxidizer loading, and integration of a hazardous payloads.

High-altitude balloons typically utilize high-pressure compressed gas transported in tanker trucks to inflate the balloon. The distances to exposure for outdoor storage or use of bulk compressed gas is documented in National Fire Protection Association (NFPA) 55 – Standard for the Storage, Use, and Handling of Compressed Gases and Cryogenic Fluids in Portable and Stationary Containers, Cylinders, and Tanks. It is anticipated that the only hazardous ground operation related to high-altitude balloons would be the temporary fuel storage and high-pressure loading operation.

Potentially hazardous operations would need to occur in designated explosive hazard facilities that are located at a safe distance from public areas, public traffic routes, and other explosive hazard facilities.

Preliminary Explosive Site Plan

A preliminary explosive site plan was developed as part of the study. Various explosive hazard facilities were identified and evaluated, including; 1) Fuel Storage Area (FSA), 2) Oxidizer Storage Area (OSA), 3) Oxidizer Loading Area (OLA), 4) Solid Propellant Staging Area, 5) Test Stands, and 6) Vehicle Processing Facility (VPF). The FSA, OSA, OLA, and Solid Propellant Staging Area can be accommodated with little impact to existing operations and minimal infrastructure improvements.

Former Alert Apron

The existing alert apron at the north end of the airfield was identified as the preferred location for siting of the primary proposed explosive hazard facilities. Within this area there is sufficient space to appropriately site a FSA, OSA, and OLA. If needed, the OLA could also be utilized as a temporary solid propellant staging area and a location for staging a temporary test stand. A preliminary explosive site plan for the existing alert apron was developed and is presented below in Figure III. It is important to note that the Public Area Distance (PAD) of the OLA overlaps several inhabited buildings that would need to be vacated when conducting hazardous operations. The individual buildings impacted are described in more detail within the study. The alert apron is outside the current aircraft operating area and refurbishment to the pavement along with reactivation of the apron will be required prior to supporting aircraft movements. Modifications to the access fence are also required. It is estimated to cost between $5,000,000 and $13,000,000 to reactivate the alert apron depending on how much pavement is refurbished.

iv Michigan Spaceport Site Specific Feasibility Study PROPRIETARY

Figure III. Preliminary Explosive Site Plan (Scaled Map) Sources: Kimley-Horn (2020), ArcMap (2020)

v PROPRIETARY Michigan Spaceport Site Specific Feasibility Study

Future Test Facilities

There is currently no adequate location within the existing airport property boundary that can accommodate permanent rocket engine test stand facilities, but there are 650-acres of land owned by Michigan Department of Natural Resources (MDNR) just west of the airfield that would be ideal for supporting test facilities and other aerospace development (see Figure IV). The land would need to be procured prior to any test stand or aerospace development. Additional landing beyond the 650-acres identified here may also be acquired if needed.

Figure IV. Potential Location for Future Test Stand(s) Sources: Kimley-Horn (2020), ArcMap (2020)

vi Michigan Spaceport Site Specific Feasibility Study PROPRIETARY

Infrastructure Evaluation

This study evaluated the level of concern and cost associated with developing both required baseline infrastructure and optional infrastructure for an air and space port at OSC. In general, the level of concern associated with the recommended baseline facilities and infrastructure was low, with the exception of the OLA that requires reactivation of the alert apron. The baseline infrastructure for all required facilities already exists and would need minor to moderate modifications to accommodate the proposed operations.

Recommended Baseline Infrastructure

The required infrastructure and facilities that were evaluated as part of this study are listed below and shown in Figure V.

• Runway • Balloon Launch Pad • Fuel Storage Area (Temporary) • Oxidizer Storage Area (Temporary) • Oxidizer Loading Area • Solid Propellant Staging Area

Optional Infrastructure

The optional infrastructure and facilities ranged from low level of concern to high level of concern. The level of concern generally was assigned based on the investment required to develop the facility, the benefit that would be obtained from developing the facility, and the ability to acquire the land where the facility would be developed. The optional facilities and infrastructure that were evaluated are listed below, shown in Figure VI, and described in more detail within the study.

• Fuel Storage Area (Permanent) • Oxidizer Storage Area (Permanent) • Vehicle Processing Facility • Payload Processing Facility • Test Stands • Mission Control • Spaceflight Training Facility • Spaceflight Participant Terminal • Visitor Center / Museum / Educational Center • Airport Rescue and Firefighting • Air Traffic Control Tower • Aerospace Development Area Site Preparation • Liquid Oxygen Generation Facility

vii PROPRIETARY Michigan Spaceport Site Specific Feasibility Study

Figure V. Recommended Spaceport Infrastructure Sources: Kimley-Horn (2020), ArcMap (2020)

viii Michigan Spaceport Site Specific Feasibility Study PROPRIETARY

Figure VI. Optional Spaceport Infrastructure Sources: Kimley-Horn (2020), ArcMap (2020)

ix PROPRIETARY Michigan Spaceport Site Specific Feasibility Study

FAA Licensing Process

A Launch Site Operator License (LSOL) allows for a spaceport to offer its site to potential launch operators that fit within the licensed concept of operations. By obtaining a LSOL, a site has demonstrated to the FAA that the proposed launch site has complied with 14 CFR Part 420 and can meet the minimum level of safety needed to support commercial space launch activities. The process for applying for a LSOL includes the following main elements:

1. LSOL application 2. Compliance with the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) 3. Flight safety analysis with flight corridor for all operations 4. Airspace letter of agreement 5. Mariner letter of agreement 6. Access control plan 7. Scheduling and notification plan 8. Emergency response and accident investigation plan 9. Explosive site plan 10. Lightning protection policy

A recommended scope of services for the preparation of a LSOL application, supporting documentation, and NEPA compliance is provided in Appendix D to this study.

ROM Cost Estimate

A detailed Rough Order of Magnitude (ROM) Cost Estimate is provided in Chapter 5 and summarized in Table I. The LSOL application is the only required next planning element, however the other planning elements are also recommended.

Table I. ROM Cost Estimate for Infrastructure and Facilities ROM Cost Estimate Spaceport Elements Summary

Planning and Licensing Low High Economic Analyses $50,000 $300,000 Spaceport Master Plan $350,000 $600,000 LSOL Application and Environmental $600,000 $800,000 Subtotal $1,000,000 $1,700,000

Recommended Spaceport Infrastructure Low High Subtotal $5,000,000 $13,200,000

Optional Facilities and Infrastructure Low High Subtotal $70,000,000 $270,000,000

x Michigan Spaceport Site Specific Feasibility Study PROPRIETARY

Development Schedule

A summary of the preliminary development schedule is provided in Figure VII. FAA LSOL licensing is a next step and is expected to take between 24 to 36 months.

Preliminary Development Schedule Duration Spaceport Element Year 1 Year 2 Year 3 Year 4 Year 5 Year 6 (months)

Planning Licensing (

Economic Analyses 6 to 15

Spaceport Master Plan 18 to 24

LSOL Application and Environmental 24 to 36+

Required Facilities and Infrastructure

Runway N/A Balloon Launch Pad N/A

Fuel Storage Area (Temporary) 0 to 6

Oxidizer Storage Area (Temporary) 0 to 6

Oxidizer Loading Area / Reactivate Alert Apron 24 - 36

Optional Facilities and Infrastructure

Fuel Storage Area (Permanent) 12 to 24

Oxidizer Storage Area (Permanent) 12 to 24

Vehicle Processing Facility 12 to 30

Payload Processing Facility 6 to 30

Test Pads 12 to 24

Mission Control 6 to 24

Spaceflight Training Facility 18 to 36

Spaceflight Participant Terminal 12 to 24+

Visitor Center / Museum / Educational Center 12 to 30

Airport Rescue and Fire Fighting 18 to 30

Air Traffic Control Tower 30 to 48

Aerospace Development Area 18 to 30

Liquid Oxygen Generation Facility 12 to 24

Planning Recommended Optional Aggressive Aggressive Aggressive Conservative Conservative Conservative

Figure VII. Preliminary Development Schedule

xi PROPRIETARY Michigan Spaceport Site Specific Feasibility Study

Recommended Next Steps

The results from the site-specific feasibility study demonstrate that existing infrastructure can be utilized at OSC to develop a commercial spaceport. While most recommended facilities can be established with little investment, a significant investment will be required to reactive the former alert apron to support aircraft movements necessary for the oxidizer loading area. During discussions with the OSC Airport Director, an attempt was made to identify a potential low-cost / no-cost option for a temporary oxidizer loading area, however no option was found at this time. It is recommended that when a potential operator expresses interest in utilizing the spaceport, coordination with that operator occur to see if another option exists to satisfy their unique operations.

Kimley-Horn recommends that the following steps be completed for spaceport development and licensing efforts related to the horizontal air and space port.

1) Finalize economic and business case studies to develop an understanding of investments and opportunities associated with spaceport development.

2) Contact the FAA-AST to initiate the pre-application consultation process for launch site licensing.

3) Prepare an LSOL application for submittal to FAA-AST.

4) Prepare the environmental assessment concurrently with the license application.

5) Initiate airspace stakeholder coordination and outreach efforts in collaboration with FAA-AST and authorities having jurisdiction over the airspace.

6) Initiate maritime stakeholder coordination and outreach efforts in collaboration with FAA-AST and the United States Coast Guard (USCG).

7) Initiate international stakeholder coordination and outreach efforts in collaboration with FAA-AST.

8) Obtain LSOL for horizontal launch activities.

9) Develop a spaceport master plan to identify spaceport infrastructure for future design and construction.

10) Begin design and construction of desired facilities to support spaceport operations.

xii Michigan Spaceport Site Specific Feasibility Study PROPRIETARY

Table of Contents

Executive Summary ...... i Table of Contents ...... xiii List of Figures ...... xvii List of Tables ...... xix Chapter 1 - Introduction and Background ...... 1 1.1 Introduction ...... 1 Purpose and Objectives ...... 1 Study Approach ...... 1 Evaluation Methodology ...... 2 1.2 Airport Overview ...... 3 Facility...... 5 Facilities Available for Aerospace Related Operations ...... 6 Future Hangar Infrastructure ...... 11 Land Available for Lease/Development ...... 11 Plans ...... 14 Former Alert Apron ...... 14 Site Visits ...... 15 Chapter 2 - Concept Launch and Reentry Vehicle Analysis ...... 17 2.1 Concept X ...... 17 Notional Operating Area ...... 18 2.2 Concept Y ...... 20 Notional Operating Area ...... 21 2.3 Concept Z Suborbital ...... 22 Notional Operating Area ...... 23 2.4 Concept Z Orbital ...... 24 Notional Operating Areas...... 25 2.5 High-Altitude Balloon ...... 30 Notional Operating Area ...... 31 2.6 Horizontal Reentry Vehicle ...... 33 Notional Operating Area (Reentry Corridor)...... 34 2.7 Vehicle Concept Comparison and Evaluation ...... 35 Chapter 3 - Proposed Concept of Operations ...... 37

xiii PROPRIETARY Michigan Spaceport Site Specific Feasibility Study

3.1 Concept Z Orbital ...... 37 Ignition Points and Launch Azimuths ...... 37 Notional Flight Profiles ...... 38 Notional Flight Corridor Development ...... 40 Airspace Considerations ...... 40 Infrastructure Requirements ...... 42 Explosive Siting Considerations ...... 42 3.2 High-Altitude Balloon ...... 43 Notional Flight Profile ...... 43 Notional Flight Corridor Development ...... 44 Airspace Considerations ...... 44 Infrastructure Requirements ...... 45 Explosive Siting Considerations ...... 45 Chapter 4 - Preliminary Explosive Site Plan ...... 47 4.1 Definitions ...... 47 4.2 Anticipated Propellant Types ...... 47 4.3 Proposed Explosive Hazard Facilities ...... 49 Fuel Storage Area (FSA) ...... 49 Oxidizer Storage Area (OSA) ...... 53 Oxidizer Loading Area (OLA) ...... 57 Solid Propellant Staging Area ...... 66 Test Facilities (Optional) ...... 67 Vehicle Processing Facility (VPF) ...... 72 4.4 Proposed Explosive Hazard Facility Evaluation ...... 85 4.5 Recommended Preliminary Explosive Site Plan (Scaled Maps) ...... 86 Chapter 5 – Infrastructure Evaluation ...... 88 5.1 Recommended Planning and Licensing ...... 89 Economic Analyses ...... 89 Spaceport Master Plan ...... 89 Launch Site Operator License Application and Environmental Review ...... 89 5.2 Recommended Facilities and Infrastructure ...... 90 Runway ...... 90 Balloon Launch Pad ...... 90 Temporary Fuel Storage Area ...... 91

xiv Michigan Spaceport Site Specific Feasibility Study PROPRIETARY

Temporary Oxidizer Storage Area ...... 91 Oxidizer Loading Area and Reactivate Former Alert Apron ...... 91 Temporary Solid Propellant Staging Area ...... 92 Evaluation and Recommendations ...... 92 5.3 Optional Facilities and Infrastructure ...... 94 Permanent Fuel Storage Area ...... 94 Permanent Oxidizer Storage Area ...... 94 Vehicle Processing Facility ...... 94 Payload Processing Facility ...... 95 Test Facilities / Test Stands ...... 95 Aerospace Development Area ...... 96 Mission Control Center ...... 97 Spaceflight Training Facility ...... 97 Spaceflight Participant Terminal ...... 97 Visitor Center / Museum / Educational Center ...... 98 Airport Rescue and Firefighting (ARFF) ...... 98 Air Traffic Control Tower ...... 99 Liquid Oxygen Generation Facility ...... 99 Evaluation and Recommendations ...... 100 5.4 Cost Estimate and Development Schedule Summary ...... 102 ROM Cost Estimate Description ...... 102 Preliminary Development Schedule Description ...... 102 ROM Cost Estimate and Development Schedule ...... 102 Chapter 6 – Recommendations and Next Steps ...... 106 6.1 Recommended Next Steps ...... 106 Appendix A: Acronyms ...... 108 Appendix B: References ...... 112 Appendix C: Draft Description of Proposed Action ...... 116 Appendix D: LSOL Application Scope of Work ...... 132

xv PROPRIETARY Michigan Spaceport Site Specific Feasibility Study

This page is intentionally left blank.

xvi Michigan Spaceport Site Specific Feasibility Study PROPRIETARY

List of Figures

Figure 1. Aerial of Oscoda-Wurtsmith Airport ...... 4 Figure 2. Available Facilities at OSC ...... 6 Figure 3. Building 6 – Two-Bay Aircraft Hangar Exterior ...... 7 Figure 4. Building 6 Interior ...... 7 Figure 5. Building 228 – Training Facility Exterior ...... 8 Figure 6. Building 1600 – Temporary Lodging Facility Exterior ...... 8 Figure 7. Building 1842 – Former Medical Center Exterior ...... 9 Figure 8. Building 5072 Exterior ...... 9 Figure 9. Building 5350 – Air Crew Alert Facility Exterior ...... 10 Figure 10. Building 5350 – Air Crew Alert Facility Current Conditions ...... 10 Figure 11. Future Hangar Development ...... 11 Figure 12. Developable Airport and Township Property ...... 12 Figure 13. Public Land Potentially Available for Aerospace Development ...... 13 Figure 14. Former Alert Apron ...... 14 Figure 15. Airport Terminal at OSC Airport ...... 15 Figure 16. View of OSC Airport from Aerial Tour ...... 15 Figure 17. Existing 747 Hangars at OSC Airport ...... 16 Figure 18. Engine Test Cell at OSC Airport ...... 16 Figure 19. Example Concept X Type Vehicles ...... 17 Figure 20. Concept X Flight Path, Suborbital Launch ...... 18 Figure 21. Notional Concept X and Concept Z Suborbital Operating Area...... 19 Figure 22. Example Concept Y Type Vehicle ...... 20 Figure 23. Concept Y Flight Path, Suborbital Launch ...... 20 Figure 24. Notional Concept Y Operating Area ...... 21 Figure 25. Examples Concept Z Suborbital Type Vehicles ...... 22 Figure 26. Concept Z Flight Path, Suborbital Launch ...... 23 Figure 27. Example Concept Z Type Vehicles ...... 24 Figure 28. Concept Z Flight Path, Orbital Launch ...... 25 Figure 29. Notional Concept Z Operating Areas ...... 25 Figure 30. Notional Concept Z Orbital Operating Area from Lake Superior ...... 26 Figure 31. Notional Concept Z Orbital Operating Area from Lake Huron ...... 27 Figure 32. Notional Concept Z Orbital Operating Area from Hudson Bay, Canada ...... 28 Figure 33. Notional Concept Z Orbital Operating Area from Atlantic Ocean ...... 29 Figure 34. Example of High-Altitude Balloon ...... 30 Figure 35. High-Altitude Balloon, Suborbital Flight Path...... 31 Figure 36. Notional High-Altitude Balloon Operating Area ...... 32 Figure 37. Example Horizontal Reentry Vehicle ...... 33 Figure 38. Horizontal Reentry Vehicle Flight Path ...... 33 Figure 39. Notional Reentry Operating Area ...... 34 Figure 40. Notional Flight Path for Concept Z Orbital Launch from the Hudson Bay .... 38 Figure 41. Notional Flight Path for Concept Z Orbital Launch from the Atlantic Ocean . 39 Figure 42. Nominal Path for Concept Z Orbital Launch from the Hudson Bay ...... 41 Figure 43. Nominal Path for Concept Z Orbital Launch from the Atlantic Ocean ...... 42 Figure 44. Notional Flight Path for Balloon Launch ...... 43

xvii PROPRIETARY Michigan Spaceport Site Specific Feasibility Study

Figure 45. Potential Fuel Storage Areas ...... 50 Figure 46. Fuel Storage Area - Option A ...... 51 Figure 47. Fuel Storage Area - Option B ...... 52 Figure 48. Potential Oxidizer Storage Areas ...... 54 Figure 49. Oxidizer Storage Area - Option A ...... 55 Figure 50. Oxidizer Storage Area - Option B ...... 56 Figure 51. Potential Oxidizer Loading Areas ...... 58 Figure 52. Oxidizer Loading Area - Option A ...... 59 Figure 53. Oxidizer Loading Area - Option B ...... 60 Figure 54. Oxidizer Loading Area - Option C ...... 61 Figure 55. Oxidizer Loading Area - Option D ...... 62 Figure 56. Oxidizer Loading Area - Option E ...... 63 Figure 57. Oxidizer Loading Area - Option F ...... 64 Figure 58. Solid Propellant Staging Area – Preferred Location ...... 66 Figure 59. Concept for Four Test Stand Locations Outside of Airport Property ...... 68 Figure 60. Concept for Three Test Stand Locations Outside of Airport Property ...... 69 Figure 61. Concept for Two Test Stand Locations Outside of Airport Property ...... 70 Figure 62. Vehicle Processing Facility Options ...... 73 Figure 63. Vehicle Processing Facility (Non-Hazardous) – VPF Option A ...... 74 Figure 64. Vehicle Processing Facility (Non-Hazardous) – Option B ...... 75 Figure 65. Vehicle Processing Facility (Non-Hazardous) – Option C ...... 76 Figure 66. Vehicle Processing Facility (Non-Hazardous) – Options D & E ...... 77 Figure 67. Vehicle Processing Facility (Hazardous) – VPF Option A ...... 78 Figure 68. Vehicle Processing Facility (Hazardous) – Option B ...... 80 Figure 69. Vehicle Processing Facility (Hazardous) – Other Consideration ...... 82 Figure 70. Preliminary Recommended Explosive Site Plan ...... 86 Figure 71. Percent of Space Planes Supported Based on Runway Length ...... 90 Figure 72. Required Spaceport Infrastructure ...... 93 Figure 73. Optional Spaceport Infrastructure ...... 101 Figure 74. Preliminary Development Schedule ...... 104

xviii Michigan Spaceport Site Specific Feasibility Study PROPRIETARY

List of Tables

Table 1. Evaluation Methodology ...... 2 Table 2. Vehicle Concept Comparison ...... 35 Table 3. Vehicle Concept Evaluation...... 36 Table 4. Recommended Initial Launch/Landing System Concepts ...... 37 Table 5. Propellant Types at OSC ...... 48 Table 6. Propellant Quantity Distance Estimates for Proposed Launch Vehicles ...... 48 Table 7. Propellant Combinations ...... 48 Table 8. Proposed Explosive Hazard Facilities ...... 49 Table 9. Proposed Maximum Propellant Quantities at the Fuel Storage Area ...... 50 Table 10. Proposed Maximum Propellant Quantities at the Oxidizer Storage Area ...... 53 Table 11. Proposed Maximum Propellant Quantities at the Oxidizer Loading Area ...... 57 Table 12. OLA Location Comparison Chart ...... 65 Table 13. Proposed Maximum Propellant Quantities at the Solid Propellant Staging Area ...... 66 Table 14. Proposed Maximum Propellant Quantities at the Facilities ...... 67 Table 15. Approximate Minimum Hangar Dimensions for Aircraft ...... 72 Table 16. Proposed Maximum Propellant Quantities at Vehicle Processing Facility ..... 72 Table 17. Explosive Hazard Facility Evaluation ...... 85 Table 18. Recommended Facilities and Infrastructure Evaluation ...... 92 Table 19. Optional Facilities and Infrastructure Evaluation ...... 100 Table 20. ROM Cost Estimate for Infrastructure and Facilities ...... 103

xix PROPRIETARY Michigan Spaceport Site Specific Feasibility Study

This page is intentionally left blank.

xx Michigan Spaceport Site Specific Feasibility Study PROPRIETARY

Chapter 1- Introduction and Background 1.1 Introduction

The Michigan Launch Initiative (MLI) was spearheaded by the Michigan Aerospace Manufacturing Association (MAMA) in late 2018 to develop commercial space launch capabilities within the State of Michigan. Utilizing grant funding from the Michigan Economic Development Corporation, Kimley-Horn, Inc. and BRPH, PLLC completed the “Michigan Spaceport Site Selection and Feasibility Study.” This study, which was completed on February 13, 2020, identified Oscoda-Wurtsmith Airport (OSC) as the preferred location for an Air and Space Port in Michigan to support horizontal launch operations. The study outlined a series of next steps including the completion of a site- specific feasibility study of OSC in preparation for applying for a Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) Launch Site Operator License (LSOL).

Purpose and Objectives

The purpose of this Site-Specific Feasibility Study is to expand on the preliminary analyses completed as part of the Site Selection Study. This study will recommend proposed launch vehicles to include in a future LSOL, establish a Concept of Operations (CONOPS) unique to the infrastructure available at OSC, identify appropriate operating areas for processing and pre-launch activities, prepare a Description of the Proposed Action and Alternatives to be used as the foundation for the FAA’s environmental review process, and outline the scope, schedule, and fee for preparing an FAA LSOL application.

Study Approach

During the site selection study, OSC Airport data was collected as part of a Request for Information (RFI). This study used that data as well as additionally available information to develop a custom site development plan. The following tasks were completed as part of this study.

1. In collaboration with OSC Airport, local stakeholders, and MAMA, baseline assumptions and goals were developed for spaceport development at OSC Airport. 2. A wide range of launch vehicle types were evaluated for compatibility with OSC Airport. 3. Two launch vehicles types were proposed for consideration in licensing based on time-to-market evaluations and collaboration with potential launch operators. 4. A preliminary CONOPS was developed based on the proposed launch vehicle types. 5. The airport property was evaluated for development of explosive hazard facilities, operating areas, and future infrastructure development. 6. A preliminary explosive site plan was developed for OSC Airport.

1 PROPRIETARY Michigan Spaceport Site Specific Feasibility Study

7. Airspace considerations were evaluated in relation to the proposed launch corridors and launch operating areas. 8. A preliminary Description of Proposed Action and Alternatives was prepared to enable the development of an Environmental Assessment (EA) when FAA site licensing begins. 9. A scope of services for preparation of an FAA LSOL application for OSC Airport was developed. 10. A Rough Order of Magnitude (ROM) cost estimate for spaceport development was prepared. 11. The results of the analyses conducted for the effort was compiled into this study report.

Evaluation Methodology

A comparative analysis was used to evaluate various options throughout this study. When comparing the potential launch vehicle options, a high-level figure of merit approach was used the provided weighted evaluation criteria to rank the options relative to each other. For the evaluation of facilities and infrastructure, “Level of Concern” summary tables were utilized to indicate relative level of concern on a 5-point scale. This scale is defined in Table 1.

Table 1. Evaluation Methodology

2 Michigan Spaceport Site Specific Feasibility Study PROPRIETARY

1.2 Airport Overview

OSC is a publicly owned, General Aviation (GA) airport in Iosco County, Michigan. It is located approximately 3 miles northwest of the unincorporated community of Oscoda, which is on the shores of Lake Huron, and has a population of approximately 6,900 people (Oscoda Charter Township) based on the 2017 American Community Survey 5-Year Estimates [12]. Access to the airport is provided by Michigan County Highway F-41 which runs north-south between M-72 and US 23 in Oscoda, which is the primary north-south route in the region.

OSC, formerly the Wurtsmith Air Force Base (AFB), was established in 1923 as a soft- surface landing site for Army Air Corps aircraft. During World War II, three 5,000-foot long and 150-foot wide concrete runways were constructed for the 100th Base Headquarters and Air Base Squadron but were only needed during 1942. Between 1942 and 1951 the airport was used as a training facility and transient aircraft stopover. In 1951, OSC became a fighter-interceptor training base for the Air Defense Command and required significant upgrades, including construction of Runway 6-24, accompanying taxiways, and military support facilities. Between 1951 and 1994, OSC remained a permanent United States Air Force (USAF) installation for various Squadrons and Wings. Following the fall of the Soviet Union, many USAF installations, such as Wurtsmith AFB, were no longer needed. In 1991, the Department of Defense (DoD) included Wurtsmith AFB on its Base Realignment and Closure (BRAC) list, leading to the decommissioning of Wurtsmith AFB in 1993 [13].

The airport is classified as a GA Airport in the FAA National Plan of Integrated Airport Systems 2019-2023 [1] and as a Tier I Business Center (C-II) Airport in the 2017 Michigan Aviation System Plan [2]. There are currently no commercial passenger service operations out of OSC (no Part 139 certification); however, Kalitta Air, a commercial cargo airline, operates its maintenance facility out of OSC. In calendar year 2016, four passengers were enplaned at OSC [1] and OSC experienced approximately 5,530 runway operations [2], all of which were GA (67% local, 33% transient) [14]. Thirty aircraft were based at OSC as of 2018 [1]. OSC is also home to Phoenix Composite Solutions, Phoenix Flight Services Fixed Base Operator (FBO), and Oscoda Engine Services.

An aerial of the airport, including the airport boundary, is presented in Figure 1.

3 PROPRIETARY Michigan Spaceport Site Specific Feasibility Study

Figure 1. Aerial of Oscoda-Wurtsmith Airport Sources: Kimley-Horn (2020), ArcMap (2020)

4 Michigan Spaceport Site Specific Feasibility Study PROPRIETARY

Facility

OSC spans over 2,500 acres and is situated at 633 feet in elevation [3] with one runway, Runway 7-25, and a full parallel taxiway system. Runway 7-25 is oriented in the northeast- southwest direction and is 11,800 feet long and 200 feet wide with 1,000 ft overruns on both ends. The runway was resurfaced in 2018 and is constructed of asphalt pavement that is in very good condition. The weight bearing capacity of the runway is 155,000 lbs single wheel, 330,000 lbs double tandem wheels, 550,000 lbs dual double tandem wheels. This runway is equipped with high intensity edge lights, precision marking, 4-light PAPI visual slope indicators, a 1,400-foot MALSR on Runway 25, a REIL on Runway 7, and a Localizer/Glide Slope (LOC/GS) for instrument approach on Runway 25.

OSC does not have a control tower and is not within range of another approach or departure tower. The airport is equipped with an Automated Weather Observing System (AWOS). The Aircraft Rescue and Fire Fighting (ARFF) services for OSC are provided by the Oscoda Township Fire Department and nearby mutual aid partners when needed.

Phoenix Aviation Services provides airport services including hangars and tiedown spaces for aircraft parking and 100LL and JET-A fuel. OSC currently has several facilities available for use including one hanger with 19,400 square feet of space and five additional onsite buildings totaling approximately 172,000 square feet. In addition, the airport has medical clinic services, education and training services, a public library, and museum on site. There are also approximately 197 acres (125-acre, 35-acre, and 37-acre parcels) available for airport industrial development, 45 acres for township or residential development, and nine acres for township or business development (see Figure 12). The main apron provides approximately 64,200 square yards of space with an additional approximately 8,500 square yards of space provided on the GA apron. In addition, approximately 650 acres (or potentially more) of publicly owned land on the northwest side of the airport could potentially be converted and used for aerospace and spaceport development.

5 PROPRIETARY Michigan Spaceport Site Specific Feasibility Study

Facilities Available for Aerospace Related Operations

Multiple existing facilities were identified as being available to potentially support aerospace operations. Figure 2 contains a map with the existing facilities and the facilities are further described in the following subsections.

Figure 2. Available Facilities at OSC Sources: Kimley-Horn (2020), ArcMap (2020)

6 Michigan Spaceport Site Specific Feasibility Study PROPRIETARY

Building 6: Two-Bay Aircraft Hangar

One half of the two-bay aircraft hangar (~9,700 square-feet) is currently unoccupied and available for lease, although it may require some general renovations or repairs. There are doors on both the north and south sides of the facility that were installed in the 1950’s. The hangar does not contain a clean room but is rather just a wide-open cell. The roof of the building is approximately 40 ft high with a 35 ft ceiling height. The hangar must be used for aviation purposes because the facility has received grant money from the FAA.

Figure 3. Building 6 – Two-Bay Aircraft Hangar Exterior

Figure 4. Building 6 Interior

7 PROPRIETARY Michigan Spaceport Site Specific Feasibility Study

Building 228: Training Facility

Building 228 was historically used as a training facility by the USAF and hasn’t been utilized since Wurtsmith AFB closed. The building currently does not have a source of heat or air conditioning. The building primarily contains classroom and office space. The building would need extensive rehabilitation if it is to be utilized in the future. If the building is rehabilitated or renovated, it is recommended that it be turned into office and meeting spaces that can be utilized by future tenants and operators.

Figure 5. Building 228 – Training Facility Exterior

Building 1600: Two Story Temporary Lodging Facility

The temporary lodging facility contains approximately 24-bedroom units, a computer room, a lounge, and an administrative office. The facility is currently vacant and is not up to code. The building does not have alarm or fire suppression systems that are required for lodging facilities. If the facility is to be utilized, it would require extensive rehabilitation. It is recommended that if the facility is to be utilized, that it be converted to office space that can be utilized by future tenants and operators.

Figure 6. Building 1600 – Temporary Lodging Facility Exterior

8 Michigan Spaceport Site Specific Feasibility Study PROPRIETARY

Building 1842: Single-Story Former Medical Clinic

Building 1842 is the old USAF clinic and is currently utilized as a Veterans Affairs (VA) clinic and by other medical tenants. All tenants, other than the VA clinic, are anticipated to relocate to a medical facility in Oscoda Township sometime in 2020, leaving the majority of the facility vacant.

The building has a robust heating and cooling system and is functional, as it has been maintained and utilized recently. Of all the available facilities, this facility would require the least amount of renovation for a new tenant. This facility would best serve as office space for future aerospace tenants but may be able to accommodate different needs with more extensive renovation.

Figure 7. Building 1842 – Former Medical Center Exterior

Building 5072: Two-Story Building with 40’ High-Bay

Building 5072 was previously a high security facility and has no windows. The facility was previously used for a flight simulator and has a high-bay with a bridge crane. The facility is currently being used for jet engine storage. The condition of the HVAC system is unknown.

The facility could potentially be converted into a payload processing facility, office space, a mission control center, or secured briefing rooms. The building has a lot of potential for future users and it is recommended that this facility be considered a high priority facility in terms of renovation potential.

Figure 8. Building 5072 Exterior

9 PROPRIETARY Michigan Spaceport Site Specific Feasibility Study

Building 5350: Two-Story Air Crew Alert Facility

The Air Crew Alert Facility was originally constructed in 1960 and renovated in 1989. The building was designed to be a temporary living quarters of 70 Strategic Air Command (SAC) personnel on active alert duty. The facility is a large, reinforced concrete structure that is 169 feet long and 78 feet wide. The facility is two-stories and historically consisted of bedrooms, administrative space, a briefing room, a dining area, a kitchen, and lounge rooms [4]. The building has not been occupied since Wurtsmith AFB was closed. If the facility is to be utilized, it would require extensive rehabilitation. The building was previously marked for eventual demolition, so it is possible that renovating the existing structure would be more costly then demolishing the facility and constructing a new one.

Figure 9. Building 5350 – Air Crew Alert Facility Exterior

Figure 10. Building 5350 – Air Crew Alert Facility Current Conditions

10 Michigan Spaceport Site Specific Feasibility Study PROPRIETARY

Future Hangar Infrastructure

Planning has started for the addition of several large aircraft hangars on and near the southern apron. While not built yet, these hangars could provide support for future non- hazardous vehicle processing.

Figure 11. Future Hangar Development Sources: OSC Airport (2020)

Land Available for Lease/Development

Five parcels of airport and township owned land that could potentially be used for aerospace development were identified in the RFI and are shown in Figure 12. Three of these parcels, totaling 197 acres, are property with direct access to airside operations and are currently zoned as airport industrial. These locations would be ideal for an operator looking to develop facilities that directly interface with vehicle operations and require airfield access. The two parcels of land owned by the township total 54 acres, with 9 acres being zoned for business and 45 acres being zoned for residential. In order for aerospace development to occur on the 45-acre parcel, the land would need to be rezoned. The landside parcels would be ideal for the development of an aerospace business park that would primarily consist of office space.

11 PROPRIETARY Michigan Spaceport Site Specific Feasibility Study

Figure 12. Developable Airport and Township Property Sources: Kimley-Horn (2020), ArcMap (2020)

Map Identifier Approximate Land Area Zoning Landside or Airside

A 125 Acres Airport Industrial Airside

B 35 Acres Airport Industrial Airside

C 37 Acres Airport Industrial Airside

D 45 Acres Township / Residential Landside

E 9 Acres Township / Business Landside

12 Michigan Spaceport Site Specific Feasibility Study PROPRIETARY

Two publicly owned properties adjacent to the airport were also identified for potential aerospace development and are shown in Figure 13. The first is a 144-acre parcel of land that is owned by the U.S. Government. The site was previously utilized by the USAF as a landfill. This property is not particularly ideal for infrastructure development but may serve as a buffer between hazardous operations occurring within the airport property and the general public. The second property is a 650-acre parcel of land owned by Michigan Department of Natural Resources (MDNR). This land was previously leased to the DoD for military operations and is currently Michigan State forest land.

Figure 13. Public Land Potentially Available for Aerospace Development Sources: Kimley-Horn (2020), ArcMap (2020)

13 PROPRIETARY Michigan Spaceport Site Specific Feasibility Study

Plans

The most recent Airport Master Plan for OSC was completed by RS&H in 2013 [3]. The plan proposed the following, also shown on the future Airport Layout Plan (ALP):

• Construction of a new primary airport roadway entrance • Development of business lots south of the runway and west of the existing maintenance facilities • Renovation of north alert apron to industrial development or aeronautical aviation support • Construction of a new crosswind runway with north-south alignment and ultimate length of 5,000 feet and width of 75 feet • Re-alignment of the northside perimeter road • Expansion of GA hangar sites Former Alert Apron

A deactivated alert apron exists on the northeast corner of the airfield. This former alert apron is located outside the current aircraft operating area and will require significant pavement refurbishment before it can be reactivated to support aircraft movements. The current gate allows for vehicle access but would need to be modified to support large aircraft movements.

Figure 14. Former Alert Apron

14 Michigan Spaceport Site Specific Feasibility Study PROPRIETARY

Site Visits

During the site selection phase of the Michigan Launch Initiative, representatives from MAMA and Kimley-Horn conducted a site visit to OSC on October 4, 2019. The site visit consisted of a meeting attended by MAMA representatives, Kimley-Horn representatives, OSC representatives, and Oscoda local officials as well as a field visit of the airport. Images taken during the site visit are included below. On June 9, 2020 representatives of MAMA conducted another site visit to tour the availability facilities previously identified in Section 1.2.2.

Figure 15. Airport Terminal at OSC Airport

Figure 16. View of OSC Airport from Aerial Tour

15 PROPRIETARY Michigan Spaceport Site Specific Feasibility Study

Figure 17. Existing 747 Hangars at OSC Airport

Figure 18. Engine Test Cell at OSC Airport

16 Michigan Spaceport Site Specific Feasibility Study PROPRIETARY

Chapter 2 - Concept Launch and Reentry Vehicle Analysis

Horizontal Reusable Launch Vehicles (RLVs) are launch systems that can take off and land on conventional runways. The horizontal RLVs can either takeoff under jet power, like a conventional aircraft, or under rocket power. Horizontal RLVs can land by means of jet power or a controlled glide and are generally categorized as either Concept X, Concept Y, or Concept Z type vehicles.

In addition to horizontal RLVs, other types of launch vehicles are capable of utilizing infrastructure at an air and space port, such as high-altitude balloons and winged reentry vehicles that are returning from orbit.

One objective of this study was to identify the types of vehicles that are the best candidates for near-term operation out of OSC. This chapter describes the various vehicle types and notional operating areas, accessible from OSC, where the vehicles could potentially conduct missions. At the end of this chapter is a comparative analysis that was used to recommend the types of vehicles to be further evaluated in this study. 2.1 Concept X

Example Concept X RLVs are shown in Figure 19 and include the Reaction Engines Skylon, RocketPlane XP, and PD Aerospace SpacePlane. Currently, there are no Concept X RLVs near the end stages of development, in production, or fully operational.

Figure 19. Example Concept X Type Vehicles Sources: [15], [16], [17] A Concept X RLV is a manned Horizontal Take-off and Horizontal Landing (HTHL) vehicle that utilizes both jet engines and rocket engine(s). The Concept X RLV departs from a runway under jet power, similar to other jet powered aircraft. After departure but prior to rocket engine ignition, the Concept X RLV flies to a designated operating area. Once in the operating area, the Concept X RLV ignites its rocket engine(s) and begins the suborbital portion of flight. After the engine burn is complete, the vehicle coasts in a parabolic trajectory, reaching its apogee and then beginning its return to Earth. During the return to Earth, the Concept X RLV falls in a ballistic trajectory towards the Earth’s surface until aerodynamic control is regained. The Concept X RLV completes its mission

17 PROPRIETARY Michigan Spaceport Site Specific Feasibility Study by landing at the runway, by means of a controlled glide or jet power. An example Concept X suborbital profile is shown in Figure 20.

Figure 20. Concept X Flight Path, Suborbital Launch

Notional Operating Area

The operating area for a Concept X type vehicle is the region where all the rocket- powered portion of flight occurs and can generally be bounded within a 50-mile by 100- mile box. The notional operating area that was identified for Concept X type vehicle is entirely contained within Lake Huron (see Figure 21), with overflight occurring within both United States and Canadian airspace. One major benefit of this operating area is the ability for the entire rocket powered portion of flight to occur over water. The most difficult anticipated challenge associated with this operating area would be the international coordination required between United States and Canadian entities having jurisdiction over the airspace.

18 Michigan Spaceport Site Specific Feasibility Study PROPRIETARY

Figure 21. Notional Concept X and Concept Z Suborbital Operating Area Sources: Kimley-Horn (2020), ArcMap (2020)

19 PROPRIETARY Michigan Spaceport Site Specific Feasibility Study

2.2 Concept Y

An example Concept Y RLV is the XCOR Lynx and is shown in Figure 22. Since XCOR filed for Chapter 7 bankruptcy in 2017 [18], there are no longer any Concept Y RLVs that are near the end stages of development, in production, or fully operational.

Figure 22. Example Concept Y Type Vehicle Source: [19] A Concept Y RLV is a manned HTHL vehicle that takes off under rocket power and lands unpowered (gliding). Concept Y RLVs take off under rocket power from a runway and immediately begin to climb at a steep angle towards space. After engine cutoff, the vehicle coasts in a parabolic trajectory, reaches its apogee and then begins its reentry. If the vehicle is delivering a payload to orbit, the second stage will ignite sometime after rocket burn is complete but before apogee is reached. During reentry, the Concept Y RLV regains aerodynamic control and continues to glide to the runway for landing. An example Concept Y suborbital flight profile is shown in Figure 23.

Figure 23. Concept Y Flight Path, Suborbital Launch

20 Michigan Spaceport Site Specific Feasibility Study PROPRIETARY

Notional Operating Area

A Concept Y vehicle takes off from the runway under rocket power, with ignition occurring at the airport. Since the operating area encompasses all rocket-powered portion of flight, portions of the airport and the properties located between the airport and Lake Huron are included in the operating area. The notional operating area for the Concept Y vehicle was determined to be a trapezoidal shape that is approximately 50 miles long and approximately 35 miles wide at the widest point (see Figure 24). It should be noted that this notional operation area was created based on example flight paths for a vehicle that is no longer in development. Therefore, when a new Concept Y vehicle begins development, the notional operating area should be further evaluated to ensure that it encompasses the capabilities of the new vehicle.

Figure 24. Notional Concept Y Operating Area Sources: Kimley-Horn (2020), ArcMap (2020)

21 PROPRIETARY Michigan Spaceport Site Specific Feasibility Study

2.3 Concept Z Suborbital

Several Concept Z suborbital RLV are in various stages of development. Two of the most advanced concepts that have begun testing include Generation Orbit’s GO Launcher and Virgin Galactic’s SpaceShipTwo, shown in Figure 25.

Figure 25. Examples Concept Z Suborbital Type Vehicles Sources: [22], [23]

A Concept Z suborbital RLV is composed of a carrier aircraft and an air-launched launch vehicle that performs the suborbital portion of the flight. The carrier aircraft can be a conventional aircraft (e.g. Generation Orbit’s Gulfstream III) or non-conventional aircraft (e.g. Virgin Galactic’s WhiteKnightTwo) that takes off and lands on a runway under jet power. A Concept Z suborbital RLV flies to an operating area before the suborbital portion of flight is initiated. Once in the operating area, the launch vehicle detaches from the carrier aircraft and the rocket engine(s) ignites. The launch vehicle on a Concept Z suborbital RLV can be a space plane, such as Virgin Galactic’s SpaceShipTwo, or a suborbital booster, such as Generation Orbit. After engine burn is complete, the launch vehicle may return unpowered to land on the runway or be expended into the operating area. An example Concept Z suborbital flight profile for a fully reusable system is shown in Figure 26.

22 Michigan Spaceport Site Specific Feasibility Study PROPRIETARY

Figure 26. Concept Z Flight Path, Suborbital Launch

Notional Operating Area

The rocket powered portion of flight for a Concept Z suborbital type vehicle is similar to the rocket powered portion of flight for a Concept X type vehicle. Therefore, the same notional operating area that was defined for Concept X type vehicles is valid for Concept Z suborbital type vehicles. The notional operating area for Concept X and Concept Z suborbital type vehicles can be found in Figure 21.

23 PROPRIETARY Michigan Spaceport Site Specific Feasibility Study

2.4 Concept Z Orbital

There are currently multiple Concept Z orbital RLVs in the late stages of development, in production, testing, or currently operational including Northrop Grumman’s Pegasus XL and Virgin Orbit’s LauncherOne. Examples of Concept Z orbital type vehicles are shown in Figure 27.

Figure 27. Example Concept Z Type Vehicles Sources: [24], [25]

A Concept Z orbital RLV is composed of a carrier aircraft and an air-launched launch vehicle that performs the orbital portion of the flight. The carrier aircraft can be a conventional aircraft (e.g. Northrup Grumman’s Modified L-1011 or Virgin Orbit’s 747) or a non-conventional aircraft (e.g. Stratolaunch) that takes off and lands on a runway under jet power. A Concept Z orbital configuration utilizes the carrier aircraft as a reusable “first stage” that travels to an operating area before the orbital portion of flight is initiated. Once in the operating area, the launch vehicle detaches from the carrier aircraft and the rocket engine(s) ignites. For orbital missions the launch vehicle is typically an air-launched expendable launch vehicle (ELV), such as Northrop Grumman’s Pegasus. After engine burn is complete, the payload on the launch vehicle is delivered to orbit and the expendable stages of the launch vehicle return to Earth. An example Concept Z orbital flight profile is shown in Figure 28.

24 Michigan Spaceport Site Specific Feasibility Study PROPRIETARY

Figure 28. Concept Z Flight Path, Orbital Launch

Notional Operating Areas

Four notional operating areas, all with ignition/launch points located over water, were defined for a Concept Z orbital type vehicle: Lake Superior, Lake Huron, Hudson Bay, and the Atlantic Ocean. Specifics of each notional operating area are discussed in the following subsections.

Figure 29. Notional Concept Z Operating Areas Sources: Kimley-Horn (2020), ArcMap (2020)

25 PROPRIETARY Michigan Spaceport Site Specific Feasibility Study

Lake Superior

The notional operating area in Lake Superior was defined based on the assumption that the launch/ignition point would occur in Lake Superior just northeast of Marquette, Michigan. The air carrier would depart from OSC and fly under jet power to Lake Superior, where the air-launch portion of flight would begin. For this scenario, it is likely that first stage of the air-launch platform would return to Earth and land on Canadian territory. If the air-launch platform is composed of multiple stages that return to Earth, it is likely that the subsequent stages would return to Earth and land in the Hudson Bay.

Figure 30. Notional Concept Z Orbital Operating Area from Lake Superior Sources: Kimley-Horn (2020), ArcMap (2020)

26 Michigan Spaceport Site Specific Feasibility Study PROPRIETARY

Lake Huron

The notional operating area in Lake Huron was defined based on the assumption that the launch/ignition point would occur in Lake Huron, just southeast of Oscoda, Michigan. The air carrier would depart from OSC and fly under jet power to Lake Huron, where the air- launch portion of flight would begin. For this scenario, it is likely that first stage of the air- launch platform would return to Earth and land on Canadian territory. If the air-launch platform is composed of multiple stages that return to Earth, it is likely that the subsequent stages would return to Earth and land in the Hudson Bay.

Figure 31. Notional Concept Z Orbital Operating Area from Lake Huron Sources: Kimley-Horn (2020), ArcMap (2020)

27 PROPRIETARY Michigan Spaceport Site Specific Feasibility Study

Hudson Bay

The notional operating area in the Hudson Bay was defined based on the assumption that the launch/ignition point would occur in James Bay, just north of Akimiski Island. The air carrier would depart from OSC and fly under jet power to James Bay, where the air- launch portion of flight would begin. For this scenario, it is likely that first stage of the air- launch platform will return to Earth and land in the Hudson Bay after separation. If the air- launch platform is composed of multiple stages that return to Earth, it is likely that the subsequent stages will return to Earth and land in either Nunavut, Canada, Greenland, or the Arctic Ocean.

Figure 32. Notional Concept Z Orbital Operating Area from Hudson Bay, Canada Sources: Kimley-Horn (2020), ArcMap (2020)

28 Michigan Spaceport Site Specific Feasibility Study PROPRIETARY

Atlantic Ocean

The notional operating area in the Atlantic Ocean was defined to support high- inclination orbital launches, similar to the orbits utilized by SpaceX’s Starlink Satellites. An ignition point for launches in the Atlantic Ocean that originate from Michigan would likely need to occur east of Massachusetts. The carrier aircraft would depart from OSC and fly under jet power to the Atlantic Ocean, where the air-launch portion of flight would begin.

Figure 33. Notional Concept Z Orbital Operating Area from Atlantic Ocean Sources: Kimley-Horn (2020), ArcMap (2020)

29 PROPRIETARY Michigan Spaceport Site Specific Feasibility Study

2.5 High-Altitude Balloon

High-altitude balloons can reach near space altitudes. Currently, unmanned high-altitude balloons are used for research purposes including weather monitoring, atmospheric research, and climate research. However, companies like Space Perspective, World View Enterprises, Zero 2 Infinity, Leo Aerospace, and Loon LLC are looking to expand the potential uses of high-altitude balloons to include space tourism, telecommunications, expanded research capabilities, rocket launch, and other commercial uses [26][27][28].

High-altitude balloons are also being proposed for space tourism. One company seeking to offer space tourism opportunities is Space Perspective. Space Perspective is proposing to take groups of eight to the edge of space in their Neptune capsule where the spaceflight participants would be able to see the curvature of the Earth as well as the blackness of space. The Neptune capsule will include amenities such as a refreshments bar and lavatory. Space Perspectives is proposing an experience that is approximately 6 hours from lift-off to touch-down [29].

High-altitude balloons are also being used as an air-launch platform. Leo Aerospace, Inc. is one company that is further exploring the use of high-altitude balloons as air-launch systems for both orbital and suborbital platforms. Leo Aerospace’s launch vehicle consists of a high-altitude balloon that carries a rocket up to 60,000 ft, at which point the rocket is released and ignites [30]. The company plans to complete their first suborbital launch in 2020 and the first orbital launch in 2022 [31].

There are benefits and drawbacks to high-altitude balloons. High-altitude balloons tend to be less expensive and more readily available for launch than other more traditional launch vehicles, which may make them more desirable for student research groups or spaceflight enthusiasts. However, the near-space balloons that are currently operational typically only reach the stratosphere and are not as controllable as other types of launch vehicles, thus restricting the data collection and making the payload landing location unknown [32]. Balloon operations are also contingent upon atmospheric conditions, winds, weather, and temperature. An example of a High-Altitude Balloon and near-space flight path for a high-altitude balloon is shown in Figure 34 and Figure 35, respectively.

Figure 34. Example of High-Altitude Balloon Source: [26]

30 Michigan Spaceport Site Specific Feasibility Study PROPRIETARY

Figure 35. High-Altitude Balloon, Suborbital Flight Path

Notional Operating Area

The notional operating area for a High-Altitude Balloon is largely due to the control capabilities of the balloon and localize wind patterns. Although high-altitude balloons do have a limited control system, the flight path is highly depended on the wind conditions during flight. Since the success of a mission is heavily dependent on the weather conditions at the time of flight, a mission will not occur unless the winds are favorable to direct the balloon to the desired landing region. A mission specific operating area will be defined for each proposed mission, but a notional range that is intended to encompass the majority of potential operating areas for balloon launch is presented in Figure 35.

31 PROPRIETARY Michigan Spaceport Site Specific Feasibility Study

Figure 36. Notional High-Altitude Balloon Operating Area Sources: Kimley-Horn (2020), ArcMap (2020)

32 Michigan Spaceport Site Specific Feasibility Study PROPRIETARY

2.6 Horizontal Reentry Vehicle

A reentry vehicle is a spacecraft that reenters the Earth’s atmosphere after being on orbit. Reentry vehicles can be launched as the payload on a vertical launch vehicle, such as Sierra Nevada’s Dream Chaser or Boeing’s X-37B, or they can be an element of the vertical launch vehicle itself, such as the Space Shuttle Orbiter. Reentry vehicles generally land unpowered by means of a controlled glide on a conventional runway. An example horizontal reentry vehicle is shown in Figure 37 and an example flight profile is shown in Figure 38.

Figure 37. Example Horizontal Reentry Vehicle Source: [33]

Figure 38. Horizontal Reentry Vehicle Flight Path

33 PROPRIETARY Michigan Spaceport Site Specific Feasibility Study

Notional Operating Area (Reentry Corridor)

The notional operating area for a winged reentry vehicle is large as it covers all area from the time the vehicle reenters the atmosphere until wheels-stop at the landing facility. The notional operating area shown in Figure 39 represents a notional operating area for a descending reentry from the International Space Station (ISS). It should be noted that the operating area is highly notional as the exact operating area is highly dependent on the range of reentry trajectory and the reentry vehicle. The intent of Figure 39 is to show how extensive a reentry corridor can be rather than specify the exact bounding of the corridor.

Figure 39. Notional Reentry Operating Area Sources: Kimley-Horn (2020), ArcMap (2020)

34 Michigan Spaceport Site Specific Feasibility Study PROPRIETARY

2.7 Vehicle Concept Comparison and Evaluation

The vehicle concepts were all analyzed at a high-level to determine the level of concern associated with each concept. The results of the vehicle concept comparison are presented in Table 2.

Table 2. Vehicle Concept Comparison

The various vehicle concepts were evaluated to determine the concepts that are most compatible with OSC and most likely to operate from OSC. The results of the evaluation are presented in Table 3. The results from Table 3 were used to further analyze the top vehicle candidate types in Chapter 3.

35 PROPRIETARY Michigan Spaceport Site Specific Feasibility Study

Table 3. Vehicle Concept Evaluation

Based on the results of the launch vehicle comparison the Concept Z Orbital Launch Vehicle and the High-Altitude Balloon concepts were selected to be further evaluated in this study.

36 Michigan Spaceport Site Specific Feasibility Study PROPRIETARY

Chapter 3 - Proposed Concept of Operations

The proposed CONOPS outlines the primary considerations for the development of a commercial spaceport at OSC. Characteristics of the launch vehicles that are recommended for further evaluation are presented in Table 4 and further described in the following subsections. While many of the vehicle concepts evaluated in Chapter 2 are capable of operating from OSC, the concept vehicles types were prioritized based on the following considerations:

• Operational Readiness Level • Multiple Potential Operators • Expressed Interest from Operators in Operating at OSC • Safety Concerns • Anticipated Coordination Efforts

As additional launch and landing systems become operational in the future, the spaceport CONOPS can be modified to include support for those systems.

Table 4. Recommended Initial Launch/Landing System Concepts Vehicle Type Takeoff Operations Landing Operations Capability

Concept Z Jet Powered Carrier Aircraft Jet Powered / Unpowered Orbital

High-Altitude Balloon Balloon Parafoil High Altitude

3.1 Concept Z Orbital

Ignition Points and Launch Azimuths

Orbital missions originating from OSC can support the launch of payloads to sun- synchronous or polar orbits (80° to 100° inclination) or other high-inclination orbits (approximately 41.5° to 54° inclination).

It is recommended that launches to sun-synchronous and polar orbits occur from the Hudson Bay/James Bay in Canada. The ignition point would occur at a latitude between 53° and 54°. To achieve orbital inclination between 80° to 100°, the majority of the launch azimuths from the Hudson Bay will range between -15° and 15°. A representative ignition point is provided at (53.39, -80.39).

It is recommended that launches to other high-inclination orbits occur from the Atlantic Ocean. The proposed ignition point is at a latitude of approximately 41.5° and the exact inclinations that will be achievable will depend on the distance of the ignition point from the coast of Massachusetts. A representative ignition point is provided at (41.10, -66.36).

37 PROPRIETARY Michigan Spaceport Site Specific Feasibility Study

Notional Flight Profiles

Two notional ground traces for Concept Z orbital flight profiles out of the Hudson Bay and the Atlantic Ocean are presented in Figure 40 and Figure 41, respectively. The flight profile for a Concept Z orbital type launch can be decomposed into three distinct phases: Phase 1 – Flight from Airport to Operating Area, Phase 2 – Rocket Ignition and Rocket- Powered Flight, and Phase 3 – Flight from Operating Area to Airport. The three phases are discussed in more detail in the following subsections. The representative vehicle used for this preliminary analysis is modeled after the Virgin Orbit Launcher One system.

Figure 40. Notional Flight Path for Concept Z Orbital Launch from the Hudson Bay Sources: Kimley-Horn (2020), ArcMap (2020), [5]

38 Michigan Spaceport Site Specific Feasibility Study PROPRIETARY

Figure 41. Notional Flight Path for Concept Z Orbital Launch from the Atlantic Ocean Sources: Kimley-Horn (2020), ArcMap (2020), [5]

Phase 1 – Flight from Airport to Operating Area

The carrier aircraft would depart from OSC with the air-launch platform mated to the aircraft. The carrier aircraft would then fly approximately 650 miles to James Bay (just south of the Hudson Bay in Canada) or approximately 900 miles to the Atlantic Ocean (east of Massachusetts) and carry the air-launch vehicle to an altitude of approximately 35,000 ft to 40,000 ft. Once in James Bay or the Atlantic Ocean, the carrier aircraft would release the air-launch vehicle and the air-launch vehicle would perform the rocket- powered portion of flight.

39 PROPRIETARY Michigan Spaceport Site Specific Feasibility Study

Phase 2 – Rocket Ignition and Rocket-Powered Flight

Once the carrier aircraft is at the launch point, the air-launch vehicle would detach from the air carrier and the rocket engines would ignite. The rocket will fly at supersonic speeds and the first stage engine would burn until all the propellant is consumed. After the first- stage propellant is burned, the first stage would detach and fall into either the Hudson Bay or the Atlantic Ocean. After the first stage detaches, the second stage engine would ignite and place the rocket into the desired orbit. Once in orbit, the payloads would be released [5].

Phase 3 – Flight from Operating Area to Airport

After the air-launch system detaches from the carrier aircraft and the rocket engines ignite, the carrier aircraft would return to OSC under jet power. In the event that there is an emergency situation, the carrier aircraft would fly to the nearest contingency landing location. The contingency landing locations will be identified at a later time as part of the launch site licensing process.

Notional Flight Corridor Development

Notional flight corridors were developed using guidance from 14 Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) Part 420. The first portion of the notional flight corridors, including the splashdown locations, are presented in Figure 32 and Figure 33. Further flight corridor refinement will be required when actual trajectories are analyzed as part of the site licensing efforts.

Airspace Considerations

Airspace considerations during a space launch mission for a Concept Z orbital launch apply to all three phases of the mission identified above. During Phase 1, the carrier aircraft and attached rocket would be subject to standard air traffic control regulations. For Phase 2, where the aircraft has reached the operating area in which rocket ignition would occur, the carrier aircraft would enter a circular holding pattern while waiting for the designated launch window and approval from the FAA or other Air Service Navigation Provider.

At least two days prior to the launch, a Notice to Airmen (NOTAM) is issued by the FAA or Authority Having Jurisdiction (AHJ) over the airspace where the launch is taking place. Historically, the airspace within the launch area is closed to other air traffic to minimize the impact with other airspace users. Efforts have occurred over the past several years to optimize the launch windows and reduce the duration of airspace closures.

For Phase 3, after the launch is completed, the airspace is available to commercial traffic and the carrier aircraft (less the rocket) is again subject to standard air traffic control regulations for its return to OSC or another designated landing site.

The Hudson Bay and Atlantic launch missions would require inter-facility air traffic coordination between the Air Navigation Service Providers from the United States and

40 Michigan Spaceport Site Specific Feasibility Study PROPRIETARY

Canada, FAA and Nav Canada, respectively. Based on a nominal flight trajectory, Figure 42 shows that the carrier aircraft would transit the following Flight Information Regions (FIRs): Minneapolis Center (KZMP) in the United States, Toronto (CZYZ) and finally Winnipeg (CZWG) in Canada to then commence the Phase 2 operations over Hudson Bay. Due to the proximity of three NavCanada FIRs or Airspace Control Centers to the launch area, further coordination between these facilities may be required.

For the Atlantic launch nominal flight path, the mission would likely transit KZMP, CZYZ, Boston (KZBW) and New York Oceanic East (KZNY) Airspace Control Centers as shown in Figure 43. Again, depending on the exact rocket launch location, coordination with the NavCanada Moncton Control Center (CZQM) may be required.

Additionally, with regard to the Atlantic launch missions, there is potential for interaction with North Atlantic Tracks (NATs), which are daily high-altitude transatlantic routes between western Europe and the eastern coast of North America. These tracks (or routes) provide consistent separation between aircraft and are updated daily via NOTAMs for each direction (east, west) to allow for routing around weather systems and tracking of favorable tailwinds to improve efficiency.

Figure 42. Nominal Path for Concept Z Orbital Launch from the Hudson Bay Sources: ICAO FIR World

41 PROPRIETARY Michigan Spaceport Site Specific Feasibility Study

Figure 43. Nominal Path for Concept Z Orbital Launch from the Atlantic Ocean Sources: ICAO FIR World

Infrastructure Requirements

The most critical pieces of infrastructure for a Concept Z vehicle are the runway and a concrete apron for vehicle staging. Each Concept Z vehicle has unique runway requirements. In general, the longer the runway, the better. Other infrastructure that may be required by a Concept Z operator is listed below.

• Propellant Storage Areas (fuel and oxidizer) • Propellant Loading/Unloading Areas (fuel and oxidizer) • Vehicle and Payload Processing Facilities • Mission Control Center

Explosive Siting Considerations

Concept Z orbital type vehicles typically use either liquid fuels/oxidizers or solid propellants. Currently, the most common liquid propellant combination is kerosene and liquid oxygen. Anticipated hazardous ground operations related to Concept Z type vehicles will include fuel storage, oxidizer storage, and oxidizer loading. Each of the operations will need to occur in a designated explosive hazard facility, that is located at a safe distance from public areas, public traffic routes, and other explosive hazard facilities. More details on siting for the explosive hazard facilities are presented in Chapter 4.

42 Michigan Spaceport Site Specific Feasibility Study PROPRIETARY

3.2 High-Altitude Balloon

Notional Flight Profile

A notional ground trace of a flight profile for a High-Altitude Balloon is presented in Figure 44. The flight profile for balloon launch can be decomposed into three distinct phases: Phase 1 – Balloon Inflation, Phase 2 – Ascent and Float Operations, and Phase 3 – Descent and Landing. The three phases are discussed in more detail in the following subsections. The representative vehicle used for this analysis is the Space Perspective Neptune vehicle.

Figure 44. Notional Flight Path for Balloon Launch Sources: Kimley-Horn (2020), ArcMap (2020), [6]

Phase 1 – Balloon Inflation

The launch process begins with balloon inflation, which occurs approximately 45 minutes prior to the scheduled launch time. The balloon that was used as the representative vehicle for this analysis utilizes hydrogen for inflation. During the inflation process, the vehicle is anchored to the ground. While the balloon is inflating, the Flight Operations Team goes through a series of go/no-go polls while coordinating with FAA Office of Commercial Space (AST), FAA Air Traffic Control (ATC), local Terminal Radar Approach Control Facilities (TRACON), and the local Air Traffic Control Tower (ATCT) (if applicable). When inflation is complete, the team goes through final checks, stands up the balloon, completes the final inspection, and holds until FAA AST and FAA ATC clear for launch.

43 PROPRIETARY Michigan Spaceport Site Specific Feasibility Study

Phase 2 – Ascent and Float Operations

After given the clear for launch, the balloon begins its ascent, traveling at approximately 1,000 feet per minute until it reaches its apogee at approximately 100,000 feet. The total ascent time takes approximately 1 hour and 40 minutes. The ascent is controlled at all times by a trained pilot and follows a planned flight trajectory. Once the balloon reaches its apogee, it would float at approximately 100,000 feet for around two hours before the pilot requests the all clear from ATC to begin descent.

Phase 3 – Descent and Landing

Once descent is initiated, the balloon descends at approximately 700 feet per minute, plus or minus 300 feet per minute. The timing and rate of descent are controlled to adjust for the landing/splashdown location. The flightpath and splashdown site of the capsule are coordinated with ATC, the United States Coast Guard (USCG), and the recovery vessel. After landing/splashdown occurs, the balloon is rapidly vented and separated from the vehicle. The crew, vehicle, and balloon are then fully recovered by the recovery vessel.

In addition to the nominal situation where the vehicle lands in water, the vehicle also has the capability to perform emergency landings on land if required.

Notional Flight Corridor Development

A notional flight corridor was identified and is presented in Figure 36. The notional flight corridor likely encompasses a larger are than is necessary and will need to be refined during the site licensing process after flight safety analysis is conducted.

Airspace Considerations

Airspace considerations during a balloon mission for a high-altitude balloon apply to all three phases of the mission identified above. During Phase 1, the balloon would ascend through the airspace in the immediate vicinity of the airport. Coordination with FAA would be required to ensure that the proper airspace is restricted to provide for the safe rerouting of commercial flights around the balloon during ascent.

For Phase 2 of the mission, where the vehicle has climbed above controlled airspace at 60,000 feet, the launch operator would monitor and provide data, as necessary, to the FAA in preparation for descent and landing of the balloon.

At Phase 3, when the balloon cruise is complete, the balloon would conduct a controlled descent through the controlled airspace. Coordination with FAA Air Route Traffic Control Center (ARTCC) facilities, namely Minneapolis and Chicago enroute centers would occur to ensure that other airspace users are safely routed around the descent operating area.

The spaceport and balloon launch operator would be required to coordinate with the FAA or AHJ to determine if a NOTAM would be required for balloon launch activities to provide Temporary Flight Restrictions (TFRs) for all the mission airspace. If required, the NOTAM

44 Michigan Spaceport Site Specific Feasibility Study PROPRIETARY would be issued at least two days prior to launch. Efforts would be made to minimize the impact to other airspace users.

Infrastructure Requirements

The only permanent infrastructure that is required for balloon launch is a pad that is at least 700 ft in diameter. The northern most section of the Former Alert Apron at OSC is large enough to serve as this permanent infrastructure, so no new infrastructure needs to be developed to support launch operations. In addition to the permanent infrastructure, the following mobile equipment will also be required to support launch [6]:

• Balloon and parachute transport and layout trailer with packed balloon and sleeved (packed) parachute • Mobile capsule cradle with participant ramp • Launch crane with capsule • Balloon spool • Three Department of Transportation (DOT) hydrogen gas tube trailers • Semi-tractor truck for moving gas tube trailers • Four mobile stands • Gas handling trailer • Small equipment and supplier truck (personal protective equipment (PPE), ground cloth, warning lights, etc.)

Explosive Siting Considerations

The distance to exposure for outdoor storage or use of bulk hydrogen gas is documented in National Fire Protection Association (NFPA) 55 – Standard for the Storage, Use, and Handling of Compressed Gases and Cryogenic Fluids in Portable and Stationary Containers, Cylinders, and Tanks [7]. Since there is no guidance in 14 CFR Part 420 or the DoD Ammunition and Explosive Safety Standards, Department of Defense Manual (DoDM) 6055.09-M, Volume 1 [8] on safety distances for compressed hydrogen gas, NFPA 55 [7] is used as the guiding document. Beyond the storage and use of flammable compressed gas, there are no explosive hazards associated with balloon launch that will be addressed in the explosive site plan. Refer to Chapter 4 for more information on explosive siting.

45 PROPRIETARY Michigan Spaceport Site Specific Feasibility Study

This page is intentionally left blank.

46 Michigan Spaceport Site Specific Feasibility Study PROPRIETARY

Chapter 4 - Preliminary Explosive Site Plan

The propellants (fuels and oxidizers) utilized to support launch operations generally have flammable or explosive properties and must be handled appropriately to ensure safe operations at the spaceport. An explosive site plan is one tool that is required by FAA to identify the types and quantities of propellants potentially available at explosive hazard facilities at the spaceport. A scale map is required to show the separation distances that are required from a hazard facility to nearby public areas, public traffic routes, or other explosive hazard facilities.

The objective of this preliminary explosive site plan analysis is to 1) identify potential propellant types, 2) estimate the maximum potential quantity of various propellants, 3) list and describe the potential explosive hazard facilities required for spaceport operations, 4) evaluate options for locating the explosive hazard facilities at OSC, and 5) develop scaled maps of the recommend explosive siting approach. 4.1 Definitions

The following items are defined in 14 CFR Part 420 as part of the explosive siting regulatory requirements or in the DoDM 6055.09-M, Volume 1 [8].

• Explosive Equivalent – A measure of the blast effects from explosion of a given quantity of material expressed in terms of the weight of trinitrotoluene (TNT) that would produce the same blast effects when detonated [9]. • Explosive Hazard Facility – A facility or location at a spaceport where solid propellants, energetic liquids, or other explosives are stored or handled [9]. • Hazard Division (HD) 1.1 – HD 1.1 is defined by the DoD as a substance that can cause mass explosion [8]. • HD 1.3 – HD 1.3 is defined by the DoD as a substance that can cause mass fire, minor blast, or fragment [8]. • Intraline Distance (ILD) – The minimum distance permitted between any two explosive hazard facilities in the ownership, possession or control of one spaceport customer [9]. • Net Equivalent Weight (NEW) – The total weight, expressed in pounds, of explosive material or explosive equivalency contained in an item. • Public Area Distance (PAD) – The minimum distance permitted between a public area and an explosive hazard facility [9]. • Public Traffic Route Distance (PTRD) – The minimum distance permitted between a public highway or railroad line and an explosive hazard facility [9]. 4.2 Anticipated Propellant Types

The propellants listed in Table 5 include published propellants for vehicle types that are likely to utilize the facilities at OSC as well as common propellant types used in other launch vehicles. Information on propellant types utilized by the types of vehicles that are likely to initially use the facility are presented in Table 6.

47 PROPRIETARY Michigan Spaceport Site Specific Feasibility Study

Table 5. Propellant Types at OSC Density Temperature Propellant (lbm/gal) (°F) Compressed Gas

Gaseous Hydrogen (H2) N/A N/A

Liquid Fuels

Jet-A 6.7 59°F

Kerosene (RP-1) 6.8 68°F

Liquid Oxidizers

Liquid Oxygen (LOX) 9.5 -297°F

Nitrous Oxide (N2O) 10.2 70°F

Solid Fuels

Hydroxyl Terminated Polybutadiene (HTPB) N/A N/A

Table 6. Propellant Quantity Distance Estimates for Proposed Launch Vehicles Propellant Hazard Estimated Propellant Company (Vehicle) Type Division Quantity (lbs) Source

Virgin Galactic (LauncherOne) LOX/RP-1 1.1 ~50,000 [9]

Generation Orbit (GOLauncher1) LOX/RP-1 1.1 ~2,000 [33]

Northrup Grumman (Pegasus) HTPB 1.3 ~44,000 [9]

Space Perspective H2 N/A N/A [6]

Guidance from 14 CFR Part 420 Appendix E and DoDM 6055.09-M were followed to calculate the quantity-distance (QD) arcs for the potential hazard facilities. The method for determining the QD for the combined propellants is provided in Table 7, per 14 CFR 420, Appendix E.

Table 7. Propellant Combinations Hazard Propellant Combination Division NEW

LOX / RP-1 HD 1.1 20% up to 500,000 lbm plus 10% over 500,000 lbm

48 Michigan Spaceport Site Specific Feasibility Study PROPRIETARY

4.3 Proposed Explosive Hazard Facilities

The explosive hazard facilities and operations that are typically located at an air and space port are presented in Table 8 and include:

• Fuel Storage Area (FSA) • Oxidizer Storage Area (OSA) • Oxidizer Loading Area (OLA) • Solid Propellant Staging Area • Test Facilities (Optional) • Vehicle Processing Facility (VPF)

To prevent possible encroachment and accommodate future compatibility with adjacent aerospace and aviation users, it is recommended that the proposed explosive hazard facilities be programmed into planning documents to reserve the areas on the airfield even if the facilities are not immediately constructed.

Table 8. Proposed Explosive Hazard Facilities Explosive Hazard Facility Typical Operations Storage and transfer of liquid fuels. Typical fuels that are used in Fuel Storage Area HTHL vehicles include Jet-A and Kerosene.

Storage and transfer of liquid oxidizers. LOX is the most common Oxidizer Storage Area oxidizer that is used in HTHL vehicles. Launch vehicle propellant loading. At this location, fuels and Oxidizer Loading Area oxidizers will be co-located and therefore the safety distances must be evaluated using the NEW of combines propellants. Staging area prior to launch for a vehicle containing solid propellants. The staging area will be for temporary vehicle Solid Propellant Staging Area staging but no solid fuels will be permanently or temporarily stored at the facility. Static fire engine testing. Altitude-restricted Vertical Takeoff Test Facilities Vertical Landing (VTVL) testing pads. Pressure chamber testing. Propulsion development testing. Integration of payload onto vehicle. Final vehicle checks prior to and following flight. The vehicle may contain fuel prior to launch Vehicle Processing Facility and may contain combinations of liquid propellants after flight. For this analysis, it is assumed that there will be residual propellants (fuel and oxidizer) onboard the vehicle.

Fuel Storage Area (FSA)

It is recommended that a temporarily FSA be developed initially to park fuel tanker trucks. This approach allows for minimal permanent infrastructure until operations increase to the point where a permanent fuel storage facility is needed. The tanker trucks would be staged in the FSA prior to transporting fuel to the launch vehicle and then return to the FSA immediately after fuel loading has been completed.

49 PROPRIETARY Michigan Spaceport Site Specific Feasibility Study

Table 9. Proposed Maximum Propellant Quantities at the Fuel Storage Area Propellant Type Maximum Quantity PAD PTRD ILD

Jet-A Unlimited 50 ft [8] 50 ft [8] 50 ft [8]

Kerosene (RP-1) Unlimited 50 ft [8] 50 ft [8] 50 ft [8]

Gaseous Hydrogen (H2) Unlimited 50 ft [7] 50 ft [7] 50 ft [7]

FSA Facility Location Analysis

Two potential locations on the airfield were identified as being able to safely support fuel storage operations with limited disruptions to existing operations. The potential FSA locations are presented in Figure 45.

Figure 45. Potential Fuel Storage Areas Sources: Kimley-Horn (2020), ArcMap (2020)

50 Michigan Spaceport Site Specific Feasibility Study PROPRIETARY

FSA Option A

FSA Option A is located on the northwest corner of the Former Alert Apron. Option A is located on a portion of the airfield that is not currently utilized for aviation related operations. This area is also proximate to other proposed explosive hazard facilities, including the OSA and the OLA.

Since the FSA would initially be used for temporary storage of fuels, no permanent infrastructure would be required for Option A to be designated as the FSA. However, it is recommended that paint markings and signage be used to distinguish the designated FSA from the remainder of the Former Alert Apron. The proposed facility and safety distances for Option A are presented in Figure 46.

Figure 46. Fuel Storage Area - Option A Sources: Kimley-Horn (2020), ArcMap (2020)

51 PROPRIETARY Michigan Spaceport Site Specific Feasibility Study

FSA Option B

FSA Option B is located on the eastern side of the airfield, just north of the existing fuel storage area for existing aviation operations. One benefit of the Option B location is being able to collocate all fuels into one consolidated area on the airfield.

Option B is located in an area that does not currently have pavement, and therefore pavement would need to be installed to make this location viable. In the future if permanent fuel storage is required, Option B could be an ideal location for fixed infrastructure. The proposed facility and safety distances for Option B are presented in Figure 47.

Figure 47. Fuel Storage Area - Option B Sources: Kimley-Horn (2020), ArcMap (2020)

Recommendations

FSA Option A is preferable to Option B because of the ability to locate all aerospace related explosive hazard facilities on the Former Alert Apron. Additionally, no new infrastructure is required for Option A, making it the more cost-effective solution.

It is recommended that Option A be the location for the initial FSA with Option B being developed for a future permanent storage area.

52 Michigan Spaceport Site Specific Feasibility Study PROPRIETARY

Oxidizer Storage Area (OSA)

It is recommended that a temporary OSA be developed initially to park oxidizer tanker trucks. This approach allows for minimal permanent infrastructure until operations increase to the point where a permanent oxidizer storage facility is needed. The tanker trucks would be staged in the OSA prior to transporting the oxidizer to the launch vehicle and then return to the OSA immediately after fuel loading has been completed. A concrete surface is preferred to avoid potential chemical reactions should an oxidizer spill occur.

Table 10. Proposed Maximum Propellant Quantities at the Oxidizer Storage Area Maximum PAD PTRD ILD Propellant Type Quantity [8] [8] [8]

Liquid Oxygen (LOX) Unlimited 100 ft 100 ft 100 ft

Nitrous Oxide (N2O) 600,000 lbs 50 ft 50 ft 50 ft

OSA Facility Location Analysis

Two potential locations on the airfield were identified as being able to safely support oxidizer storage operations with limited disruptions to existing operations. The potential OSA locations are presented in Figure 48.

Figure 48. Potential Oxidizer Storage Areas Sources: Kimley-Horn (2020), ArcMap (2020)

53 PROPRIETARY Michigan Spaceport Site Specific Feasibility Study

OSA Option A

OSA Option A is located on the northeast corner of the Former Alert Apron. Option A is located on a portion of the airfield that is not currently utilized for aviation related operations. This option is also proximate to other proposed explosive hazard facilities, including the recommended FSA and OLA.

Since the OSA would initially be used for temporary storage of oxidizers, no permanent infrastructure would be required for Option A to be designated as the OSA. However, it is recommended that paint markings be used to distinguish the designated OSA from the remainder of the Former Alert Apron. The proposed facility and safety distances for Option A are presented in Figure 49.

Figure 49. Oxidizer Storage Area - Option A Sources: Kimley-Horn (2020), ArcMap (2020)

54 Michigan Spaceport Site Specific Feasibility Study PROPRIETARY

OSA Option B

OSA Option B is located on the eastern side of the airfield, just north of the existing fuel storage area for existing aviation operations. One benefit of the Option B location is being able to collocate all fuels and oxidizers into one consolidated area on the airfield.

Option B is located in an area that does not currently have pavement, and therefore pavement would need to be installed to make this location viable. The proposed facility and safety distances for Option B are presented in Figure 50.

Figure 50. Oxidizer Storage Area - Option B Sources: Kimley-Horn (2020), ArcMap (2020)

Recommendations

Option A was identified as being more preferential than Option B because of the ability to collocate all aerospace related explosive hazard facilities on the Former Alert Apron. Additionally, no new infrastructure is required for Option A, making it the more cost- effective solution.

It is recommended that Option A be the location for the initial OSA with Option B being developed for a future permanent storage area.

55 PROPRIETARY Michigan Spaceport Site Specific Feasibility Study

Oxidizer Loading Area (OLA)

The OLA is anticipated to be used for both fuel and oxidizer loading operations. Fuel loading would occur first, followed by oxidizer loading. Propellant tanker trucks would arrive one at a time to the OLA and begin loading operations. After a tanker truck completes loading operations, it would immediately return to its storage area. If a vehicle requires a static engine hot fire test prior to launch, the OLA can also be used to conduct the test operations. A concrete surface is preferred to avoid potential chemical reactions should an oxidizer spill occur

Table 11. Proposed Maximum Propellant Quantities at the Oxidizer Loading Area Maximum Quantity PAD PTRD ILD Propellant Type (NEW) [8] [8] [8]

HD 1.1 (combined incompatible propellants) 30,000 lbs 1,250 ft 750 ft 559 ft

OLA Facility Location Analysis

Six potential locations on the were identified on the airfield to support oxidizer loading operations. All six options are located on the former alert apron on existing concrete pavement that is not currently utilized for aviation related operations. The proposed areas are also proximate to other proposed explosive hazard facilities, including the FSA and the OSA. The potential OLA locations are presented in Figure 51.

Figure 51. Potential Oxidizer Loading Areas

56 Michigan Spaceport Site Specific Feasibility Study PROPRIETARY

Sources: Kimley-Horn (2020), ArcMap (2020)

OLA Option A

OLA Option A is the large concrete pad at the northern most end of the Former Alert Apron. Option A overlaps the recommended FSA and OSA, making it less desirable if another option is feasible. Additionally, the QDs associated with the facility extend beyond the boundary of the Airport. If Option A is selected, OSC would need to demonstrate that they can control access to the public areas and public traffic routes within the QDs that extend beyond the airport boundary. This may require coordination with the State and may limit the number of operations that may be conducted.

The PAD for Option A intersects one manufacturing and one maintenance facility that can contain up to 12 people at any given time as well as vacant facilities that could be leased and utilized in the future. The PAD also extends past the airport boundary and intersects a state campground. Additionally, the PTRD for Option A intersects Highway F41, Pride Road, and Perimeter Road, meaning these routes will need to be closed when hazardous operations are being conducted at the facility

The proposed facility and safety distances for Option A are presented in Figure 52.

Figure 52. Oxidizer Loading Area - Option A Sources: Kimley-Horn (2020), ArcMap (2020)

57 PROPRIETARY Michigan Spaceport Site Specific Feasibility Study

OLA Option B

OLA Option B is the northwestern most parking ramp on the Former Alert Apron. The safety distances associated with Option B are entirely contained within the airport boundary but do overlap some utilized airport facilities and transportation routes.

The PAD for Option B intersects four manufacturing buildings and one maintenance building that can contain up to 14 people at any given time. The PAD also intersects some currently vacant facilities that could be leased and utilized in the future. Additionally, the PTRD for Option B intersects Pride Road, which is the primary access route to the facilities on the northwestern portion of the airfield.

The proposed facility and safety distances for Option B are presented in Figure 53.

Figure 53. Oxidizer Loading Area - Option B Sources: Kimley-Horn (2020), ArcMap (2020)

58 Michigan Spaceport Site Specific Feasibility Study PROPRIETARY

OLA Option C

OLA Option C is the northeastern most parking ramp on the Former Alert Apron. The safety distances associated with Option C are entirely contained within the airport boundary but do overlap some utilized airport facilities.

The PAD for Option C intersects one manufacturing and two maintenance buildings that can contain up to 14 people at any given time. The PAD also intersects some currently vacant facilities that could be leased and utilized in the future. However, the PTRD does not interest any public traffic routes, and therefore would not impact transit to and from the northern area buildings.

The proposed facility and safety distances for Option C are presented in Figure 54.

Figure 54. Oxidizer Loading Area - Option C Sources: Kimley-Horn (2020), ArcMap (2020)

59 PROPRIETARY Michigan Spaceport Site Specific Feasibility Study

OLA Option D

OLA Option D is the middle parking ramp on western side of the Former Alert Apron. The safety distances associated with Option D are entirely contained within the airport boundary but do overlap some utilized airport facilities and transportation routes.

The PAD for Option D intersects five manufacturing buildings and one maintenance building that can contain up to 14 people at any given time. The PAD also intersects some currently vacant facilities that could be leased and utilized in the future. Additionally, the PTRD for Option D intersects North Swise Road and Pride Road. Pride Road is the primary access route to the facilities on the northern area buildings. The overlap of the PTRD and the transit routes would require that the roads be closed during hazardous operations.

The proposed facility and safety distances for Option D are presented in Figure 55.

Figure 55. Oxidizer Loading Area - Option D Sources: Kimley-Horn (2020), ArcMap (2020)

60 Michigan Spaceport Site Specific Feasibility Study PROPRIETARY

OLA Option E

OLA Option E is the southeastern most parking ramp on the Former Alert Apron. The safety distances associated with Option E are entirely contained within the airport boundary but do overlap some utilized airport facilities and a transportation route.

The PAD for Option E intersects three manufacturing buildings and two maintenance buildings that can contain up to 14 people at any given time. The PAD also intersects some currently vacant facilities that could be leased and utilized in the future. Additionally, the PTRD for Option E intersects North Swise Road, which would require that the road be closed during hazardous operations.

The proposed facility and safety distances for Option E are presented in Figure 56.

Figure 56. Oxidizer Loading Area - Option E Sources: Kimley-Horn (2020), ArcMap (2020)

61 PROPRIETARY Michigan Spaceport Site Specific Feasibility Study

OLA Option F

OLA Option F is the southwestern most parking ramp on the Former Alert Apron. The safety distances associated with Option F are entirely contained within the airport boundary but do overlap some utilized airport facilities and transportation routes.

The PAD for Option F intersects six manufacturing buildings and one maintenance building that can contain over 100 people at any given time. The PAD also intersects some currently vacant facilities that could be leased and utilized in the future. Additionally, the PTRD for Option F intersects North Swise Road, Airway Road, and Pride Road. Pride Road is the primary access route to the facilities on the northern area buildings. The overlap of the PTRD and the transit routes would require that the roads be closed during hazardous operations.

The proposed facility and safety distances for Option F are presented in Figure 57.

Figure 57. Oxidizer Loading Area - Option F Sources: Kimley-Horn (2020), ArcMap (2020)

62 Michigan Spaceport Site Specific Feasibility Study PROPRIETARY

OLA Option Comparison Charts

Table 12. OLA Location Comparison Chart Transit Routes Impacted by Members of Uninvolved Public PAD within PTRD Displaced During Operations OLA Spaceport No Less than 20 No Routes Less than 2 Location Boundary Displacement Displaced

Option A     ✓

Option B ✓  ✓  ✓

Option C ✓ ✓ ✓  ✓

Option D ✓    ✓

Option E ✓  ✓  ✓

Option F ✓    

OLA Recommendations

Based on the results depicted in Table 12, OLA Option C has the least impact on existing operations and is the recommended location for the OLA. Option C does not impact any transit routes and only impacts three occupied facilities that may contain up to 14 workers at any given time.

Option C is located on the eastern side of the Former Alert Apron on the north side of the Airport (see Figure 54).

It is recommended that OLA Option C be considered for supporting oxidizer loading operations.

63 PROPRIETARY Michigan Spaceport Site Specific Feasibility Study

Solid Propellant Staging Area

The Solid Propellant Staging Area could serve potential Concept Z type vehicles that contain solid propellants, similar to the Northrup Grumman Pegasus. It is anticipated that vehicle integration would be performed off-site and the integrated vehicle would arrive at OSC for temporarily staging at the Solid Propellant Staging Area. No long-term storage or solid rocket motor storage is anticipated at this time.

Table 13. Proposed Maximum Propellant Quantities at the Solid Propellant Staging Area Maximum PAD PTRD ILD Propellant Type Quantity [8] [8] [8]

HD 1.3 (solid propellant) 50,000 lbs 240 ft 240 ft 163 ft

As shown in Table 11 and Table 13, the PAD associated with HD 1.3 in the Solid Propellant Staging Area is less than the PAD associated with HD 1.1 in the OLA. Therefore, the area designated as the OLA will also be utilized as the Solid Propellant Staging area in the event that a vehicle with solid propellants utilizes the air and space port. The safety distances associated with the Solid Propellant Staging Area are presented in Figure 58.

Figure 58. Solid Propellant Staging Area – Preferred Location Sources: Kimley-Horn (2020), ArcMap (2020)

64 Michigan Spaceport Site Specific Feasibility Study PROPRIETARY

Test Facilities (Optional)

Rocket engine test facilities assist in the testing and research/development phase of launch vehicle development. A common type of test facility is a test stand that is used for engine testing. At a minimum, an engine test stand must contain a structure to hold the engine in place, run tanks to pump propellant into the engine during testing, and a control center for managing the test operation. While separation distances for engine test stands can vary depending on the quantity and types of propellants used, a typical PAD for an engine test stand is 1,250 ft and the PTRD is 750 ft. Other types of testing that can occur at a test facility include but are not limited to pressure tank testing, VTVL tethered flight, VTVL point-to-point flight, and propellant development tests. For this analysis, the types of tests that expected to occur at the test facilities were not defined, but it was assumed that the associated PADs for the tests would be a maximum of 1,250 ft.

Table 14. Proposed Maximum Propellant Quantities at the Facilities Maximum Quantity PAD PTRD ILD Propellant Type (NEW) [8] [8] [8]

HD 1.1 (combined incompatible propellants) 30,000 lbs 1,250 ft 750 ft 559 ft

Test Facility Location Analysis

Locations within the airport boundary were analyzed to evaluate if a permanent test stand could be safely developed. It was determined that there was no adequate location for a test stand once the FSA, OSA, and OLA recommendations were established. However, there is available land outside of the airport boundary that is rather ideal for supporting engine testing operations. West of the airport is approximately 650 acres of publicly owned, undeveloped wooded land where test stands could be developed. A few example layouts of potential test stand locations that could be accommodated within the 650 acres are presented in Figure 59, Figure 60, and Figure 61. The layouts in Figure 59, Figure 60, and Figure 61 have all of the safety distances associated with the test stands contained within the 650-acre boundary. However, if agreements are made with adjacent landowners, it may be possible to accommodate additional test facilities in all the scenarios.

65 PROPRIETARY Michigan Spaceport Site Specific Feasibility Study

Figure 59. Concept for Four Test Stand Locations Outside of Airport Property Sources: Kimley-Horn (2020), ArcMap (2020)

66 Michigan Spaceport Site Specific Feasibility Study PROPRIETARY

Figure 60. Concept for Three Test Stand Locations Outside of Airport Property Sources: Kimley-Horn (2020), ArcMap (2020)

67 PROPRIETARY Michigan Spaceport Site Specific Feasibility Study

Figure 61. Concept for Two Test Stand Locations Outside of Airport Property Sources: Kimley-Horn (2020), ArcMap (2020)

68 Michigan Spaceport Site Specific Feasibility Study PROPRIETARY

Test Facility Recommendations

Due to the limited available options within the airport property for safe test facility development it is not recommended that permanent test facility infrastructure be development at this time. However, the OLA may be used as a temporary test stand location when not being utilized for oxidizer loading. The recommended OLA could be temporarily leased out to a company that brings in mobile testing equipment prior to the engine testing and removes the equipment following the completion of the testing. Static fire engine testing is compatible at the OLA as long as permanent infrastructure is not required.

If permanent test stand infrastructure is desired, it is recommended that agreements be put in place with MDNR, the entity owning the approximately 650 acres of public land, to allow for test facility development and other aerospace uses.

It is also recommended that test facilities be developed on the northern end of the property first, to leave flexibility for mixed-use development at the southern end of the property. When test stands are developed, it is recommended that they be spaced at least 1,250 ft from the nearest property boundary and 1,250 ft from any other development, including other test stands.

It is recommended that the approximate 650 acres of public land be acquired for developing test facilities and other mixed-use aerospace development. The three-test stand configuration provides the most flexibility for future development.

69 PROPRIETARY Michigan Spaceport Site Specific Feasibility Study

Vehicle Processing Facility (VPF)

A VPF can be used for vehicle process, integration, maintenance and inspection operations. For this analysis, two scenarios were considered: 1) no explosive hazards are allowed within the VPF and 2) the VPF can accommodate explosive hazards.

For the first scenario, the facility was treated similarly to an aviation hangar and no hazardous operations would occur within the facility. For the second scenario, the vehicle could contain propellants prior to launch and may contain combinations of liquid propellants after flight. Additionally, in the second scenario, air-launch platforms could be mated to the carrier aircraft in the VPF.

There are multiple concepts in development that would require different hangar sizes. Table 15 contains a list of aircraft that have been proposed for aerospace operations and the approximate minimum dimensions for hangars that would house the aircraft.

Table 15. Approximate Minimum Hangar Dimensions for Aircraft Approximate Minimum Hangar Dimensions Aircraft Length (ft) Width (ft) Height (ft)

Airbus A300 200 160 60

Boeing 747 270 240 70

Gulfstream III 100 90 30

Lockheed L1011 200 170 60

Sierra Nevada Dream Chaser 50 40 20

WhiteKnightTwo 100 150 30

Table 16. Proposed Maximum Propellant Quantities at Vehicle Processing Facility Maximum Quantity PAD PTRD ILD Explosive Hazard Facility (NEW) [8] [8] [8]

HD 1.1 (combined incompatible propellants) 30,000 lbs 1,250 ft 750 ft 559 ft

VPF Facility Location Analysis

Two undeveloped areas and one existing hangar were identified on the airfield as potential options for development of a VPF. The locations are identified in Figure 62. As previously mentioned, a VPF can be used for both non-hazardous and hazardous operations. The potential location for both types of facilities are further discussed in the following sub-sections.

70 Michigan Spaceport Site Specific Feasibility Study PROPRIETARY

Figure 62. Vehicle Processing Facility Options Sources: Kimley-Horn (2020), ArcMap (2020)

71 PROPRIETARY Michigan Spaceport Site Specific Feasibility Study

Scenario 1 (Non-Hazardous Operations) – VPF Option A

VPF Option A is approximately 35 acres on the eastern side of the airport, near the GA Apron and existing Fuel Farm. If a VPF were developed in this area, it would require development of both an apron and taxiway. Additionally, this area is located outside of the existing Aircraft Operations Area (AOA) fence line, so the AOA would need to be adjusted to include the new facility. The proposed VPF Option A area is also sufficient to support the development of multiple VPFs of varying sizes.

Figure 63. Vehicle Processing Facility (Non-Hazardous) – VPF Option A Sources: Kimley-Horn (2020), ArcMap (2020)

Non-hazardous VPF Option A is a viable option for a VPF for a large range of vehicle concepts.

72 Michigan Spaceport Site Specific Feasibility Study PROPRIETARY

Scenario 1 (Non-Hazardous Operations) – VPF Option B

VPF Option B is approximately 37 acres on the southern side of the airport, near the Iosco Apron. If a VPF were developed in this area, it would require development of both an apron and taxiway. Additionally, this area is located outside of the existing AOA fence line, so the AOA would need to be adjusted to include the new facility. The proposed VPF Option B area is also sufficient to support the development of multiple VPFs of varying sizes.

Figure 64. Vehicle Processing Facility (Non-Hazardous) – Option B Sources: Kimley-Horn (2020), ArcMap (2020)

VPF Option B is a viable option for a VPF for a large range of launch vehicle concepts.

73 PROPRIETARY Michigan Spaceport Site Specific Feasibility Study

Scenario 1 (Non-Hazardous Operations) – VPF Option C

VPF Option C is located on the eastern end of the airfield and consists of an existing two-bay aircraft hangar (Building 6). The ~9,700 square-foot building could support processing of a small carrier aircraft (such as the Gulfstream III used by Generation Orbit) or for storage of a reentry vehicle (such as the Sierra Nevada Dream Chaser). The proposed VPF Option C is not sufficient to support larger aircraft processing and may be an ideal near-term option for some launch operators.

Figure 65. Vehicle Processing Facility (Non-Hazardous) – Option C Sources: Kimley-Horn (2020), ArcMap (2020)

VPF Option C (Building 6) is a viable near-term option to support small launch vehicle processing or reentry vehicles.

74 Michigan Spaceport Site Specific Feasibility Study PROPRIETARY

Scenario 1 (Non-Hazardous Operations) – VPF Options D & E

VPF Options D and E are new proposed hangars that are planning to be developed. While one of the hangars is already reserved, the other future hangars could be used for non-hazardous vehicle processing. The new sites can support large aircraft hangars.

Figure 66. Vehicle Processing Facility (Non-Hazardous) – Options D & E Sources: Kimley-Horn (2020), ArcMap (2020)

VPF Options D & E would be ideal for future vehicle processing due to their proximity to the existing large aircraft and hangar and connecting taxiway.

75 PROPRIETARY Michigan Spaceport Site Specific Feasibility Study

Scenario 2 (Hazardous Operations) – VPF Option A

The VPF Option A shown in Figure 67 is large enough to support a Boeing 747 aircraft with up to 30,000 lbs NEW of HD 1.1. There are three facilities within the property boundary that will be affected during hazardous operations. These facilities include two buildings and a T-Hangar unit. Additionally, the PTRD overlaps both Lawrence Hobey Court and Perimeter Road, meaning both routes will need to be closed during hazardous operations.

In this scenario, both the PAD and PTRD associated with the facility extend beyond the property boundary and airport fence line and overlaps a public beach. Additionally, the PTRD intersects Highway F41, the road immediately adjacent to the airport property boundary. Therefore, during hazardous operations the highway will need to be closed to traffic. Additionally, the area within the PAD outside of the airport boundary will need to be controlled during hazardous operations. This may require coordination with the State and may limit the number of operations that may be conducted.

Figure 67. Vehicle Processing Facility (Hazardous) – VPF Option A Sources: Kimley-Horn (2020), ArcMap (2020)

Hazardous VPF Option A is not recommended for further consideration

76 Michigan Spaceport Site Specific Feasibility Study PROPRIETARY

Scenario 2 (Hazardous Operations) – VPF Option B

The VPF Option B shown in Figure 68 is large enough to support a Boeing 747 aircraft with up to 30,000 lbs NEW of propellant. There are five facilities within the property boundary that will be affected during hazardous operations. These facilities include four buildings and an engine test cell facility. Additionally, the PTRD overlaps Ballor Drive, Perimeter Road, and Hunt Drive, meaning the routes will need to be closed during hazardous operations.

In this scenario, both the PAD and PTRD associated with the facility extend beyond the property boundary. However, the PAD and PTRD are entirely contained within an existing fence line that surrounds the airport, which makes controlling access to the PTRD and PAD relatively uncomplicated. It should be noted that the fence is not owned by the airport authority.

Figure 68. Vehicle Processing Facility (Hazardous) – Option B Sources: Kimley-Horn (2020), ArcMap (2020)

Hazardous VPF Option B limits future nearby development opportunities and is located where a potential future crosswind runway has been sited.

77 PROPRIETARY Michigan Spaceport Site Specific Feasibility Study

Scenario 2 (Hazardous Operations) – Alternate Options

OSC Airport proposed a third alternative for the hazardous VPF to be located on the southwest corner of the airfield. This option would provide for a hazardous facility positioned away from existing and future hangars. Additional detailed analysis including site configuration review, explosive siting review, and Part 77 Imaginary surface review would need to be completed prior to recommending this option for future development. In this scenario, both the PAD and PTRD associated with a hazardous VPF is likely to extend beyond the current airport property boundary.

Another potential option could be to erect a shelter (either temporary or permanent) at the OLA to enable sheltered hazardous vehicle processing operations.

Figure 69. Vehicle Processing Facility (Hazardous) – Other Consideration Sources: OSC Airport

At this time, it is recommended that the airport standby on siting a hazardous VPF unless specifically requested by a future operator.

78 Michigan Spaceport Site Specific Feasibility Study PROPRIETARY

Recommendations

Scenario 1 (No Hazardous Operations)

All three non-hazardous VFP options could support the development of aircraft and launch vehicle processing infrastructure. It is recommended that all three options remain candidate for future operators. In the near-term, the availability of Building 6 provides an excellent option that could be marketed to small launch vehicle providers.

Scenario 2 (Hazardous Operations)

There are currently no preferred facilities or locations on the airfield that could be used for hazardous vehicle processing operations within a hangar. As shown in Figure 67 and Figure 68, there are two potential locations where a facility could be developed on the airfield, however both locations would impacts both aviation operations and future development of the areas in the vicinity of a hazardous VPF.

While VPF Option A has minimal impacts to existing aviation operations, the PTRD intersects Highway F41 which would require the highway to be closed during hazardous operations. Additionally, the PAD for VPF Option A extends beyond the airport property boundary and fence line and access within the PAD would need to be controlled during operations.

While the PAD and PTRD for VPF Option B remain entirely within an existing fence line around the Airport, there are potential impacts to existing airport operation. For these reasons, should a hazardous operations VPF be desired, location Option B is the better candidate. The analysis that was performed as part of this study assumed the VPF would support a large aircraft that is fully loaded with HD 1.1 propellant. If a smaller vehicle or different propellant, such as HD 1.3, were proposed, then the safety distances required would likely be less as well as the impacts to other operations. At this time, it is not recommended to develop a hazardous VPF location. In the future this recommendation can be reevaluated if an operator requests the capability and provides the spaceport with details to better define the hazardous operations that will occur within the VPF.

Alternative options included a new facility on the southwest corner of the airfield or potentially erecting a shelter at the OLA (either temporary or permanent) to function as a VPF.

While several viable options exist for Non-Hazardous VPF development, potential options for Hazardous VPF development are limited.

79 PROPRIETARY Michigan Spaceport Site Specific Feasibility Study

4.4 Proposed Explosive Hazard Facility Evaluation

The following table summarizes the explosive hazard facility evaluation.

Table 17. Explosive Hazard Facility Evaluation

80 Michigan Spaceport Site Specific Feasibility Study PROPRIETARY

4.5 Recommended Preliminary Explosive Site Plan (Scaled Maps)

Figure 70. Preliminary Recommended Explosive Site Plan Sources: Kimley-Horn (2020), ArcMap (2020)

81 PROPRIETARY Michigan Spaceport Site Specific Feasibility Study

This page is intentionally left blank.

82 Michigan Spaceport Site Specific Feasibility Study PROPRIETARY

Chapter 5 – Infrastructure Evaluation

An evaluation of the launch system infrastructure requirements with the existing conditions of the airport were conducted. Both recommended facilities and optional facilities were analyzed and recommendations have been provided. A summary of potential infrastructure costs and development schedules are also included.

Recommended Planning and Licensing

Recommended Facilities and Infrastructure

At a minimum, the following facilities are recommended to support basic launch operations of the proposed CONOPS:

1. Runway 2. Balloon Launch Pad 3. Temporary Fuel Storage Area 4. Temporary Oxidizer Storage Area 5. Oxidizer Loading Area 6. Temporary Solid Propellant Staging Area

The required facilities are described in more detail in Section 5.1

Optional Facilities and Infrastructure

In addition to the required facilities, the following optional facilities may be considered to provide expanded spaceport capabilities:

1. Permanent Fuel Storage Area 2. Permanent Oxidizer Storage Area 3. Vehicle Process Facility 4. Payload Processing Facility 5. Test Facilities / Test Stands 6. Mission Control Center 7. Spaceflight Training Facility 8. Spaceflight Participant Terminal 9. Visitor Center / Museum / Educational Center 10. Airport Rescue and Firefighting 11. Air Traffic Control Tower 12. Liquid Oxygen Generation Facility The optional facilities are described in more detail in Section 5.3.

83 PROPRIETARY Michigan Spaceport Site Specific Feasibility Study

5.1 Recommended Planning and Licensing

Economic Analyses

It is understood that preliminary economic and business case studies are ongoing. A business plan is recommended to adequately demonstrate a return on investment for the development of a commercial spaceport and to evaluate the opportunities associated with infrastructure investment.

Additional economic analyses and/or business plan could cost between $50,000 to $300,000 and take between 6 and 15 months to complete.

Spaceport Master Plan

Each airport maintains an Airport Master Plan that outlines the current conditions of the airport, assesses future demand, and identifies future development needs. A Spaceport Master Plan is similar; however, it focuses only on the spaceport infrastructure elements that are not typically included in Airport Master Plans. While a Spaceport Master Plan is recommended to be completed before FAA licensing so that the proposed action is fully assessed, most FAA licensed commercial spaceports located at airports have opted to delay the development of the Spaceport Master Plan until after a license has been issued. The Spaceport Master Plan is intended to be companion document to the Airport Master Plan.

A spaceport Master Plan is expected to cost between $400,000 and $600,000 and take between 18-24 months to complete.

Launch Site Operator License Application and Environmental Review

Before a spaceport can offer its site to potential launch operators, it must obtain a Launch Site Operator License from the FAA Office of Commercial Space Transportation. In additional to conducting the technical analyses and preparing the application, an Environmental Review in accordance with FAA Order 1050.1F is required. To set the foundation for future compliance with the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA), a draft Description of Proposed Action has been developed and is included in Appendix C.

For a spaceport, similar to OSC, this process can be expected to cost between $600,000 an $800,000 and take between 24 and 36 months (or more). A full scope of services is provided in Appendix D.

84 Michigan Spaceport Site Specific Feasibility Study PROPRIETARY

5.2 Recommended Facilities and Infrastructure

To support a commercial spaceport’s aerospace operations, certain facilities and infrastructure are recommended. When available, existing infrastructure may be sufficient to support aerospace operations, although in some cases new infrastructure may need to be developed. This section describes various facilities and infrastructure that are necessary to support the proposed CONOPS and analyzes the probable costs associated with refining existing facilities or developing new infrastructure to meet the needs of aerospace operators.

Runway

The most crucial piece of infrastructure at an air and space port is the runway. The runway requirements vary by manufacturer, but longer runways are commonly requested. In general, the minimum runway length recommended for supporting HTHL vehicle operations is 8,000 ft. Figure 71 presents a high-level correlation between percent of space planes supported based on runway length. The 11,800 ft runway at OSC can support approximately 85 percent to 95 percent of vehicles that are currently operating or in development.

Figure 71. Percent of Space Planes Supported Based on Runway Length Source: Kimley-Horn (2020) The existing runway is in excellent condition and is of sufficient length to support spaceport operations. No additional improvements or costs are required at this time.

Balloon Launch Pad

Based on discussions with a potential high-altitude balloon operator it is recommended that the northern-most concrete pad at the former alert apron be utilized as the Balloon Launch Pad (see Figure 72).

Since infrastructure is already in place for supporting launch operations, it is anticipated that minimal improvements will be required. Since the Former Alert Apron is outside the

85 PROPRIETARY Michigan Spaceport Site Specific Feasibility Study

AOA it has not been maintained and there are expected to be some minor infrastructure costs associated with reconditioning the area in the vicinity of the launch pad. The anticipated cost associated with reconditioning the launch pad area to support balloon launch is between $0 and $100,000 and is expected to take between up to 6 Months. Note that this cost does not include reactivation and reconditioning the Former Alert Apron.

Temporary Fuel Storage Area

A temporary FSA approximately 100 ft x 100 ft is recommended to be established at the northwest corner of the Former Alert Apron to temporarily store fuel tanker trucks prior to launch operations (see Figure 72). While not absolutely required, it is recommended that the temporary FSA be marked with paint and indicated with signage to designate the location as an FSA and. The costs associated with designating a temporary FSA are anticipated to be minimal.

The anticipated cost associated with establishing the FSA is between $0 and $50,000 and is expected to take up to 6 Months. Note that this cost does not include reactivation and reconditioning the Former Alert Apron.

Temporary Oxidizer Storage Area

A temporary OSA approximately 100 ft x 100 ft is recommended to be established at the northwest corner of the Former Alert Apron to temporarily store fuel tanker trucks prior to launch operations (see Figure 72). While not absolutely required, it is recommended that the temporary OSA be marked with and indicated with signage to designate the location as the OSA. The costs associated with a temporary OSA are anticipated to be minimal since the existing surface consists of concrete which minimizes the potential of a chemical reaction if an oxidizer spill occurs.

The anticipated cost associated with establishing the OSA is between $0 and $50,000 and is expected to take up to 6 Months. Note that this cost does not include reactivation and reconditioning the Former Alert Apron.

Oxidizer Loading Area and Reactivate Former Alert Apron

To support the proposed launch operations of vehicles that utilize liquid oxidizers, an OLA is recommended to be developed on the north east alert pad at the Former Alert Apron (see Figure 72). The existing concrete at the proposed OLA is preferred to minimize the potential of chemical reactions that could result from spilled oxidizer.

It is recommended that the limits of the OLA be marked with paint and indicated with signage to designate the location as the OLA. Although costs associated with designating an OLA are anticipated to be minimal, there are significant infrastructure costs associated with reactivating the Former Alert Apron as part of the AOA and rehabilitating the existing pavement. A pavement management report was prepared in 2016 that included analysis of the conditions of the former alert apron. The report also included estimated refurbishment costs. It is recommended that a revised pavement evaluation be completed

86 Michigan Spaceport Site Specific Feasibility Study PROPRIETARY specifically for the alert apron to determine the current condition of the pavement and assess any pavement rehabilitation that may need to take place. The results of the pavement evaluation will refine the probable cost associated with an OLA at the Former Alert Apron.

The anticipated cost associated with establishing the OLA, rehabilitate the alert apron, and reactivate the AOA, is between $9,000,000 and $13,000,000 and is expected to take between 24 Months and 36 Months.

Temporary Solid Propellant Staging Area

It is recommended that the bounds of the OLA also be designated to support temporary solid propellant staging in the event that a launch vehicle containing solid propellant needs to be staged prior to launch. The costs associated with designating a propellant staging area are already captured within the OLA costs. No additional costs are anticipated.

Evaluation and Recommendations

The recommended facilities and infrastructure were evaluated to determine the level of concern associated with the development of each facility. The results of the evaluation are presented in Table 18.

Table 18. Recommended Facilities and Infrastructure Evaluation

87 PROPRIETARY Michigan Spaceport Site Specific Feasibility Study

Figure 72. Required Spaceport Infrastructure Sources: Kimley-Horn (2020), ArcMap (2020)

88 Michigan Spaceport Site Specific Feasibility Study PROPRIETARY

5.3 Optional Facilities and Infrastructure

The following optional facilities and infrastructure may be attractive to potential customers but are not necessarily required to support the proposed CONOPS at the commercial spaceport. An analysis of the probable costs and schedule estimation associated with the facilities and infrastructure is also included in the following section. The cost and schedule estimates include all phases of the project, including design, permitting, construction, and activation.

Permanent Fuel Storage Area

As the frequency of launch or testing operations increases at OSC, it may be desirable to have permanent infrastructure in place for aerospace fuel storage. At a minimum, a permanent FSA would consist of concrete pavement that is large enough to support two to three 5,000-gal aerospace fuel tanks. In addition to the permanent tankage, the FSA would need to be large enough to support two to three 5,000-gal aerospace fuel tanker trucks. An area near the existing aviation fuel farm has been identified as being a good candidate for a permanent FSA when the time comes (see Figure 73). The area that was identified is currently undeveloped and would require infrastructure development, including pavement and tank installation, before the FSA would be operational.

The anticipated cost associated with establishing the FSA is between $1,500,000 and $2,500,000 and is expected to take between 12 Months and 24 Months.

Permanent Oxidizer Storage Area

While temporary oxidizer storage is the most cost-effective option, it may be desirable to have permanent bulk oxidizer storage available if the frequency of launch or testing operations increases at OSC. For reference, one 5,000-gal LOX tank should be sufficient to support a single mission of a launch vehicle similar to LauncherOne. A permanent OSA would consist of concrete pavement that is large enough to support one to three 10,000- gal liquid oxidizer tanks. In addition to the permanent tankage, the OSA would need to be large enough to support parking for one 5,000-gal liquid oxidizer tanker trucks. An area near the existing fuel farm has been identified as being a good candidate for a permanent OSA (see Figure 73). The area that was identified is currently undeveloped and would require pavement and tank installation prior to the OSA being operational.

The anticipated cost associated with establishing the OSA is between $2,500,000 and $3,500,000 and is expected to take between 12 Months and 24 Months.

Vehicle Processing Facility

A VPF is utilized by some operators for preparation, maintenance, and storage of launch/reentry vehicles and components. Often, these facilities are very similar to traditional aviation hangars that are utilized for aviation operations. The required size of the VPF is heavily dependent on the size of the vehicle, as described in Section 4.3.6.

89 PROPRIETARY Michigan Spaceport Site Specific Feasibility Study

Additionally, some operations that may occur in a VPF have the potential to be hazardous and may have associated QDs.

There is currently one facility, Building 6, that is available to serve as a non-hazardous VPF for smaller vehicles (see Figure 73). However, there are no available existing facilities to process larger vehicles or vehicles that intend to conduct hazardous operations within the VPF. Existing airside land is available where a future VPF could be constructed, but additional siting analysis would need to be conducted once the mission operations are more defined. Two potential siting options are provided in Figure 73.

The anticipated cost associated with establishing the development of a non-hazardous VPF varies significantly between $5,000,000 and $30,000,000 and is expected to take between 12 Months and 30 Months. On the low end, the existing Building 6 would be utilized to support small launch vehicle processing, while on the high end a new VPF and supporting apron would be constructed to support processing of aircraft as large as a 747-400. For reference, an 80,000 sqft hangar built at OSC in 2016 cost around $15,000,000 at the time.

Payload Processing Facility

A Payload Processing Facility (PPF) would enable aerospace operators to conduct final preparation of their payloads at the air and space port. A PPF can be as simple as a modular clean room that is co-located in the VPF or as complicated as a standalone dedicated building with multiple clean room spaces, hangars, overhead cranes, wet labs, dry labs, offices, and meeting rooms.

There are currently no available facilities that could immediately serve as a standalone PPF, however, there are some existing facilities, Building 228 and Building 5072, that could be completely renovated into a PPF. Of the two facilities, Building 5072 would be preferable since it includes a 40 ft high-bay that could be useful during payload processing. Alternatively, a new standalone PPF could be developed in a location with potential airside access.

The anticipated cost associated with establishing the development of a payload processing capabilities varies significantly between $200,000 and $30,000,000 and is expected to take between 6 Months and 30 Months. On the low end, a modular class 100,000 cleanroom would be installed into an existing hangar or new VFP, while on the high end a new dedicated PPF would be constructed to support processing multiple clean rooms with overhead cranes, wet labs, dry labs, office space and meeting rooms.

Test Facilities / Test Stands

Test facilities that may be available to lease may be attractive to potential future operators that have vehicles that are still in the development or testing stages. It is common for vehicle operators to require custom test infrastructure that is unique to their vehicle. To support the build out of future test facilities, it is recommended that common infrastructure be provided including the following: dedicated test area with road access, concrete pads, power, water, data, and location for a modular control room.

90 Michigan Spaceport Site Specific Feasibility Study PROPRIETARY

Approximately 650 acres of land west of the Airport were identified as potentially being able to support both test facility development other aerospace related development. Currently, the land is primarily heavily forested land and would require some preparation prior to being ready to lease to any potential aerospace customers. The land is currently owned by MDNR and a lease agreement would need to be made between MDNR and the airport or developer prior to any development. Several test facility configurations were presented in Section 4.3.5. It is recommended the 3-site option be considered for future development since it provides the flexibility for mixed-use development at the southern end of the property (described in more detail in Section 5.3.6). The development of this option would require designating about 475 acres of the 650-acre site for test facilities. The initial build-out would require clearing portions of the forested area, adding utilities (electricity, water, fiber, etc), adding roadway infrastructure to the sites, and installing concrete pads for user-provided modular control rooms.

The anticipated cost associated with establishing the foundational infrastructure for up to 3 new test facilities is estimated to be between $200,000 and $10,000,000 and is expected to take between 12 Months and 24 Months. On the low end, the existing roads would be utilized to support the clearing and preparation of one test facility, while on the high end three new dedicated test pads would be developed with new paved roads and utilities.

Aerospace Development Area

It is desirable for commercial spaceports to have designated land available for mixed-use development to support research and development, manufacturing, testing, and processing of aerospace hardware or supporting industries. Approximately 175 acres of the 650 acres of land west of the Airport were identified as potentially being able to support aerospace related development (see Figure 73). Currently, the land is primarily heavily forested land and would require some preparation prior to being ready to lease to any potential aerospace customers. It is anticipated that the preparation would need to include installation of utilities (electric, water, sewer, fiber, etc.), roadway development, and tree removal / land clearing. Additionally, the land is currently owned by MDNR and a lease agreement would need to be made between MDNR and the Airport or developer prior to any development.

It is recommended that the proposed 175 acres be prepared for future aerospace development by conducting preliminary site design, and constructing basic support infrastructure, such as roads and utilities.

The anticipated cost associated with establishing the 175-acre Aerospace Development area is estimated to be between $15,000,000 and $20,000,000 and is expected to take between 18 Months and 30 Months. Site preparation including grading, clearing, roads, and utilities is included in this estimate. Buildings are not included and are anticipated to be built-to-suit by the individual site customers. For reference the 154-acrea Phase 1 development at Houston Spaceport was a $18.8 Million project and took about a year to construct after design was complete [35].

91 PROPRIETARY Michigan Spaceport Site Specific Feasibility Study

Mission Control Center

A dedicated Mission Control center may be desirable for potential operators so that they can conduct the entirety of the mission from the air and space port. A dedicated Mission Control can be as simple as a small portable facility (1,000 square-feet) with reliable internet/communications connections or as complex as a large multi-user facility (~30,000 square-feet) with specialized communication / telemetry equipment, secure data center, reception, meeting rooms, break rooms, and office space. There may be existing facilities at OSC that could be renovated to accommodate such a facility. There is also available airport land where a new Mission Control facility could be developed.

The anticipated cost associated with establishing the development of a mission control center varies significantly between $500,000 and $25,000,000 (or more) and is expected to take between 6 Months and 24 Months.

Spaceflight Training Facility

A spaceflight training facility would enable crew and spaceflight participants to prepare for their mission at the spaceport. Examples of existing space flight training facilities include the NASTAR Center’s spaceflight participate program and Zero-G flights out of Houston Spaceport. Recommended capabilities in a potential spaceflight training facility include the following:

• Educational / classroom sessions • High-altitude / space environmental training • Centrifuge and g-force training • Flight simulation for pilot training • Mission training with scale model of launch vehicle • Medical monitoring capabilities • Neutral buoyancy training

The costs associated with these facilities is highly dependent on the types of training experiences that will be offered at the facility. There are currently no facilities at the airport that could serve as a spaceflight training center, but there is available land where a facility could be developed.

The anticipated cost associated with developing a spaceflight training facility varies significantly between $15,000,000 and $35,000,000 (or more) and is expected to take between 18 Months and 36 Months.

Spaceflight Participant Terminal

A Spaceflight Participant Terminal may be desirable to potential aerospace operators looking to provide high-end experiences to their customers and families. A Spaceflight Participant Terminal would include amenities that make the spaceflight participants and families comfortable prior to, during, and after launch activities. The facility may be similar

92 Michigan Spaceport Site Specific Feasibility Study PROPRIETARY to a private airline lounge at a commercial airport, offering comfortable seating, beverage services, and food services to participants.

There are no available airport facilities that could immediately be utilized as a Spaceflight Participant Terminal, but there are facilities that could potentially be completely renovated to serve as a Spaceflight Participant Terminal. There is also available land on the airfield where a new Spaceflight Participant Terminal could be developed. Additionally, if an aerospace operator develops a VPF on site, the Spaceflight Participant Terminal could potentially be co-located with the VPF, similarly to what currently exists with the Virgin Galactic Terminal Hangar Facility at Spaceport America.

The anticipated cost associated with developing a spaceflight participant terminal varies significantly between $2,000,000 and $20,000,000 (or more) and is expected to take between 12 Months and 24 Months.

Visitor Center / Museum / Educational Center

A visitor center / museum / educational center is an additional amenity to have at the spaceport to help educate the public on what a spaceport is and provide public outreach to the surrounding communities. Ideally, the facility would also be located in an area that would enable visitors to view launch related activities.

The amenities provided in a facility of this type can vary significantly. For example, Space Center Houston is a relatively large facility that includes interactive exhibits, dining locations, Johnson Space Center tours, a theater, a full-sized Space Shuttle replica attached to a carrier aircraft, and a gift shop. This center operates relatively independently from the actual space center and functions as an independent business. While at Spaceport America, the visitor center is built into the main terminal building and includes a few interactive displays that overlook the hangar space where the launch vehicles will eventually be processed.

The size of the operations at the air and space port will likely drive the size of the facility and amenities offered at the facility. As the number of operations increases at OSC, the size of the visitor center will likely increase as well.

The anticipated cost associated with developing a visitor center varies significantly between $5,000,000 and $20,000,000 (or more) and is expected to take between 12 Months and 30 Months.

Airport Rescue and Firefighting (ARFF)

A dedicated ARFF is not required but may be preferable to utilizing the township fire department services as it adds an additional level of safety for vehicles and operators. Having an ARFF at the spaceport decreases the time it takes for first responders and firefighters to respond to a potential mishap.

An ARFF facility was included as part of the 2013 Master Plan [3] as a planned support facility that may be required to accommodate future maintenance, repair, and overhaul

93 PROPRIETARY Michigan Spaceport Site Specific Feasibility Study

(MRO) contracts associated with large transport repairs. Three sites were identified as part of the Master Plan, and the preferred site is shown in Figure 73 below. The preferred site is adjacent to Ballor Drive (inactive) and has direct airfield access to Taxiway A and C. Since the ARFF is identified as being necessary to support aviation operations, it may be eligible for grant funding through the FAA.

The anticipated cost associated with developing an ARFF is between $3,000,000 and $5,000,000 and is expected to take between 18 Months and 30 Months. On the low end the cost includes just the facility, on the high end it includes the facility and new firefighting equipment.

Air Traffic Control Tower

Air traffic control towers help to deconflict taxiing, arrivals, and departures for aircraft. An ATCT may also serve as a location to build out a mission control center if there is adequate room to support the necessary staff.

Currently there is no ATCT at OSC. The anticipated cost associated with developing a new Non-FAA ATCT is between $4,000,000 and $8,000,000 and is expected to take between 30 Months and 48 Months.

Liquid Oxygen Generation Facility

Liquid oxygen is one of the most commonly used liquid oxidizers in launch vehicles. While initially the focus is to utilize tanker trucks to delivery liquid oxygen on-demand, as the number of operations increases, it may be desirable to begin producing liquid oxygen at the air and space port.

Liquid oxygen is created through a process called cryogenic air separation and requires specialized equipment to produce. Small scale production can be accomplished with small / modular air separation plants. Larger scale production requires a large dedicated air separation plan. One of the by-products of creating liquid oxygen is the production of pure liquid nitrogen, which also has aerospace uses. While it is unlikely that a liquid oxygen generation facility will be cost effective for supporting launch operations in the near-term, there could be other markets (such as medical) where the liquid oxygen could be shipped to. A detailed cost feasibility analysis is recommended before investing in location production of liquid oxygen.

The anticipated cost associated with developing a Liquid Oxygen Generation Facility varies greatly with large generation plans costing more than $100 Million. For this feasibility study it assumed that a small to medium size plant can be constructed for between $10,000,000 and $60,000,000 and is expected to take between 12 Months and 24 Months.

94 Michigan Spaceport Site Specific Feasibility Study PROPRIETARY

Evaluation and Recommendations

The optional facilities and infrastructure were evaluated to determine the level of concern associated with the development of each facility. The results of the evaluation are presented in Table 19.

Table 19. Optional Facilities and Infrastructure Evaluation

95 PROPRIETARY Michigan Spaceport Site Specific Feasibility Study

Figure 73. Optional Spaceport Infrastructure Sources: Kimley-Horn (2020), ArcMap (2020)

96 Michigan Spaceport Site Specific Feasibility Study PROPRIETARY

5.4 Cost Estimate and Development Schedule Summary

ROM Cost Estimate Description

The purpose of a ROM cost estimate is to provide key stakeholders and decision makers with an estimate of approximate costs for different options at a concept level. The potential costs of spaceport development are bracketed with low and high estimates for key components of planning and recommended infrastructure that may be required to support for spaceport operations. In addition, optional facilities have also been evaluated. To provide sufficient boundary of the costs, the low and high options are intentionally dissimilar.

At this level of study, the evaluated concepts are broadly defined, and the fidelity of the ROM cost estimates are designed to reflect that. For actual development costs, it is recommended that a compressive cost analysis be performed at a later time based on advanced planning and preliminary design documentation once detailed requirements are known. Unless otherwise specified, all ROM infrastructure costs include design, construction, and activation activities, but do not include specialized Ground Support Equipment (GSE). Launch vehicle specific GSE is expected to be provided by the future operators.

Preliminary Development Schedule Description

The purpose of the Preliminary Development Schedule is to provide a general timescale for key components of planning and the development of spaceport infrastructure. Similar to the ROM cost estimate, the data can be provided to key stakeholders and decision makers to program in various stages of spaceport development in a capital improvement program for the spaceport.

The major time increments in the preliminary development schedule are displayed in years with sub-increments in quarters. Approximate low and high ranges are provided based on the ranges of development described in the infrastructure evaluation in Chapter 5.

ROM Cost Estimate and Development Schedule

The ROM cost estimate summary is provided in Table 20 and includes low and high estimates for recommended planning elements as well as the required and options facilities. A high-level summary of the anticipated development schedule is provided in Figure 74.

97 PROPRIETARY Michigan Spaceport Site Specific Feasibility Study

Table 20. ROM Cost Estimate for Infrastructure and Facilities

Spaceport Elements ROM Cost Estimate

Planning and Licensing Low High Economic Analyses $50,000 $300,000 Spaceport Master Plan $350,000 $600,000 LSOL Application and Environmental $600,000 $800,000 Subtotal $1,000,000 $1,700,000

Recommended Spaceport Infrastructure Low High Runway $0 $0 Balloon Launch Pad* $0 $100,000 Temporary Fuel and Oxidizer Storage Areas* $0 $100,000 Oxidizer Loading Area / Reactivate Former Alert Apron $5,000,000 $13,000,000 Subtotal $5,000,000 $13,200,000

Optional Facilities and Infrastructure Low High Fuel Storage Area (Permanent) $1,500,000 $3,000,000 Oxidizer Storage Area (Permanent) $2,500,000 $4,000,000 Vehicle Processing Facility $5,000,000 $30,000,000 Payload Processing Facility $200,000 $30,000,000 Test Facilities $200,000 $10,000,000 Mission Control $500,000 $25,000,000 Spaceflight Training Facility $15,000,000 $35,000,000 Spaceflight Participant Terminal $2,000,000 $20,000,000 Visitor Center / Museum / Educational Center $5,000,000 $20,000,000 Aircraft Rescue and Fire Fighting $3,000,000 $5,000,000 Air Traffic Control Tower $4,000,000 $8,000,000 Aerospace Development Area Site Preparation $15,000,000 $20,000,000 Liquid Oxygen Generation Facility $10,000,000 $60,000,000 Subtotal ~$70,000,000 ~$270,000,000 *Excludes cost of reactivating Former Alert Apron and repairing pavement

98 Michigan Spaceport Site Specific Feasibility Study PROPRIETARY

Preliminary Development Schedule Duration Spaceport Element Year 1 Year 2 Year 3 Year 4 Year 5 Year 6 (months)

Planning Licensing (

Economic Analyses 6 to 15

Spaceport Master Plan 18 to 24

LSOL Application and Environmental 24 to 36+

Required Facilities and Infrastructure

Runway N/A Balloon Launch Pad N/A

Fuel Storage Area (Temporary) 0 to 6

Oxidizer Storage Area (Temporary) 0 to 6

Oxidizer Loading Area / Reactivate Alert Apron 24 - 36

Optional Facilities and Infrastructure

Fuel Storage Area (Permanent) 12 to 24

Oxidizer Storage Area (Permanent) 12 to 24

Vehicle Processing Facility 12 to 30

Payload Processing Facility 6 to 30

Test Pads 12 to 24

Mission Control 6 to 24

Spaceflight Training Facility 18 to 36

Spaceflight Participant Terminal 12 to 24+

Visitor Center / Museum / Educational Center 12 to 30

Airport Rescue and Fire Fighting 18 to 30

Air Traffic Control Tower 30 to 48

Aerospace Development Area 18 to 30

Liquid Oxygen Generation Facility 12 to 24

Planning Recommended Optional Aggressive Aggressive Aggressive Conservative Conservative Conservative

Figure 74. Preliminary Development Schedule

99 PROPRIETARY Michigan Spaceport Site Specific Feasibility Study

This page is intentionally left blank.

100 Michigan Spaceport Site Specific Feasibility Study PROPRIETARY

Chapter 6 – Recommendations and Next Steps

The results from the site-specific feasibility study demonstrate that existing infrastructure can be utilized at OSC to develop a commercial spaceport. While most recommended facilities can be established with little investment, a significant investment will be required to reactive the former alert apron to support aircraft movements necessary for the oxidizer loading area. During discussions with the OSC Airport Director, an attempt was made to identify a potential low-cost / no-cost option for a temporary oxidizer loading area, however no option was found at this time. It is recommended that when a potential operator expresses interest in utilizing the spaceport, coordination with that operator occur to see if another option exists to satisfy their unique operations.

Kimley-Horn recommends that the following steps be completed for spaceport development and licensing efforts related to the horizontal air and space port. 6.1 Recommended Next Steps

1) Finalize economic and business case studies to develop an understanding of investments and opportunities associated with spaceport development.

2) Contact FAA-AST to initiate the pre-application consultation process for launch site licensing.

3) Prepare an LSOL application for submittal to FAA-AST.

4) Prepare the environmental assessment concurrently with the license application.

5) Initiate airspace stakeholder coordination and outreach efforts in collaboration with FAA-AST and authorities having jurisdiction over the airspace.

6) Initiate maritime stakeholder coordination and outreach efforts in collaboration with FAA-AST and USCG.

7) Initiate international stakeholder coordination and outreach efforts in collaboration with FAA-AST.

8) Obtain LSOL for horizontal launch activities.

9) Develop a spaceport master plan to identify spaceport infrastructure for future design and construction.

10) Begin design and construction of desired facilities to support spaceport operations.

101 PROPRIETARY Michigan Spaceport Site Specific Feasibility Study

This page is intentionally left blank.

102 Michigan Spaceport Site Specific Feasibility Study PROPRIETARY

Appendix A: Acronyms

AFB Air Force Base AHJ Authority Having Jurisdiction ALP Airport Layout Plan AOA Aircraft Operations Area ARFF Aircraft Rescue and Firefighting ARTCC Air Route Traffic Control Center AST Office of Commercial Space Transportation ATC Air Traffic Control ATCT Air Traffic Control Tower AWOS Automated Weather Observing System BRAC Base Realignment and Closure CFR Code of Federal Regulations CONOPS Concept of Operations CZQM Moncton Airspace Control Center CZWG Winnipeg Airspace Control Center CZYZ Toronto Airspace Control Center DoD Department of Defense DoDM Department of Defense Manual DOT Department of Transportation EA Environmental Assessment ELV Expendable Launch Vehicle FAA Federal Aviation Administration FAA-AST FAA Office of Commercial Space Transporation FBO Fixed Base Operator FIR Flight Information Region FSA Fuel Storage Area ft feet GA General Aviation GSE Ground Support Equipment

H2 Gaseous Hydrogen HD Hazard Division

103 PROPRIETARY Michigan Spaceport Site Specific Feasibility Study

HTHL Horizontal Takeoff Horizontal Landing HTPB Hydroxyl Terminated Polybutadiene HVAC Heating, Ventilation, and Air Conditioning ILD Intraline Distance ISS International Space Station KZBW Boston Airspace Control Center KZMP Minneapolis Airspace Control Center KZNY New York Oceanic East Airspace Control Center lbs pounds LEO Low Earth Orbit LOC/GS Localizer/Glide Slope LOX Liquid Oxygen LSOL Launch Site Operator License MALSR Medium Intensity Approach Lighting System with Runway Alignment Indicator Lights MAMA Michigan Aerospace Manufacturing Association MDNR Michigan Department of Natural Resources MLI Michigan Launch Initiative MRO Maintenance, Repair and Overhaul

N2O Nitrous Oxide NAT North Atlantic Track NEPA National Environmental Policy Act NEW Net Equivalent Weight NFPA National Fire Protection Agency NOTAM Notice to Airmen OLA Oxidizer Loading Area OSA Oxidizer Storage Area OSC Oscoda-Wurtsmith Airport PAD Public Area Distance PAPI Precision Approach Path Indicator Part 420 Code of Federal Regulations Title 14, Chapter III, Part 420 PLLC Professional Limited Liability Company PPE Personal Protective Equipment

104 Michigan Spaceport Site Specific Feasibility Study PROPRIETARY

PPF Payload Processing Facility PTRD Public Traffic Route Distance QD Quantity Distance RFI Request for Information RLV Reusable Launch Vehicle ROM Rough Order of Magnitude RP-1 Kerosene RS&H Reynolds, Smith & Hills, Inc. SAC Strategic Air Command TFR Temporary Flight Restrictions TNT Trinitrotoluene TRACON Terminal Radar Approach Control Facilities U.S. United States USAF United States Air Force USCG United States Coast Guard VA Veterans Affairs VPF Vehicle Processing Facility VTVL Vertical Takeoff Vertical Landing

105 PROPRIETARY Michigan Spaceport Site Specific Feasibility Study

This page is intentionally left blank.

106 Michigan Spaceport Site Specific Feasibility Study PROPRIETARY

Appendix B: References

Documents

[1] Federal Aviation Administration, “2019-2023 NPIAS Report,” September 26, 2018. [2] Michigan Department of Transportation – Aeronautics (MDOT) (2017). “2017 Michigan Aviation System Plan,” Access November 25, 2019: https://www.michigan.gov/documents/aero/MDOT_2017_MASP_Technica l_Report-Appendices_588889_7.pdf [3] Reynolds, Smith & Hills (RS&H), “Airport Master Plan – Oscoda-Wurtsmith Airport,” March 2013. [4] U.S. Department of the Air Force, “Historic Building Inventory and Evaluation – Wurtsmith Air Force Base – Oscoda, Iosco County, Michigan,” September 1995. [5] Federal Aviation Administration, “Final Environmental Assessment and Finding of No Significant Impact for Issuing a License to Virgin Orbit (LauncherOne), LLC for LauncherOne Launches at the Mojave Air and Space Port, Kern County, California,” July 2017. [6] Space Perspective, “The Off-World Travel Company,” June 2020. [7] National Fire Protection Association (NFPA), “NFPA 55 – Standard for the Storage, Use, and Handling of Compressed Gases and Cryogenic Fluids in Portable and Stationary Containers, Cylinders, and Tanks,” February 7, 2005. [8] United States Department of Defense, “Department of Defense Manual 6055.09-M, Volume 1 with Incorporated Change 1,” March 12, 2012. [9] Code of Federal Regulations, Title 14, Chapter III, Subchapter C, Part 420, “License to Operate a Launch Site”, Current as of September 12, 2019. [10] Federal Aviation Administration, “The Annual Compendium of Commercial Space Transportation,” 2018. [11] Code of Federal Regulations, Title 14, Chapter III, Subchapter C, Part 413, “License Application Procedures”, Current as of September 12, 2019.

Websites

[12] https://factfinder.census.gov/faces/nav/jsf/pages/community_facts.xhtml, “2013-2017 American Community Survey 5-Year Estimates,” Accessed November 26, 2019. [13] https://www.oscairport.com/index.php/history/, “Wurtsmith AFB History,” Accessed November 26, 2019. [14] https://www.airnav.com/airports/, “Airport Information,” Accessed November 4, 2019. [15] https://www.universetoday.com/141785/progress-for-the-skylon-europe- agrees-to-continue-working-on-the-air-breathing-sabre-engine-1/, “Progress for the Skylon. Europe agrees to continue working on the air- breathing SABRE engine,” Accessed January 27, 2020.

107 PROPRIETARY Michigan Spaceport Site Specific Feasibility Study

[16] http://www.rocketplaneglobal.com/, “Rocketplane Global,” Accessed January 27, 2020. [17] http://www.parabolicarc.com/tag/pd-aerospace/, “ANA & Marubeni to Establish Spaceport in Japan,” Accessed January 27, 2020. [18] https://www.mrt.com/business/article/XCOR-files-for-Chapter-7- bankruptcy-12346084.php, “XCOR files for Chapter 7 bankruptcy,” Accessed December 6, 2019. [19] https://www.latimes.com/business/la-fi-xcor-astronauts-20181230- story.html, “Lost in space: They paid $100,000 to ride on Xcor’s space plane. Now they want their money back,” Accessed January 27, 2020. [20] http://www.rocketplaneglobal.com/, “Rocketplane Global,” Accessed January 27, 2020. [21] http://www.parabolicarc.com/tag/pd-aerospace/, “ANA & Marubeni to Establish Spaceport in Japan,” Accessed January 27, 2020. [22] http://www.citizensinspace.org/2012/12/generation-orbit-partners-with- space-propulsion-group/, “GENERATION ORBIT PARTNERS WITH SPACE PROPULSION GROUP,” Accessed June 22, 2020. [23] https://www.cnet.com/news/richard-branson-virgin-galactic-vss-unity- completes-first-flight-since-crash/, “Virgin Galactic completes first test flight since fatal crash,” Accessed January 27, 2020. [24] https://blogs.nasa.gov/icon/2019/09/11/icon-launch-now-targeted-for-oct- 9/, “ICON Launch Now Targeted for Oct. 9,” Accessed January 27, 2020. [25] https://www.theverge.com/2018/7/16/17577172/virgin-orbit-launcherone- cosmic-girl-spaceport-cornwall, “Virgin Orbit plans future rocket launches from the UK,” Accessed January 27, 2020. [26] https://thespaceperspective.com/aboutus/, “About – Space Perspective,” Accessed June 30, 2020. [27] https://medium.com/loon-for-all/loon-balloons-are-now-connecting-users- in-peru-8daa32db32b7, “Loon balloons are now connecting users in Peru,” Accessed September 12, 2019. [28] https://medium.com/loon-for-all/turning-on-project-loon-in-puerto-rico- f3aa41ad2d7f, “Turning on Project Loon in Puerto Rico,” Accessed September 12, 2019. [29] https://thespaceperspective.com/fly/, “Fly – Space Perspective,” Accessed June 30, 2020. [30] https://www.leoaerospace.com/launch-system, “Launch System,” Accessed November 11, 2019. [31] https://techcrunch.com/2019/10/02/leo-aerospace-provides-bespoke- rocket-launches-from-a-hot-air-balloon/, “Leo Aerospace Provides Bespoke Rocket Launches from a Hot Air Balloon,” Accessed November 11, 2019. [32] https://www.space.com/20089-near-space-balloons-science.html, “Balloon Flights Bring Near-Space Exploration to Masses,” Accessed September 12, 2019.

108 Michigan Spaceport Site Specific Feasibility Study PROPRIETARY

[33] https://www.nasaspaceflight.com/2019/04/dream-chaser-progress-crs2- snc-crew-version-alive/, “Dream Chaser progress ahead of CRS2 as SNC keeps crew version alive,” Accessed January 27, 2020. [34] https://ntrs.nasa.gov/archive/nasa/casi.ntrs.nasa.gov/20180004443.pdf, “Captive-Carry Flight Demonstration of an Inert Test Rocket Using a Business Jet as an Air Launch Platform,” Accessed February 13, 2020. [35] https://www.bizjournals.com/houston/news/2019/10/25/houston- spaceports-anchor-tenant-to-build-90-000.html, “Houston Spaceport’s anchor tenant to build 90,000-SF facility,” Houston Business Journal, Accessed July 31, 2020.

109 PROPRIETARY Michigan Spaceport Site Specific Feasibility Study

This page is intentionally left blank.

110 Michigan Spaceport Site Specific Feasibility Study PROPRIETARY

Appendix C: Draft Description of Proposed Action

111 PROPRIETARY Michigan Spaceport Site Specific Feasibility Study

This page is intentionally left blank.

112 Michigan Spaceport Site Specific Feasibility Study PROPRIETARY

Chapter 1 - Introduction

1.1 Introduction

The Michigan Aerospace Manufacturers Association’s (MAMA) purpose is to promote the aerospace manufacturing industry in the State of Michigan. MAMA’s commitment to continuous opportunity development is evidenced by the Michigan Launch Initiative (MLI). Pursuant to the MLI, MAMA proposes to construct new infrastructure and facilities to operate a commercial space launch site for the launch and landing of horizontal take-off and horizontal-landing reusable launch vehicles (RLVs) at the Oscoda-Wurtsmith Airport (OSC) as shown in Figure 1. To operate a commercial launch site, MAMA must obtain a launch site operator license from the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA). Under the Proposed Action addressed in this Environmental Assessment (EA), the FAA would:

1) Issue a launch site operator license to MAMA for the operation of a commercial space launch site at OSC; and 2) Provide unconditional approval of the portion of the Airport Layout Plan (ALP) that shows the designation of a launch site boundary and existing and planned support infrastructure. The Proposed Action is subject to environmental review under the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) of 1969 as amended (42 United States Code [U.S.C.] §4321, et seq.). The FAA is the lead Federal agency and is preparing this EA in accordance with NEPA, Council on Environmental Quality (CEQ) Regulations for Implementing the Procedural Provisions of NEPA (40 Code of Federal Regulations [CFR] Parts 1500-1058); FAA Order 10501.F, Environmental Impacts: Policies and Procedures; and FAA Order 5050.4B, NEPA Implementing Instructions for Airport Actions.

This EA evaluates the potential direct, indirect, and cumulative environmental effects that would result from the Proposed Action and reasonable alternatives, including the No Action Alternative. The successful completion of the environmental review process does not guarantee that the FAA would issue a launch site operator license to MAMA, nor does completion of the NEPA process guarantee the FAA would provide unconditional ALP approval. The project must also meet all FAA safety, risk, and financial responsibility requirements per 14 CFR Part 400 and not adversely affect the safety, utility, or efficiency of the airport per 49 U.S.C. § 47107(a)(16).

Additional environmental analysis will be required for future vehicle operators. When a launch operator applies to the FAA for a license to operate at OSC, the FAA will develop a new or supplemental EA that will include a public notification and review period. If the FAA grants a launch site operator license to MAMA for the operation of OSC, it in no way ensures or guarantees that the FAA would grant a subsequent license to an operator of a vehicle at the site.

113 PROPRIETARY Michigan Spaceport Site Specific Feasibility Study

Figure 1. Oscoda-Wurtsmith Airport Sources: Kimley-Horn (2020), ArcMap (2020)

114 Michigan Spaceport Site Specific Feasibility Study PROPRIETARY

1.2 Background

With the increasing focus on the privatization of the space industry in the United States, the need for licensed spaceports to serve the commercial space industry is growing. Multiple aerospace companies have plans to launch thousands of small satellites into low earth orbit. Eastern Michigan is uniquely positioned for a polar orbit satellite launch facility that supports horizontal takeoff and landing Reusable Launch Vehicles (RLVs) and FAA licensed high-altitude balloon launch. immediate proximity to large freshwater lakes, low general density population, extensive restricted airspace, interstate highway system accessibility, and engineering and manufacturing capacity. An FAA launch site operator license would enable MAMA to offer OSC as a site for commercial space launch vehicle operators to conduct launches of horizontal RLVs and high-altitude balloon launch.

OSC is a publicly owned, General Aviation (GA) airport in Iosco County, Michigan (see Figure 1). It is located approximately 3 miles northwest of the unincorporated community of Oscoda, which is on the shores of Lake Huron, and has a population of approximately 6,900 people (Oscoda Charter Township) based on the 2017 American Community Survey 5-Year Estimates [12]. Access to the airport is provided by Michigan County Highway F-41 which runs north-south between M-72 and US 23 in Oscoda, which is the primary north-south route in the region.

OSC, formerly the Wurtsmith Air Force Base (AFB), was established in 1923 as a soft- surface landing site for Army Air Corps aircraft. During World War II, three 5,000-foot long and 150-foot wide concrete runways were constructed for the 100th Base Headquarters and Air Base Squadron but were only needed during 1942. Between 1942 and 1951 the airport was used as a training facility and transient aircraft stopover. In 1951, OSC became a fighter-interceptor training base for the Air Defense Command. Much construction, including Runway 6-24, accompanying taxiways and military support facilities. Between 1951 and 1994, OSC remained a permanent US Air Force (USAF) installation for multiple different Squadrons and Wings. Following the fall of the Soviet Union, many USAF installations, such as Oscoda, were no longer needed. In 1991 the Department of Defense (DoD) included Wurtsmith AFB on its Base Realignment and Closure (BRAC) list, leading to the closing of Wurtsmith AFB in 1993.

The airport is classified as a GA Airport in the FAA National Plan of Integrated Airport Systems 2019-2023 [1] and as a Tier I Business Center (C-II) Airport in the 2017 Michigan Aviation System Plan [2]. There are currently no commercial passenger service operations out of OSC (no Part 139 certification); however, Kalitta Air, a commercial cargo airline, operates its maintenance facility out of OSC. Four passengers were enplaned at OSC in calendar year 2016 and OSC experienced approximately 5,530 runway operations that same year, all of which were GA (67% local, 33% transient). Thirty aircraft were based at OSC as of 2018. OSC is also home to Phoenix Composite Solutions, Phoenix Flight Services Fixed Base Operator (FBO), and Oscoda Engine Services.

OSC spans over 2,500 acres and is situated at 633 feet in elevation with one runway, Runway 7-25, and a full parallel taxiway system. Runway 7-25 is oriented in the northeast- southwest direction and is 11,800 feet long and 200 feet wide with a 1,000-foot overrun

115 PROPRIETARY Michigan Spaceport Site Specific Feasibility Study on each end., The runway was resurfaced in 2018 and is constructed of asphalt pavement that is in very good condition. The weight bearing capacity of the runway is 155,000 lbs single wheel, 330,000 lbs double tandem wheels, 550,000 lbs dual double tandem wheels. This runway is equipped with high intensity edge lights, precision marking, 4-light PAPI visual slope indicators, a 1,400-foot medium intensity approach lighting system with runway alignment indicator lights (MALSR) on Runway 25, runway end identifier lights (REIL) on Runway 7, and a Localizer/Glide Slope (LOC/GS) for instrument approach on Runway 25. The only obstacle identified is a tree beyond Runway 7 which requires a 34:1 slope to clear [13].

OSC does not have a control tower and is not within range of another approach or departure tower. The airport is equipped with an Automated Weather Observing System (AWOS). Aircraft Rescue and Firefighting (ARFF) services for OSC are provided by the Oscoda Township Fire Department and nearby mutual aid partners when needed.

Phoenix Aviation Services provides airports services including hangars and tiedown spaces for aircraft parking and 100LL JET-A fuel. OSC currently has several facilities available for use including one hanger with 19,400 square feet of space and five onsite buildings totaling approximately 172,000 square feet available for use. In addition, the airport has medical clinic services, education and training services, a public library, and museum on site. There are also approximately 197 acres available for airport industrial development, 45 acres for township or residential development, and nine acres for township or business development on airport property. The main apron provides approximately 64,200 square yards of space with an additional approximately 8,500 square yards of space provided on the GA apron. 1.3 Federal Agency Roles

As the lead Federal agency, the FAA is responsible for analyzing the potential environmental impacts of the Proposed Action. Commercial space operators may also use this EA to support their application to acquire launch licenses or experimental permits (when their operations match those described within this EA). However, if a prospective launch vehicle operator’s vehicle parameters fall outside of those analyzed in this EA, the FAA would re-evaluate the potential impacts and, if necessary, prepare additional NEPA analysis (FAA Order 1050.1F, Paragraph 9-3).

As authorized by Executive Order (EO) 12465, Commercial Expendable Launch Vehicle Activities (49 Federal Register 7099, 3 CFR, 1984 Comp., p. 163) and chapter 509 of Title 51 of the U.S. Code, the FAA licenses and regulates U.S. commercial space launch and reentry activity, as well as the operation of non-Federal launch and reentry sites. The FAA’s mission is to ensure public health and safety of property while protecting the national security and foreign policy interests of the United States during commercial launch and reentry operations. In addition, Congress directed the FAA to encourage, facilitate, and promote commercial space launches and reentries.

116 Michigan Spaceport Site Specific Feasibility Study PROPRIETARY

1.3.1 FAA Licenses, Permits, Approvals, and Agreements

Licenses and Permits

A launch site operator license authorizes a licensee to offer its launch site to a launch vehicle operator for each launch point, launch vehicle type, and weight class identified in the license application upon which the licensing determination is based. Issuance of a license to operate a launch site does not relieve a licensee of its obligation to comply with any other laws or regulations, nor does it confer any proprietary, property, or exclusive rights in the use of airspace or outer space (14 CFR § 420.41). A launch site operator license remains in effect for five years from the date of issuance unless surrendered, suspended, or revoked before the expiration of the term and is renewable upon application by the licensee (14 CFR § 420.43). A licensee can renew its license by submitting an application to the FAA at least 90 days before the license expires.

The FAA issues separate launch licenses or experimental permits for the operation of launch vehicles. Therefore, prospective launch vehicle operators would need to obtain launch licenses or experimental permits from the FAA before launching from OSC.

The launch license or experimental permits that could be obtained by an operator include:

• 14 CFR § 415 Launch License o Launch Specific License: authorizes a licensee to conduct one or more launches, having the same launch parameters, of one type of launch vehicle from one launch site. o Launch Operator License: authorizes a licensee to conduct launches from one launch site, within a range of launch parameters, of launch vehicles from the same family of vehicles transporting specified classes of payloads. • 14 CFR § 431 Launch and Reentry of a Reusable Launch Vehicle o Launch Vehicle Mission Operator License: authorizes a licensee to launch and reenter, or otherwise land, any of a designated family of [reusable] launch vehicles within authorized parameters. o Reusable Launch Vehicle Mission Specific License: authorizes a licensee to launch and reenter, or otherwise land, one model or type of reusable launch vehicle from a launch site approved for the mission to a reentry site or other location approved for the mission. • 14 CFR § 437 Experimental Permits o Eligibility for an Experimental Permit: The FAA will issue an experimental permit to a person to launch or reenter a reusable or suborbital rocket only for (a) Research and development to test new design concepts, new equipment, or new operating techniques; (b) A showing of compliance with requirements for obtaining a license under this subchapter; or (c) Crew training before obtaining a license for a launch or reentry using the design of the rocket for which the permit would be issued. Airport Layout Plan Approval

117 PROPRIETARY Michigan Spaceport Site Specific Feasibility Study

An ALP is an FAA-approved drawing or series of drawings that depicts both existing facilities and planned development for an airport. The ALP must depict the following:

• Boundaries and proposed additions to all areas owned or controlled by the sponsor for airport purposes; • The location and nature of existing and proposed airport facilities and structures; and • The location on the airport of existing and proposed non-aviation areas and improvements. The Federal actions for this EA include the unconditional approval of a modification to the ALP to reflect the launch site boundary and existing and planned spaceport infrastructure.

Letter of Agreement

As a component of the launch site operator license application process, MAMA would enter into a Letter of Agreement with all appropriate Air Traffic Control (ATC) facilities to establish procedures for the issuance of a Notice to Airmen prior to a launch and for closing of air routes during the launch window and other such measures as the FAA ATC office deems necessary to protect public health and safety. The FAA Air Traffic Organization would participate in and provide inputs to the process for determining flight corridors and RLV operating areas, along with the FAA Office of Commercial Space Transportation, affected military ATC agencies, and spaceport airspace users.

1.3.2 Cooperating Agency Roles

A cooperating agency is an agency, other than the lead agency, that has jurisdiction by law or special expertise regarding any environmental impact resulting from a proposed action or reasonable alternative. The FAA is the lead federal agency for this EA. No cooperating agencies have been identified for this EA. 1.4 Purpose and Need

The purpose and need provides the foundation for identifying intended results or benefits and future conditions. In addition, the purpose and need defines the range of reasonable alternatives to a Proposed Action. As stated in FAA Order 1050.1F, Paragraph 6-2.1(c), the purpose and need presents the problem being addressed and describes what the FAA is trying to achieve with the Proposed Action.

1.4.1 FAA’s Purpose and Need

The purpose of the FAA’s Proposed Action is to fulfill the FAA’s responsibilities as authorized by Executive Order 12465 and chapter 509 of Title 51 of the U.S. Code for oversight of commercial space launch activities, including licensing launch activities. The need for the FAA’s Proposed Action results from the statutory direction from Congress under the U.S. Commercial Space Launch Competitiveness Act of 2015 to, in part, “promote commercial space launches and reentries by the private sector; facilitate

118 Michigan Spaceport Site Specific Feasibility Study PROPRIETARY

Government, State, and private sector involvement in enhancing U.S. launch sites and facilities; and protect public health and safety, safety of property, national security interest, and foreign policy interests of the United States.” Pub. L. 114-90 § 113(b). Additionally, Congress has determined the Federal Government is to “facilitate the strengthening and expansion of the United States space transportation infrastructure, including the enhancement of United States launch sites and launch-site support facilities, and development of reentry sites, with Government, State, and private sector involvement, to support the full range of United States space-related activities” 51 U.S.C. § 50901(b)(4).

The FAA must review all applications for licenses or experimental permits and determine whether to issue a permit or license, as appropriate. Actions described in any application for a license or permit that fall outside the scope of the analysis in this EA would require additional environmental review.

1.4.2 Michigan Aerospace Manufacturers Association Purpose and Need

The purpose of MAMA’s proposal to establish a commercial space launch site at OSC is to allow MAMA to support the launch of rockets carrying small and mid-sized satellites into low earth orbit. This launch facility would encourage innovation and productivity, facilitate employment growth, and increase public understanding of the aerospace manufacturing industry and its economic contribution to the state of Michigan.

MAMA’s need for the proposed commercial space launch site, in partnership with OSC, is to further the goals of the MLI. The MLI intends to provide a collaborative platform for academia, industry, and governmental agencies to support commercial and defense applications. The MLI’s priority is to organize industry partners to establish and operate a satellite launch facility in Northern Michigan.

119 PROPRIETARY Michigan Spaceport Site Specific Feasibility Study

Chapter 2 – Proposed Action and Alternatives

This EA describes and analyzes two alternatives: the No Action Alternative and the Proposed Action Alternative. Under the No Action Alternative, the FAA would not issue a launch site operator license to MAMA and no construction of facilities related to the launch site would occur. Under the Proposed Action, the FAA would issue a launch site operator license to MAMA to operate a launch site for horizontal launches, landings, and high- altitude balloon launch at OSC. This chapter describes both alternatives in detail. 2.1 Proposed Action

MAMA is proposing to operate a commercial space launch site at OSC in Iosco County, Michigan, and offer the site for the operation of orbital and suborbital launch vehicles. Under the Proposed Action, the FAA would:

• Issue a launch site operator license to MAMA to operate a commercial launch site at OSC; and • Unconditionally approve the updated ALP that shows the designation of the launch site boundary and existing and planned launch site infrastructure. Operation of a commercial launch site at OSC would not require any construction. However, existing infrastructure at OSC would be repurposed to support commercial space operations. While MAMA does not have an agreement with a launch operator at this time, future licensed launch activities at OSC could include the operation of Horizontal RLVs and high-altitude balloons. Horizontal RLVs can operate from traditional airport infrastructure and take off and land by means of jet power, rocket power or controlled glide and are generally categorized as either Concept X, Concept Y, or Concept Z type vehicles. Only Concept Z RLVs and high-altitude balloons are proposed for operation at OSC.

Concept X RLVs are winged horizontal takeoff and landing vehicles that utilize both jet engines and rocket engines in the same airframe. These RLVs typically take off and land under jet power and ignite their rocket engines once they reach a designated operating area. Concept Y RLVs are winged horizontal takeoff and landing vehicles that utilize only rocket power for takeoff and typically land with controlled glide. Concept Y RLVs do not have jet engines and conduct their mission in the immediate vicinity of the launch site. Concept Z RLVs are winged horizontal takeoff and landing vehicles that are composed of a carrier aircraft and an air-launched launch vehicle that performs the orbital (or suborbital) portion of flight. The carrier aircraft utilizes jet engines for takeoff and landing while the rocket uses rocket engines. High-altitude balloons can reach near space altitudes.

120 Michigan Spaceport Site Specific Feasibility Study PROPRIETARY

2.1.1 Concept Z Orbital RLVs

Overview

Concept Z Orbital RLVs are proposed for operation from OSC. The Concept Z carrier aircraft can be a conventional aircraft (e.g. Northrup Grumman’s Modified L-1011 or Virgin Orbit’s 747) or a non-conventional aircraft (e.g. Stratolaunch) that takes off and lands on a runway under jet power. A Concept Z orbital configuration utilizes the carrier aircraft as a reusable “first stage” that travels to an operating area before the orbital portion of flight is initiated. Once in the operating area, the launch vehicle detaches from the carrier aircraft and the rocket engine(s) ignites. For orbital missions the launch vehicle is typically an air-launched expendable launch vehicle (ELV), such as Northrop Grumman’s Pegasus. After engine burn is complete, the payload on the launch vehicle is delivered to orbit and the expendable stages of the launch vehicle return to Earth.

Orbital missions originating from OSC would launch payloads to sun-synchronous or polar orbits (80° to 100° inclination) from the Hudson Bay/James Bay in Canada or high- inclination orbits (approximately 41.5° to 54° inclination) from the Atlantic Ocean. . For sun-synchronous or polar orbits the ignition point would occur at a latitude between 53° and 54°. To achieve orbital inclination between 80° to 100°, the majority of the launch azimuths from the Hudson Bay would range between -15° and 15°.

High-inclination orbits originating from the Atlantic Ocean would have an ignition point east of Massachusetts at a latitude between 41° and 42°. The exact inclinations that are achievable would depend on the distance of the ignition point from the coast.

Pre-Flight Activities

Launch operators would be required to notify MAMA, OSC, and FAA before a planned launch and coordinate all operations with the OSC Airport. MAMA, in coordination with OSC, would notify the launch operator of other activities at OSC to resolve potential operational conflicts. MAMA would coordinate with the launch operator to notify the appropriate airspace scheduling agencies, in accordance with the Letter of Agreement. Flight and ground crews would be trained for nominal and non-nominal operations before each flight, and training would be repeated with various failure scenarios and irregular performance to ensure crew readiness.

Jet-A fuel would be delivered to the Concept Z carrier aircraft at the apron in accordance with OSC’s existing fuel delivery process for fueling conventional aircraft. Other aircraft operating on the airfield would be required to maintain a safe distance from the launch system, similar to conventional aircraft operating practices. In the event of inclement weather, the Concept Z launch vehicle would be removed from the runway, and the launch would be cancelled.

For Concept Z rockets using liquid propellant (e.g., LauncherOne), the rocket would be mounted onto the carrier vehicle (e.g., Boeing 747-700) and taxi to a designated area on the airfield identified as the Oxidizer Loading Area (OLA). Liquid rocket fuel would be delivered by tanker trucks to the parked launch system and loaded in accordance with

121 PROPRIETARY Michigan Spaceport Site Specific Feasibility Study the operating procedures of the launch operator. Once fuel loading is complete, the fuel tanker trucks would return to the fuel storage area and liquid oxidizer tanker trucks would be delivered to the OLA to perform loading operations. Immediately after oxidizer loading, the tanker truck would return to the oxidizer storage area.

Flight and Launch Operations

Notional flight corridors were developed using guidance from 14 CFR Part 420. The flight profile for a Concept Z orbital type launch can be delineated into three distinct phases: Phase 1 – Departure Flight from Airport to Operating Area, Phase 2 – Rocket Ignition and Rocket-Powered Flight, and Phase 3 – Return Flight from Operating Area to Airport.

For Phase 1, the carrier aircraft would depart from OSC with the air-launch vehicle mated to the aircraft. The carrier aircraft would then fly to its designated operating in either James Bay to the North or the Atlantic Ocean to the East. Once at the operating area the aircraft with climb to an altitude of approximately 35,000 feet to 40,000 feet and fly in a holding pattern near the designated ignition point.

Once the carrier aircraft is at the ignition point and received approval for launch, the air- launch vehicle would detach from the carrier aircraft and the rocket engines would ignite. The rocket would fly at supersonic speeds and the first stage engine would burn until all the propellant is consumed. After the first-stage propellant is burned, the first stage would detach and fall into the Hudson Bay. After the first stage detaches, the second stage engine would ignite and put the payload into the desired orbit.

After the air-launch system detaches from the carrier aircraft and the rocket engines ignite, the carrier aircraft would return to OSC under jet power. In the event that there is an emergency situation, the carrier aircraft would fly to the nearest contingency landing location. The contingency landing locations would be identified at a later time as part of the launch site licensing process. Notional ground traces for Concept Z orbital flight profiles out of the Hudson Bay and the Atlantic Ocean are presented in Figure 402 and Figure 413, respectively.

Post-Flight Activities

For all nominal launch vehicle operations, no hazardous post-flight ground operations are expected to be required to return the launch system to safe conditions. After safety checks of the carrier aircraft are completed, post-flight activities may include, as required:

• Transporting the carrier aircraft from the runway to a hangar, processing facility, or parking apron (either by ground service equipment or under power); • Pilot disembarking; and • Post-flight checkouts and inspections. If a launch was aborted and the carrier aircraft returns with a propellant-loaded launch vehicle, the launch system would need to be parked at the OLA for propellant unloading operations.

122 Michigan Spaceport Site Specific Feasibility Study PROPRIETARY

Annual Operations

The Proposed Action includes up to twelve annual Concept Z orbital type launches.

Figure 2. Ground Trace of Notional Flight Path for Concept Z Orbital Launch out of James Bay Sources: Kimley-Horn (2020), ArcMap (2020)

123 PROPRIETARY Michigan Spaceport Site Specific Feasibility Study

Figure 3. Ground Trace of Notional Flight Path for Concept Z Orbital Launch out of the Atlantic Ocean Sources: Kimley-Horn (2020), ArcMap (2020)

2.1.2 High Altitude Balloons

High-altitude balloons can reach near space altitudes. Currently, unmanned high-altitude balloons are used for research purposes including weather monitoring, atmospheric research, and climate research. However, companies like Space Perspective, World View Enterprises, Zero 2 Infinity, Leo Aerospace, and Loon LLC are looking to expand the potential uses of high-altitude balloons to include space tourism, telecommunications, expanded research capabilities, rocket launch, and other commercial uses.

124 Michigan Spaceport Site Specific Feasibility Study PROPRIETARY

The flight profile and ground trace for balloon launch varies based on the local winds which vary by season and altitude. A typical flight includes balloon inflation, ascent and float operations, and descent and landing/splashdown. A notional ground trace of a flight profile that lands in the water is presented in Figure 4.

Figure 4. Ground Trace of Notional Flight Path for Balloon Launch Sources: Kimley-Horn (2020), ArcMap (2020)

Pre-Flight Activities

Launch operators would be required to notify MAMA, OSC and FAA before a planned launch and coordinate all operations with OSC Airport. MAMA, in coordination with OSC, would notify the launch operator of other activities at OSC to resolve potential operational conflicts. MAMA will coordinate with the launch operator to notify the appropriate airspace scheduling agencies, in accordance with the Letter of Agreement. Flight and ground crews would be trained for nominal and non-nominal operations before each flight, and training would be repeated with various failure scenarios and irregular performance to ensure crew readiness.

The launch process begins with balloon inflation, which occurs approximately 45 minutes prior to the scheduled launch time. For the purpose of this analysis, the representative vehicle is anticipated to be inflated with hydrogen. During the inflation process, the vehicle is anchored to the ground and has safety release inhibits. While the balloon is inflating, the Flight Operations Team goes through a series of go/no-go polls while coordinating with the FAA Office of Commercial Space Transportation (AST), FAA Air Traffic Organization (ATO), and local Terminal Radar Approach Control Facilities (TRACON).

125 PROPRIETARY Michigan Spaceport Site Specific Feasibility Study

When inflation is complete, the team goes through final checks, stands up the balloon, completes the final inspection, and holds until FAA AST and FAA ATO clear for launch.

Flight Operations

After the operator has been notified that they are clear for launch, the balloon begins its ascent, traveling at approximately 1,000 feet per minute until it reaches its apogee at approximately 100,000 feet. The total ascent time takes approximately 1 hour and 40 minutes. The ascent is controlled at all times by a trained pilot and follows a planned flight trajectory. Once the balloon reaches its apogee, it would float at approximately 100,000 feet for around two hours before it requests the all clear from ATC to begin descent.

Once descent is initiated, the balloon descends between approximately 400-1,000 feet per minute. The timing and rate of descent are controlled to adjust for the splashdown/landing location. The flightpath and splashdown site of the capsule are coordinated with ATC, the United States Coast Guard (USCG), and the recovery vessel.

Post-Flight Activities

After splashdown occurs, the balloon is rapidly vented and separated from the vehicle. The crew, vehicle, and balloon are then fully recovered by the recovery vessel. In addition to the nominal situation where the vehicle lands in water, the vehicle also has the capability to perform emergency landings on land if required.

The crew, vehicle, and balloon are transported to land and back to OSC Airport.

Annual Operations

The Proposed Action includes up to 50 annual high-altitude balloon launches. 2.2 No Action Alternative

NEPA requires agencies to consider a “no action” alternative in their NEPA analyses and to compare the effects of not taking action with the effects of the action alternative(s). Thus, the No Action Alternative serves as a baseline for comparison purposes. Under the No Action Alternative, the FAA would not issue a launch site operator license to MAMA. MAMA would not be able to further the goals of the MLI, and commercial space transportation operations would not occur at OSC. The No Action Alternative would not meet the purpose and need for the Proposed Action because it would not allow for the operation of a commercial space launch site in order to satisfy MAMA’s need to promote the aerospace manufacturing industry in the State of Michigan.

126 Michigan Spaceport Site Specific Feasibility Study PROPRIETARY

Appendix D: LSOL Application Scope of Work

127 PROPRIETARY Michigan Spaceport Site Specific Feasibility Study

This page is intentionally left blank

128 Michigan Aerospace Manufacturing Association

Michigan Air and Space Port Launch Site Operator License Application SCOPE OF SERVICES

I. Purpose

Michigan Aerospace Manufacturing Association (Licensee) seeks to obtain a Launch Site Operator License (LSOL) for Oscoda-Wurtsmith Airport (OSC) to accommodate both an orbital launch of a launch system that utilizes a reusable carrier aircraft and an unmanned expendable launch vehicle (also known as a Concept Z launch system) and a suborbital launch of a manned, High-Altitude Balloon launch system. Issuance of the license is under the jurisdiction of the Federal Aviation Administration – Office of Commercial Space Transportation (FAA-AST) pursuant to Title 14 of the Code of Federal Regulation (CFR) Parts 413 and 420. Since the Licensee is not the managing airport authority, appropriate agreements will need to be in place to enable the Licensee to seek an LSOL at OSC. Development of those agreements is outside the scope of services provided herein.

II. Services to be Performed

The license application consists of the following sections with the corresponding CFR references. i. Section 1 – Information Requirements: §§ 413.7, 413.9, and 420.15. ii. Section 2 – Launch Site Location Review: §§ 420.19, 420.21, 420.23, 420.25, 420.27, 420.29, 420.30, and 420.31. iii. Section 3 – License Terms and Conditions: §§ 420.41, 420.43, 420.45, 420.47, and 420.49. iv. Section 4 – Responsibilities of a Licensee: §§ 420.51, 420.53, 420.55, 420.57, 420.59, 420.61, 420.63-70, and 420.71.

Since the issuance of an LSOL is considered a “major Federal action,” compliance with the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) is required. This scope of services assumes that an Environmental Assessment (EA) is the required level of environmental review for the LSOL Application for OSC. This analysis is performed under the direction of FAA-AST who will review the previously developed Description of Proposed Action and Alternatives to confirm that an EA is the sufficient. The following scope of services includes preparing the license appliance and EA to cover the two proposed types of launch systems.

Task 1: Baseline Launch Operations Planning

The Consultant will coordinate with the Licensee to review the existing baseline concept of operations for OSC and revise as necessary. The Consultant will coordinate with potential launch operators to obtain baseline launch data for each of the demonstration concept vehicles to be used for the LSOL application. In the event that launch vehicle flight path data is not available, the Consultant will generate a representative flight path for each demonstration concept vehicle. This preliminary planning exercise is the foundation for preparing the license application documentation and conducting the environmental review.

The Consultant will coordinate with the Licensee, one potential operator of a Concept Z orbital launch system, and one potential operator of a High-Altitude Balloon launch system to collect and review data related to their launch systems. The Licensee will identify the potential operators and assist in collecting the following data that includes, but is not limited to: 1. Launch system parameters (length, wingspan, landing weight, height, diameter, etc.)

Michigan Air and Space Port – LSOL Scope pf Services 1

2. Launch system ground operations requirements 3. Commodities (hazardous and non-hazardous) and quantities on the launch vehicle 4. Mission flight paths (latitude, longitude, altitude, velocity, pitch, yaw, roll, three-sigma footprint, etc.)

The baseline coordination effort is expected to include up to six (6) teleconferences and one (1) in person meeting at OSC or other designated location.

Deliverables: 1. Revised Baseline Launch Concept of Operations Presentation for Pre-Application Consultation

Task 2: Pre-Application Consultation Meetings

The Consultant will coordinate with the Licensee to schedule and participate in pre-application consultation meetings throughout the duration of the project. It is expected that up to ten (10) coordination teleconferences will be required with the FAA during license application documentation development. Meetings specific to the environmental review process are identified separately in the Environmental Assessment task. The coordination meetings are expected to be teleconferences with the FAA and require preparing meeting documentation and materials.

Deliverables: 1. PowerPoint presentations and meeting materials to support pre-application consultation meetings with the FAA.

Task 3: Airspace Coordination Meetings

The purpose of the airspace coordination meetings is to provide airspace stakeholders with details regarding the intended use of OSC as a launch site, the anticipated launch systems and flight routes to define the airspace requirements, and to review the process and procedures for obtaining use of that airspace.

Due to the complex nature of this project and the proposed overflight of both U.S. and Canadian land, this effort includes both domestic and international coordination led by the FAA. It is anticipated that a parallel international stakeholder engagement effort will be undertaken by the Licensee, which is outside the scope of these services.

Over the course of the project, the Licensee and Consultant will engage in both in-person and teleconference coordination meetings that will be attended by appropriate agencies and authorities having jurisdiction over the airspace where operations would occur.

The airspace coordination effort is expected to include up to eight (8) teleconferences and two (2) in person meetings. Since international stakeholders will be involved, additional effort will be needed to ensure compliance with export control regulations (i.e., ITAR) and to ensure no export controlled technical data is inadvertently exported without appropriate licenses.

Deliverables: 1. PowerPoint presentations and meeting materials to support airspace coordination meetings.

Michigan Air and Space Port – LSOL Scope pf Services 2

Task 4: Develop the LSOL Application and Attachments

The Consultant will outline and develop the LSOL application in accordance with 14 CFR Parts 413 and 420 consistent with the FAA’s Application Checklist. The LSOL application will be developed, in consultation with the Licensee, and coordinated with the FAA during the pre-application consultation phase of licensing. The LSOL application will include the following sections, which are subject to change following FAA consultation.

Section 1 – Information Requirements 413.7 Application 413.9 Confidentiality Statement 420.15 Information Requirements

Section 2 – Launch Site Location Review 420.19 General 420.21 Launch Site Boundary 420.23 Flight Corridor 420.25 Risk Analysis 420.27 Information Requirements 420.29 Review of Unproven Launch Vehicles 420.30 Review for Permitted Launch Vehicles 420.31 Agreements

Section 3 – License Terms and Conditions 420.41 License to Operate a Site – General 420.43 License Duration 420.45 Transfer of a License 420.47 License Modification 420.49 Compliance Monitoring

Section 4 – Responsibilities of a Licensee 420.51 General 420.53 Control of Public Access 420.55 Scheduling of Launch Site Operations 420.57 Notifications 420.59 Launch Site Accident Investigation Plan 420.61 Records 420.63-70 Explosive Siting 420.71 Lightning Protection

Attachments Attachment 1 – Concept Z Orbital Flight Corridor and Risk Analysis Attachment 2 – High-Altitude Balloon Flight Corridor and Risk Analysis Attachment 3 – Draft Letters of Agreement Attachment 4 – Control of Public Access Plan Attachment 5 – Scheduling and Notification Plan Attachment 6 – Launch Site Accident Investigation Plan Attachment 7 – Explosive Site Plan Attachment 8 – Lightning Protection Policy Attachment 9 – Environmental Assessment and Finding of No Significant Impact

Michigan Air and Space Port – LSOL Scope pf Services 3

Attachments identified above will be completed individually as specified in following tasks. The LSOL application document will be prepared in drafts (60%, 90%, and 100%) and provided to the Licensee for review. At the 90% draft review phase, a review of the documentation with respect to the FAA Part 420 Checklist will be provided.

Deliverables: 1. LSOL Application Document outline (PDF) 2. 60% Draft LSOL Application to Licensee for review (PDF and DOCX) 3. 90% Draft LSOL Application to Licensee for review (PDF and DOCX) 4. FAA Part 420 Checklist review (PDF and XLSX) 5. 100% Draft LSOL Application to Licensee for submittal to FAA (PDF and DOCX)

Exclusion: If the FAA requires additional analysis or documentation that is outside the scope of services provided here, then additional scope and fee will need to be negotiated to provide the appropriate analysis or documentation

Task 5: License Application Review Support and Documentation Revision

During the 180-day license review period (which is triggered when the LSOL application is deemed “complete enough”), the Consultant will provide ongoing support, answer questions provided by the FAA, and make documentation edits and revisions based on FAA review comments. The Consultant will support and attend up to six (6) teleconferences with the Licensee and the FAA during the license review phase to provide clarifications to the FAA. During this phase, the FAA may require that the Licensee submit revised license application documentation or addendums to the license application to document the clarifications. The Consultant will provide up to two (2) updates to the license application documentation during the license review to address FAA comments.

Deliverables: 1. Teleconference meeting materials 2. Addendum 1 or revision to license application documentation 3. Addendum 2 or revision to license application documentation

Exclusion: If the FAA requires new analysis or documentation that is outside the scope of services provided here, then additional scope and fee will need to be negotiated to provide the appropriate analysis or documentation.

Task 6: Environmental Assessment (EA)

In accordance with 14 CFR § 420.15, an environmental review is required as part of the LSOL application. Based on preliminary discussions with the FAA, an EA prepared pursuant to NEPA, the Council on Environmental Quality NEPA Implementing Regulations, and FAA Order 1051.F is expected to be the appropriate level of environmental review. The Consultant assumes that the Proposed Action (build alternative) and No Action Alternative will be analyzed in the EA. It is assumed that no additional alternatives will be analyzed.

Task 6.1 Description of Proposed Action and Alternatives (DOPAA)

Preparation of the EA will begin with review and revision of the Description of Proposed Action and Alternatives (DOPAA) that was prepared during the site-specific feasibility study. The Consultant will prepare three (3) iterations of the DOPAA.

Michigan Air and Space Port – LSOL Scope pf Services 4

Deliverables: 1. Updated DOPAA for Client Review 2. DOPAA for FAA Review 3. Revised DOPAA Addressing FAA’s Comments

Task 6.2 Noise (Sonic Boom) Analysis

The Consultant will model the sonic boom impacts from launch operations of the Concept Z launch vehicle using the sonic boom modeling tool, PCBoom. The sonic boom analysis will be performed for a nominal flight path with no wind conditions and for one atmospheric profile. The metrics used to assess the sonic boom noise impact are 1) peak overpressure for the single event impact, and 2) C-weighted Day/Night Average Sound Level (DNL) for the cumulative impact. The maximum peak overpressure level generated over the sonic boom impact area along with the corresponding estimated C-weighted DNL will be determined. Graphics of peak overpressure contours will be provided, overlaid on a base map. The Consultant will provide sonic boom peak overpressure contours to screen for potential hearing or structural impacts. Additional RVs and flight tracks can be performed at additional cost (see optional tasks). For the purposes of this scope, it is assumed that no noise modeling is needed for the high-altitude balloon operations.

Deliverables: 1. Draft Noise Analysis Technical Memo (PDF) 2. Final Noise Analysis Technical Memo (PDF)

Task 6.3 Environmental Assessment Documentation

Upon FAA approval of the DOPAA, and using the environmental screening data that was obtained during the site selection feasibility study, the Consultant will describe the affected environment and analyze the potential environmental consequences of the proposed project. This will include, as appropriate, supporting text, figures, graphics, and appendices to demonstrate the potential impacts of the proposed project. The Consultant will support the Client during stakeholder coordination, interagency coordination, special purpose law consultations, the public meeting for the EA, and will assist the Client and the FAA in responding to public comments. This scope of services provides for up to four (4) teleconferences with FAA-AST during the preparation of the EA.

An administrative draft, draft, and public draft EA will be prepared for review by the Licensee prior to submittal to the FAA. During development of the EA, the Consultant will respond to questions, provide clarifications, and update the draft EA as needed. This scope of services provides for up to three (3) rounds of comments and revisions based on FAA comments.

It is assumed that a public hearing will be required after the draft EA has been made available for public review and comment. The Consultant will draft a Notice of Availability of the draft EA for newspaper publication. The Consultant will be responsible for publishing the newspaper publication.

Following the public review period, the EA will be finalized. The Consultant will prepare an administrative final EA, as well as a public version of the final EA. This scope of services provides for up to two (2) rounds of comments and revisions based on FAA comments. The Consultant will assist the FAA in preparing the FONSI if needed, but it is assumed that the FAA will draft the FONSI.

Deliverables: 1. Administrative Draft EA (PDF, DOCX, and one (1) Hardcopy) 2. Draft EA (PDF, DOCX, and one (1) Hardcopy) 3. Public Version of the Draft EA (PDF, DOCX, and one (1) Hardcopy)

Michigan Air and Space Port – LSOL Scope pf Services 5

4. Administrative Final EA (PDF, DOCX, and one (1) Hardcopy) 5. Public Version of the Final EA (PDF, DOCX, and one (1) Hardcopy)

Task 7: Airspace Analysis

The Consultant will analyze potential operational impacts to the National Airspace System (NAS) for the Concept Z Orbital Flight Corridor and High-Altitude Balloon Corridor missions. As appropriate, novel modeling and simulation techniques will be applied to assess the required airspace, flight interactions, possible re-routes and affiliated surface and flight delays.

For the Concept Z Orbital Flight Corridor mission, the Consultant will use state-of-the-art airspace design and analysis tools to model and evaluate the airspace and procedures required to support the mission, as well as identify any potential operational impacts to current air traffic. The Consultant will also coordinate with Air Navigation Service Providers, as necessary, to confirm understanding of the affected airspace and potential traffic flow management initiatives.

For the High-Altitude Balloon Corridor mission, the Consultant will use specialized airspace and air traffic modeling and simulation tools, which incorporate information on FAA Traffic Flow Management System (TFMS) flights, weather impacts and flow management initiatives, to model restricted airspace during launch, cruise, and descent phases of the mission. The Consultant will evaluate several mission impacts, including; launch windows, restricted airspace based on anticipated trajectory, blocked airspace for launch and blocked airspace for descent and splashdown. Ultimately, the Consultant will capture metrics from the simulation model to help quantify local and national impacts of the mission.

The high-level methodology for the above-mentioned airspace modeling and simulation is as follows:

1) Collect Mission Requirements 2) Develop Scenario Matrix 3) Build Restricted Airspace and Test Model 4) Simulate all Scenarios 5) Extract and Process Metrics 6) Develop Narrative 7) Follow Up Simulation Work (if applicable)

The final deliverable will include a detailed PowerPoint briefing that presents the findings for both the Concept Z Orbital Flight Corridor and High-Altitude Balloon Corridor missions. Additionally, all relevant analyses, assumptions, and processes used in the models and simulations will be provided.

Deliverables:

1. Airspace Analysis Results PowerPoint Briefing

Task 8: Attachment 1 - Concept Z Orbital Flight Corridor and Risk Analysis

In accordance with 14 CFR Parts 420.19, 420.21, 420.23, 420.25, and 420.27, the Consultant will conduct flight safety analysis for two demonstration Concept Z Orbital flight trajectories, one with ignition occurring over Hudson Bay and the second with ignition occurring in the Atlantic Ocean. The results of the flight safety analysis will estimate the expected casualty. The Consultant will use the dispersion data results of the flight safety analysis to develop a flight corridor.

Michigan Air and Space Port – LSOL Scope pf Services 6

The consultant will support and attend up to three (3) teleconferences with the Licensee to develop, review, and revise the document. A draft of the document will be provided to the Licensee for review. Once approved, a draft will be provided to the FAA for review during the pre-application consultation phase of the licensing process. The final document will be included in the license application as Attachment 1.

Deliverables:

1. Teleconference meeting materials 2. Draft Attachment 1 – Concept Z Orbital Flight Corridor and Risk Analysis to the Licensee (PDF) 3. Draft Attachment 1 – Concept Z Orbital Flight Corridor and Risk Analysis to FAA (PDF) 4. Final Attachment 1 – Concept Z Orbital Flight Corridor and Risk Analysis (PDF and DOCX)

Exclusion: If the FAA require a publicly releasable version of the flight safety analysis, then additional scope and fee will need to be negotiated to provide the appropriate analysis, documentation, and approval from the federal government.

Task 9: Attachment 2 – High Altitude Balloon Flight Corridor and Risk Analysis

In accordance with 14 CFR Parts 420.19, 420.21, 420.23, 420.25, and 420.27, the Consultant will conduct flight safety analysis for a single demonstration High Altitude Balloon trajectory. The results of the flight safety analysis will indicate the expected casualty. The Consultant will use the dispersion data results of the flight safety analysis to develop a flight corridor.

The consultant will support and attend up to three (3) teleconferences with the Licensee to develop, review, and revise the document. A draft of the document will be provided to the Licensee for review. Once approved, a draft will be provided to the FAA for review during the pre-application consultation phase of the licensing process. The final document will be included in the license application as Attachment 2.

Deliverables:

1. Teleconference meeting materials 2. Draft Attachment 2 – High Altitude Balloon Flight Corridor and Risk Analysis to the Licensee (PDF) 3. Draft Attachment 2 – High Altitude Balloon Flight Corridor and Risk Analysis to FAA (PDF) 4. Final Attachment 2 – High Altitude Balloon Flight Corridor and Risk Analysis (PDF and DOCX)

Exclusion: If the FAA require a publicly releasable version of the flight safety analysis, then additional scope and fee will need to be negotiated to provide the appropriate analysis, documentation, and approval from the federal government.

Task 10: Attachment 3 – Draft Letters of Agreement

The Consultant will coordinate with the FAA and the Licensee to schedule meetings to develop agreements based on the proposed operations and flight paths. The Consultant will schedule an initial coordination meeting with the U.S. Coast Guard (USCG) and the FAA office having jurisdiction over the airspace through which a launch will take place.

The Consultant will provide continuous support to the Licensee to provide the FAA and USCG with documentation required to support the development of the appropriate letters of agreement. It is assumed that up to three (3) teleconferences will occur with FAA and up to three (3) teleconferences will occur with USCG.

Michigan Air and Space Port – LSOL Scope pf Services 7

No other agreements are assumed required for the LSOL, although a letter of agreement with Canada may need to be developed (see Task 18: International Letter of Agreement). A letter of agreement with Canada is outside the scope of this task and will be considered an optional task.

Deliverables: 1. Teleconference meeting materials 2. PowerPoint presentation for follow-up coordination meeting with USCG and FAA (this is in addition to Task 3: Airspace Coordination Meetings) 3. USCG Navigational Safety Risk Assessment

Task 11: Attachment 4 – Control of Public Access Plan

In accordance with 14 CFR Part 420.53, the Consultant will work with the Licensee and representatives from OSC to develop a Control of Public Access Plan. The consultant will support and attend up to three (3) teleconferences with the Licensee and OSC representatives to develop, review, and revise the document. A draft of the document will be provided to the Licensee for review. Once approved, a draft will be provided to the FAA for review during the pre-application consultation phase of the licensing process. The final document will be included in the license application as Attachment 4.

Deliverables: 1. Teleconference meeting materials 2. Draft of Attachment 4 - Control of Public Access Plan to the Licensee (PDF) 3. Draft of Attachment 4 - Control of Public Access Plan to FAA (PDF) 4. Final draft of Attachment 4 - Control of Public Access Plan (PDF and DOCX)

Task 12: Attachment 5 – Scheduling and Notification Plan

In accordance with 14 CFR Parts 420.55 and 420.57, the Consultant will work with the Licensee and representatives from OSC to develop a Scheduling and Notification Plan. The consultant will support and attend up to three (3) teleconferences with the Licensee and OSC representatives to develop, review, and revise the document. A draft of the document will be provided to the Licensee for review. Once approved, a draft will be provided to the FAA for review during the pre-application consultation phase of the licensing process. The final document will be included in the license application as Attachment 5.

Deliverables: 1. Teleconference meeting materials 2. Draft of Attachment 5 - Scheduling and Notification Plan to the Licensee (PDF) 3. Draft of Attachment 5 - Scheduling and Notification Plan to FAA (PDF) 4. Final draft of Attachment 5 - Scheduling and Notification Plan (PDF and DOCX)

Task 13: Attachment 6 – Emergency Response and Launch Site Accident Investigation Plan

In accordance with 14 CFR Parts 420.59 and 420.61, the Consultant will work with the Licensee and representatives from OSC to develop an Emergency Response and Launch Site Accident Investigation Plan. The accident investigation plan will an organization chart, checklists for key personnel and an immediate mishap notification form. The consultant will support and attend up to five (5) teleconferences with the Licensee and OSC representatives to develop, review, and revise the document. A draft of the document will be provided to the Licensee for review. Once approved, a draft will be provided to the FAA for review during the pre-application consultation phase of the licensing process. The final document will be included in the license application as Attachment 6.

Michigan Air and Space Port – LSOL Scope pf Services 8

Deliverables: 1. Teleconference meeting materials 2. Draft of Attachment 6 – Launch Site Accident Investigation Plan to the Licensee (PDF) 3. Draft of Attachment 6 - Launch Site Accident Investigation Plan to FAA (PDF) 4. Final draft of Attachment 6 - Launch Site Accident Investigation Plan (PDF and DOCX)

Exclusion: This task assumes that the existing airport emergency response procedures can be utilized to address the emergency response elements of the regulation. If the existing documents are incomplete or insufficient then additional scope and fee will need to be negotiated to.

Task 14: Attachment 7 – Explosive Site Plan

In accordance with 14 CFR Parts 420.63, 420.65, 420.66, 420.67,420.69 and 420.70, the Consultant will develop an Explosive Site Plan. The consultant will support and attend up to three (3) teleconferences with the Licensee and OSC representatives to develop, review, and revise the document. A draft of the document will be provided to the Licensee for review. Once approved, a draft will be provided to the FAA for review during the pre-application consultation phase of the licensing process. The final document will be included in the license application as Attachment 7.

Deliverables: 1. Teleconference meeting materials 2. Draft of Attachment 7 - Explosive Site Plan to the Licensee (PDF) 3. Draft of Attachment 7 - Explosive Site Plan to FAA (PDF) 4. Final draft of Attachment 7 - Explosive Site Plan (PDF and DOCX)

Task 15: Attachment 8 – Lightning Protection Policy

In accordance with 14 CFR Part 420.71, the Consultant will work with the Licensee and representatives from OSC to develop a Lightning Protection Policy. The consultant will support and attend up to three (3) teleconferences with the Licensee and OSC representatives to develop, review, and revise the document. A draft of the document will be provided to the Licensee for review. Once approved, a draft will be provided to the FAA for review during the pre-application consultation phase of the licensing process. The final document will be included in the license application as Attachment 8.

Deliverables: 1. Teleconference meeting materials 2. Draft of Attachment 8 - Lightning Protection Policy to the Licensee (PDF) 3. Draft of Attachment 8 - Lightning Protection Policy to FAA (PDF) 4. Final draft of Attachment 8 - Lightning Protection Policy (PDF and DOCX)

Task 16: Project Management and Quality Assurance

Throughout the duration of the project, the Consultant will perform project management and quality assurance activities. Project management and quality assurance activities include supporting weekly teleconferences with the Licensee, providing regular project status updates, project accounting and invoicing, and quality reviews of documentation.

Deliverables: 1. Monthly Status Reports

Michigan Air and Space Port – LSOL Scope pf Services 9

Task 17: Additional Flight Paths (Optional)

In the event that the Licensee would like to evaluate additional flight paths, beyond those included in this scope of services, this optional task can be initiated. For each new flight path added, the following subtasks will be completed and are duplicated for each additional flight path.

Task 17.1 Data Collection The Consultant will perform additional data collection services to collect, parse, and structure the flight path for analysis.

Task 17.2 Noise Analysis The Consultant will perform noise analysis, as defined in Task 6.2, for the additional flight path.

Task 17.3 Flight Corridor The Consultant will develop a flight corridor, as defined in Task 8 or Task 9, for the additional flight path.

Task 17.4 Risk Analysis The Consultant will perform a risk analysis, as defined in Task 8 or Task 9, for the additional flight path.

Task 18: International Letter of Agreement (Optional) In the event that the FAA requires a formal letter of agreement with Canada for the Concept Z orbital flight path, this optional task provides the necessary scope of services to add an additional letter of agreement to Attachment 3 – Draft Letters of Agreement.

The Consultant will coordinate with the FAA and the Licensee to schedule meetings to develop the agreement based on the proposed operations and flight path(s). The Consultant will rely on FAA-AST to schedule an initial coordination meeting with the Canadian entity having jurisdiction over the airspace through which a launch will take place and other Canadian policy makers with relevant input to the proposed operations.

The Consultant will provide continuous support to the Licensee to provide the FAA-AST and Canadian entities with documentation required to support the development of the appropriate letter of agreement. It is assumed that up to three (3) teleconferences with Canadian entities will occur.

III. Representative Schedule

The following schedule assumes a 24-month project duration from Notice to Proceed (NTP) which is reasonable under ideal circumstances and assumes responsive review times by the FAA.

Project Kickoff Meeting NTP +2 Weeks Outline of License Application NTP +4 Weeks Update CONOPS NTP +3 Months Updated DOPAA NTP +3 Months 60% Draft of License Application NTP +13 Months Administrative Draft of EA to FAA NTP +16 Months 90% Draft of License Application NTP +17 Months Draft EA to FAA NTP +20 Weeks Final Draft of License Application NTP + 18 Months Public Draft EA NTP + 18 Months Final Draft EA and FONSI NTP + 24 Months Launch Site Operator License Issued (estimated) NTP + 24 Months

Michigan Air and Space Port – LSOL Scope pf Services 10

The above schedule is based on prior successful licensing of the Houston Spaceport, which began the licensing process with a similar level of preliminary planning. It should be noted, that this schedule is an aggressive schedule relative to recently approved launch site operator licenses, which have taken between 2 to 6 years to receive FAA approval. FAA review times ultimately dictate the speed at which licensing can be completed. Historically, FAA review times have caused delays in the licensing process. Similar delays should be anticipated as FAA-AST is currently understaffed and have recently deemphasizing the priority of new launch site operator license applications. The requirements for international coordination have not been clearly defined by FAA-AST for proposed operations similar to those anticipated at OSC and may cause delays as a result of FAA-led stakeholder engagement. Should the proposed schedule need to be extended by more than 3 months due to delays in reviews by FAA or stakeholder engagement, additional scope and fee may be needed to support the tasks above. The addition of optional tasks will also affect the schedule.

Michigan Air and Space Port – LSOL Scope pf Services 11