Bill Overview
Title: STAR Act
Description: This bill requires the Department of Defense (DOD), in coordination with the Department of Transportation (DOT), to submit to the appropriate congressional committees a report on the resiliency of space access infrastructure to meet national security requirements. DOT shall establish a tiered system for spaceports that categorizes their operation for planning, development, and expenditure of funds. DOT shall develop a plan, to be known as the national plan for spaceports , for developing spaceports in the United States. DOT shall publish such plan every two years. To the extent possible, the DOD shall make domestic military spaceports and spaceport facilities available for civil use. DOT, in coordination with DOD and the Department of Commerce, after providing an opportunity for public comment, shall submit to the appropriate congressional committees a report on the implementation of a spaceport improvement program.
Sponsors: Rep. Brown, Anthony G. [D-MD-4]
Target Audience
Population: People engaged in or living near US spaceport activities
Estimated Size: 4000000
- The bill focuses on developing and categorizing spaceports, which are facilities where spacecraft can be launched and received.
- This will impact industries tied to space exploration and transportation, including aerospace companies that develop spacecraft and related technologies.
- Companies engaged in space commerce and satellite deployment will benefit from improved and more accessible spaceport facilities.
- Communities located near existing or planned spaceports could experience economic growth or disruption from increased activity.
- The military may be impacted by the potential increased shared use of military spaceport facilities for civil purposes.
- The availability and improvement of spaceports could facilitate further research and experimentation in space sciences.
Reasoning
- The STAR Act impacts a variety of populations because it strengthens spaceport infrastructure mainly in the United States. This affects a range of industries, communities, and military engagements.
- Maximum budget allocation limits the scale of initial improvements, likely focusing on key, existing spaceports initially rather than new construction.
- High-impact areas will initially see major benefits, potentially causing economic growth and increased job opportunities in those regions.
- It's also likely that only a sub-section of the population near or engaged with spaceport activities will be directly affected by the policy—this particularly includes industries tied to space exploration, aerospace companies, and communities near spaceports.
- Given constraints, many people won't feel the impact directly, as the policy will likely prioritize high-return investments.
- Well-being improvements might be concentrated among those whose livelihoods depend on the spaceport activities, especially if new jobs or stability in the industry are created.
Simulated Interviews
Aerospace Engineer (Cape Canaveral, FL)
Age: 34 | Gender: male
Wellbeing Before Policy: 7
Duration of Impact: 20.0 years
Commonness: 5/20
Statement of Opinion:
- I believe that strengthening our spaceports can provide long-term job stability and open up new opportunities for engineers like myself.
- The use of military spaceports for civil purposes might speed up our projects.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 8 | 7 |
| Year 2 | 8 | 7 |
| Year 3 | 9 | 7 |
| Year 5 | 9 | 6 |
| Year 10 | 10 | 6 |
| Year 20 | 10 | 5 |
Satellite Deployment Specialist (Houston, TX)
Age: 45 | Gender: female
Wellbeing Before Policy: 6
Duration of Impact: 20.0 years
Commonness: 4/20
Statement of Opinion:
- This program could reduce costs and improve access to space, which is essential for my work.
- Shared military spaceports could streamline many operations for commercial launches.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 7 | 6 |
| Year 2 | 7 | 6 |
| Year 3 | 8 | 6 |
| Year 5 | 8 | 5 |
| Year 10 | 9 | 4 |
| Year 20 | 9 | 4 |
Military Logistics Coordinator (Barstow, CA)
Age: 52 | Gender: male
Wellbeing Before Policy: 5
Duration of Impact: 15.0 years
Commonness: 3/20
Statement of Opinion:
- Sharing military spaceports can introduce complexities in coordination, so it's a double-edged sword.
- While it might help defense budgets, it could complicate current operations.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 5 | 5 |
| Year 2 | 5 | 5 |
| Year 3 | 6 | 5 |
| Year 5 | 6 | 5 |
| Year 10 | 6 | 5 |
| Year 20 | 7 | 5 |
Astrophysics Researcher (Huntsville, AL)
Age: 29 | Gender: female
Wellbeing Before Policy: 8
Duration of Impact: 20.0 years
Commonness: 2/20
Statement of Opinion:
- Greater access to spaceports can mean more research opportunities and collaborations.
- Development of spaceports helps sustain innovation critical for research.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 8 | 8 |
| Year 2 | 9 | 8 |
| Year 3 | 9 | 8 |
| Year 5 | 9 | 8 |
| Year 10 | 10 | 7 |
| Year 20 | 10 | 7 |
Community Leader (Midland, TX)
Age: 60 | Gender: male
Wellbeing Before Policy: 6
Duration of Impact: 10.0 years
Commonness: 1/20
Statement of Opinion:
- Increased activity worries some locals but also promises job growth.
- If managed well, this policy could improve local infrastructure and economy.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 6 | 6 |
| Year 2 | 7 | 6 |
| Year 3 | 7 | 6 |
| Year 5 | 8 | 6 |
| Year 10 | 7 | 5 |
| Year 20 | 6 | 5 |
Space Commerce Policy Analyst (Boulder, CO)
Age: 37 | Gender: female
Wellbeing Before Policy: 9
Duration of Impact: 20.0 years
Commonness: 2/20
Statement of Opinion:
- A structured tier-system could foster more competitive space commerce.
- The linkage of civil and military facilities may expedite policy barriers.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 9 | 9 |
| Year 2 | 9 | 8 |
| Year 3 | 9 | 8 |
| Year 5 | 10 | 8 |
| Year 10 | 10 | 7 |
| Year 20 | 10 | 6 |
Student in Aerospace Studies (Lancaster, CA)
Age: 23 | Gender: other
Wellbeing Before Policy: 7
Duration of Impact: 15.0 years
Commonness: 7/20
Statement of Opinion:
- This initiative gives me hope for my future career prospects.
- More spaceport access could mean more internships and job placements.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 7 | 7 |
| Year 2 | 8 | 7 |
| Year 3 | 8 | 7 |
| Year 5 | 9 | 7 |
| Year 10 | 9 | 7 |
| Year 20 | 9 | 6 |
Space Enthusiast and Blogger (Seattle, WA)
Age: 40 | Gender: male
Wellbeing Before Policy: 8
Duration of Impact: 10.0 years
Commonness: 6/20
Statement of Opinion:
- Anything that pushes the space exploration agenda forward is exciting to me.
- The tangible improvements may not be immediate, but the future benefits for enthusiasts are immense.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 8 | 8 |
| Year 2 | 8 | 8 |
| Year 3 | 8 | 7 |
| Year 5 | 8 | 7 |
| Year 10 | 9 | 7 |
| Year 20 | 9 | 6 |
Environmental Activist (Los Angeles, CA)
Age: 38 | Gender: female
Wellbeing Before Policy: 5
Duration of Impact: 10.0 years
Commonness: 8/20
Statement of Opinion:
- Increased spaceport activity could harm local environments if not checked.
- DOT should enforce strict environmental guidelines alongside infrastructure development.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 5 | 5 |
| Year 2 | 6 | 5 |
| Year 3 | 6 | 5 |
| Year 5 | 6 | 5 |
| Year 10 | 6 | 5 |
| Year 20 | 5 | 5 |
Retired Military (Jacksonville, FL)
Age: 55 | Gender: male
Wellbeing Before Policy: 6
Duration of Impact: 5.0 years
Commonness: 9/20
Statement of Opinion:
- There could be an increased economic benefit to my community from shared spaceport use.
- However, potential noise and disruption are a concern for retirees like me.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 6 | 6 |
| Year 2 | 6 | 6 |
| Year 3 | 6 | 6 |
| Year 5 | 7 | 6 |
| Year 10 | 7 | 6 |
| Year 20 | 6 | 6 |
Cost Estimates
Year 1: $30000000 (Low: $20000000, High: $40000000)
Year 2: $25000000 (Low: $18000000, High: $32000000)
Year 3: $20000000 (Low: $15000000, High: $25000000)
Year 5: $15000000 (Low: $12000000, High: $18000000)
Year 10: $10000000 (Low: $8000000, High: $12000000)
Year 100: $5000000 (Low: $4000000, High: $6000000)
Key Considerations
- The complexity and novelty of spaceport development represent uncertain future costs.
- Shared military spaceport utilization could lead to unintended operational challenges or costs due to infrastructure wear.
- The need for environmental compliance in developing spaceports could lead to additional regulatory costs.