$11 Million Wasted Because Camden Officials Didn't Hire The Right Kind of Analysts.

Camden County paid Georgia Southern University to churn out a 2-week, 2-page Economic Summary instead of contracting with an independent non-profit that would perform deep research to determine if a spaceport is the right thing to do.


It is no surprise to long-time Spaceport Camden opponents that when IQMRI conducted a real research investigation for a proposed small class rocket spaceport in Michigan, they revealed, "...an uneconomical business case for space launch" and are "Therefore, not self-sustaining nor economically viable." And that's true if rockets are launched EVERY WEEK, not just the 12 times a year that would be allowed at Spaceport Camden should the fictional Camden Special rocket ever be developed. And Camden's rocket will be much, much smaller than the smallest rocket studied in the report.


I'll add to this post by midweek, but I believe this important report should be available to any Georgian who wants to know the truth about small-rocket launch economics. Here's a link to the full 148-page report (be patient, it's big). And if you're short on time, make sure to read the Executive Summary on pages 8-11. The Table-1.1 is on page 17, with explanations of how the analysis was performed on the 3 following pages. And on page 146 you'll find Table 4.6 showing all the sites rejected because the launch trajectories posed a risk to land occupants. Spaceport Camden would have been rejected:


In fact, because they did not conduct a proper economic analysis, Camden County chose the worst of the four option paths. The Public/Private partnership chosen by Camden officials rates has:

  • The HIGHEST RISK

  • NEGATIVE RETURN on INVESTMENT

  • NO CHANGE to our TECHNOLOGY BASE

  • NO CHANGE to our WORKFORCE

  • NO CHANGE to EDUCATIONAL INVESTMENT


It does not take a rocket scientist to see that Spaceport Camden has been the wrong project at the wrong place since its conception.

Archive