• Andrew Tubbiolo

    Every time I fly over the place it’s empty. Even the runway has very few skid marks. If I were running the place I’d be bending over backwards to make it useful to someone. I assume they must have tried. If anything just use it as a parking lot for aircraft in short term storage. There’s lots of ramp space, and the climate is perfect for aircraft to sit idle in.

  • patb2009

    There is no shortage of storage at Davis-Monthan, Mojave, etc.

    http://www.airplaneboneyards.com/airplane-boneyards-list-and-map.htm

    No if you want to do something interesting, hold Burning man there.

  • Andrew Tubbiolo

    Burning man is more along Branson’s line of fun that’s for sure. I was thinking less of derelict air craft and more along the lines of long term parking. When I go to Tucson or Marana Muni’s flightline, they parking aprons are full of aircraft that not only don’t move, but are obviously all bundled up and not meant to move for months at a time, or longer. So yes in the region we have AMARC (Military only), Goodyear, Pinal Air Park, and Rosswell in NM, but that are more parts retreieval and eventual teardown. The US gov stores some torture taxies and MD-8X’s used for deportation flights at Williams Gateway, I’m thinking more along those lines.

  • ThomasLMatula

    That actually was part of the original business plan in the 1990’s, along with using some of the stored aircraft for training sky marshals and police on airport security.

    The orginial marketing plan also had a strong STEM element, linked to NMSU’s Aerospace Engineering and Astronomy Departments. But they tossed it all out the window when they went chasing the X-Prize Cup, Rocket Racing and VG. They bought into Peter’s hype Hook, Line and Sinker and are now paying the price for it.

  • Hemingway

    The 2017 Spaceport America Drone Summit has been postponed.
    Stay tuned for 2018! I bet Spaceport America lost money on this venture.
    https://www.facebook.com/spaceportamericadronesummit/?fref=mentions

    https://www.facebook.com/trashorconsequences/photos/a.200796330101734.1073741827.200784516769582/812835085564519/?type=3&theater

  • Andrew Tubbiolo

    Other than the location, why not dip into the old business plan? My gosh, it’s a decade and almost no business. At what point will they give up the old plan and show some flexibility?

  • publiusr

    Meanwhile MAF survived a tornado–is bending steel–and newspacers want to kill it.

    Yet this–the libertarian idol to private spaceflight–collects dust.

    Randian mythology debunked.

  • ThomasLMatula

    The original business plan was for the current location. The existing site was actually advocated for by Pete Conrad as ideal for the DC-Y and DC-1. WSMR provided a number of nice abort options for both vehicles.

    A runway was included in the plan to facilitate payloads being flown in although it became a selling point later when the state was bidding on the VentureStar.

    I suspect they will cling to the plan until VG gives up on Spaceshiptwo.

  • redneck

    Two taxpayer boondoggles. How does that refute anything about free enterprise?

  • Bruce

    The saddest part is that what should have been a pork barrel federal project is draining from the same pot as education in a very poor state. The use of county funds meant for construction to keep a full fire department on site is an outrage.

  • duheagle

    I must have missed the parts where Howard Roark and John Galt cadged a couple hundred mil in taxpayer funds for their pet projects.