Hawaii State Legislature Passes Spaceport, Lunar Research and Development Bills

[bananas]

http://spaceports.blogspot.com/2012/05/hawaii-state-legislature-passes.html

FRIDAY, MAY 04, 2012

Hawaii State Legislature Passes Spaceport, Lunar Research and Development Bills

Hawaii state lawmakers passed two space-related bills yesterday bringing the state closer to space tourism and developing industry on the moon.

The state is advancing efforts for Spaceport Kalaeloa in funding an application to the Federal Aviation Administration to add Hawaii's application to the ten commercial spaceports now permitted by the federal government for suborbital and orbital spaceflight operations. It is an idea that has been around a few years.

The second measure funds the International Lunar Research Park on the Big Island. The facility would help create robots designed to develop a colony on the moon and have the first human settlement on the moon within 10 years. To get that going the state would invest half a million from the budget and float another $1.8 million in bonds in order to support the moon research and development effort.

<snip>

The two state legislative measures now go to Governor Neil Abercrombie 's office. The governor has 45 days from the time a bill was received to veto it, sign it into law, or allow it to pass into law without his signature.

Via http://hobbyspace.com/nucleus/?itemid=37630

[Travis_0004]

1. Doesn't hawaii seem like a bad choice?

It just seems like transporting fuel and materiel to Hawaii is a lot more expensive (as well as land). I guess if you are talking about space travel, whats a few bucks extra though?

I know once reason Hawaii is a great choice is because of how far south it is. I would have to assume that southern Texas or flordia would be better options, even if they are further north.


I would be interested in knowing how much less fuel you use launching from Hawaii than you do launching from Florida or some other southern state. It could be that the savings are quit significant.

[eppur_se_muova]

2. Bear in mind that ESA launches from French Guiana ...

precisely because of the savings in fuel. The closer to the Equator, the better.

[Travis_0004]

3. I'm well aware that closer to the equater is better.

I even made the comment that I was curious how much fuel was saved launching in Hawaii vs another southern state.

An interesting point to note, if you are launching a satellite in polar orbit, there is no benefit to being on the equator. So if a rocket was made in Europe, there would be no benefit to dragging it down the equator. They could just launch it once they got in a safe area, assuming a sea launch.

If Hawaii is a great choice, I wonder why NASA didn't setup there. Maybe because it was too close to the Russians, maybe for political reasons, who knows.