University of Alaska seeks to create second Alaska spaceport, farthest north in United States
Alaska, home to the farthest-north spaceport in the United States, could soon add a second Federal Aviation Administration-licensed space launch facility.
On Tuesday, the University of Alaska's Geophysical Institute in Fairbanks signed a five-year collaboration agreement with the state-owned Alaska Aerospace Corp.
Though the terms of that agreement are highly technical, Gov. Mike Dunleavy's draft budget for the corporation indicates that the university plans to seek a FAA spaceport license for the university's Poker Flat Research Range, which has been flying sounding rockets — smaller rockets used for research — into the upper atmosphere since March 1969, including some earlier this spring.
An FAA license could allow Poker Flat to launch larger rockets, and for commercial purposes, not just scientific ones. Making Poker Flat a 'licensed vertical orbital spaceport' could take up to two years, the budget documents state.
It isn't clear how much the licensing process will cost.
The new collaboration agreement doesn't specifically list a spaceport license but says that 'AAC and UAF will collaborate to develop and offer a combination of spaceport industry services that are more efficient and beneficial to the rocket and satellite industry than working independently.'
AAC and UAF will work to develop common standards and cross-train employees that could work at either the Poker Flat range north of Fairbanks, or the Narrow Cape spaceport in Kodiak.
Nine states have FAA-licensed spaceports, and there are 14 nationally. Only Texas, Florida, California and Virginia have two or more.
Poker Flat predates the Alaska Aerospace Corp., which launched in 1991 as the state-owned Alaska Aerospace Development Corp.
The new corporation initially considered Poker Flat for its headquarters and primary launch site, but in 1994, it picked Kodiak instead.
Poker Flat has stayed a research facility since then, with regular launches of sounding rockets intended to probe the aurora, without a spaceport license.
As far back as 2020, AAC was working with Poker Flat on a commercial spaceport license application for the Fairbanks-area site.
Alaska Aerospace has an annual budget of about $10.5 million, all of which is paid for by federal funds and money the corporation earns.
Thanks to the physics of a rotating Earth, locations close to the equator have an advantage when used as a launch point for rockets whose orbits are primarily east-west. Polar locations have an advantage for north-south, polar orbits.
The Kodiak Launch complex and California's Vandenberg Space Force Base are valuable for rockets heading into polar orbits, because each has wide swaths of ocean to the south, and if a rocket launch fails, debris would fall into the ocean, not on inhabited land.
Vandenberg typically serves large, heavy-lift rockets built by major manufacturers like Boeing and SpaceX, while Kodiak has traditionally flown smaller rockets from commercial companies.
It isn't yet clear what market Poker Flat might serve; launches there have typically been restricted by Fairbanks to the south, the Canadian border to the east, and the trans-Alaska pipeline to the west.
State budget documents suggest NASA contracts could be available for an upgraded Poker Flat, but since those documents were published, President Donald Trump has suggested significant cuts to NASA's budget.
SUBSCRIBE: GET THE MORNING HEADLINES DELIVERED TO YOUR INBOX
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Fox News
3 hours ago
- Fox News
Trump admin cuts red tape on commercial drones to compete with China's dominance of the market
Delivery drones could soon take to the skies in full force, following a landmark proposed rule by the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA). The long-anticipated rule is aimed at allowing drones to operate beyond the visual line of sight (BVLOS) — a move designed to counter China's dominance in unmanned aviation. Currently, operators must obtain individual FAA waivers — only 657 issued so far — to fly drones beyond where they can physically see them, hampered by months of delay and bureaucratic setbacks. "Because of that complication, I don't think we saw the innovation that we should have in America," said Transportation Secretary Sean Duffy on Tuesday. "Our new rule will reform outdated regulations that were holding innovators back," the secretary claimed. "Thanks to President Trump, America — not China — will lead the way in this exciting new technology." This regulatory shift comes amid growing concern that the U.S. drone industry lags behind a Chinese sector dominated by firms like DJI, which controls as much as 90 percent of the global commercial drone market. Critics have warned that investment and development have drifted to China while American rules hold drones grounded. "From search and rescue and public safety to package delivery, this is a big win for every industry and institution that would benefit from the expanded use of drones," Rep. Jen Kiggans, R-Va., who led the effort to expand commercial drone use in Congress, told Fox News Digital. "Our society isn't ever going to go backwards. Drone use is a reality." President Donald Trump issued executive orders in June 2025 instructing the FAA to expedite BVLOS rulemaking and directing federal agencies to favor American-made drones while tightening oversight of Chinese-made models. Despite strong momentum, the FAA has a history of missed deadlines. Industry groups and lawmakers note that the NPRM has already been delayed past the congressional deadline initiated by the FAA Reauthorization Act of 2024, which called for a proposed rule within four months of enactment and a final rule within 20 months. Industry experts have warned that further delays threaten billions in economic opportunity for America's drone sector. They say it has delayed large-scale implementation of drones to perform tasks like inspecting powerlines and pipelines or carting medical supplies between facilities. The new rule launches a formal public comment period, expected to last about 60 days. Government agencies, drone manufacturers, and public safety partners will review the draft and submit feedback. After review, FAA aims to finalize the BVLOS rule by early 2026, though that timeline depends on the volume of comments and the remaining regulatory work. It comes at a time when the public remains spooked by commercial flight mishaps. But the new rule would require such drones to be built with collision-avoidance technology that can sense and stay away from aircraft and fly at an altitude of 400 feet or lower.
Yahoo
7 hours ago
- Yahoo
US Wants Drones to Go the Distance -- Think Amazon Packages and Starbucks Coffee From the Sky
The U.S. government wants to make it easier for drones to fly farther way beyond what operators can see paving the way for everything from Amazon deliveries to your morning coffee arriving by air. Transportation Secretary Sean Duffy says the proposed rules would scrap the need for special waivers, letting drones handle more jobs in farming, filmmaking, emergency medicine and package delivery. We're going to unleash American drone dominance, he said. Warning! GuruFocus has detected 2 Warning Sign with AMZN. Flights would be capped at 400 feet and run from FAA?approved spots. Drones would have to give way to manned aircraft, and key staff would face security checks. Amazon (AMZN, Financials) Summary Financials is already testing drone drops in Texas and Arizona, aiming for 500 million annual deliveries by 2030. Industry leaders call it a big step toward safer skies and a greener light for commercial drone services. This article first appeared on GuruFocus.
The Hill
8 hours ago
- The Hill
When it comes to aviation safety, don't be fooled by technologies branded as ‘smart'
Air travel is remarkably safe, based on several years of performance data. Yet near-misses, including the recent close call between a Delta airplane and an Aero Mexico regional jet in Mexico City, give people pause to question whether current air travel risks are higher than historical trends suggest. In light of such concerns, and given the growth of 'smart' technologies, it should be no surprise that such technologies have entered the world of air travel. Smart Landing and Smart Runway technologies claim to enhance air travel safety by supporting pilots during takeoffs and landings, as well as when airplanes traverse the ground space around airports. Airplane movements are under the jurisdiction of air-traffic control. Yet with human beings prone to oversights and errors, mistakes can and do occur. Given their names, does the 'smart' label make such products better? Or are such names just used as a marketing tool? The Federal Aviation Administration tracks all air-traffic mistakes and near-mistakes. At airports, they are labeled ' runway incursions.' In 2024, there were 1,758 such events, or around 146 per month. This number has been steady for several years, excluding 2020 and 2021, when air travel volume plummeted due to the COVID pandemic. Although this total sounds large, and perhaps alarming to air travelers, air-traffic control oversees around 45,000 flights per day, which means that runway incursions are statistically very rare events. Even so, rare events can lead to accidents. The FAA classifies runway incursions based on their severity and the risks that they entail. Fortunately, most are benign, labelled as Category C and D, which occur when an airplane is out of position but, most critically, ample time is available to avoid any collision. Although such incursions are tracked, their risk in the air system to airplanes and passengers is minimal. Category A and B incursions are more serious, potentially placing airplanes and passengers at risk. The Mexico City near-miss would be classified as a Category A runway incursion. Of the 1,758 runway incursions in 2024, nine were classified as Category A or B, far less than 1 percent of all such events. Of course, if any such incident had resulted in an accident, calls by lawmakers for changes and improvements would have been forthcoming. Smart Landing and Smart Runway technologies provide pilots with additional information in user-friendly ways to reduce the risk of pilot errors, which can be traced to the cause of 80 percent of aviation accidents. Pilot error occurs when a pilot deviates from standard operating procedures or directives from air-traffic control. Smart technologies are designed to alert pilots of such deviations, effectively giving them additional warning time to regain compliance and steer clear of situations that could lead to an accident. If smart technologies can reduce pilot errors, conventional wisdom suggests that they should lead to even safer air travel. Yet how would such enhanced safety be measured? Southwest Airlines recently adopted these technologies on its fleet of Boeing 737 airplanes. It will provide a testbed to evaluate whether the technologies deliver on their promise. However, given the general rarity of runway incursions — and particularly of those that are high risk — teasing out the ' signal from the noise ' may be challenging verging on impossible. Moreover, since runway incursions are likely to involve two or more airplanes, if only one airplane is using the smart technologies, it may be more difficult to quantify their benefits in the field. We may start to see anecdotal reports of benefits reported by Southwest Airline pilots using the technology. But they will be inadequate on their own to establish their causal benefits. If more airlines adopt this technology for their fleets, systemwide reductions in runway incursions of all types — particularly the benign Category C and D incursions — will provide one way to capture risk reduction benefits. Of course, if the FAA decides to mandate such technologies on all airplanes operating within the nation's air space, this measure would be more straightforward to capture. Labeling technologies as 'smart' does not necessarily make the environment in which they operate better. What is most important is what they achieve compared to the system's performance without them. The challenge is often to find ways to measure such changes. And when such changes involve rare events, as with airplane near-misses, making such measurements is even more difficult.
