WASHINGTON — U.S. space launch executives warned that the nation’s primary launch facilities may soon be unable to handle the projected surge in rocket launches, potentially hampering America’s competitiveness in the rapidly expanding commercial space sector.
“I don’t think that people realize how many rockets are going to be launching five or eight years from now,” Dave Limp, CEO of Jeff Bezos’ space company Blue Origin, said March 3 at the Air & Space Forces Association’s Warfare Conference in Aurora, Colorado.
Limp’s concerns were echoed by executives from SpaceX and United Launch Alliance (ULA) during a panel discussion, where all three agreed that the industry must collectively prepare for a future where multiple daily launches become the norm — a tempo that current government-run launch ranges at Cape Canaveral, Florida and Vandenberg Space Force Base in California aren’t equipped to support.
Multiple launches a day
Blue Origin, whose Blue Glenn rocket has only launched once and is preparing for its second flight, faces a steep growth curve. But Limp is optimistic about the company’s trajectory. “We’re going to launch a lot, and we’re going to recover our boosters, and we’re going to rinse and repeat,” he said, acknowledging that his company is following the successful operational template established by Elon Musk’s SpaceX.
With Blue Origin contracted to launch satellites for Amazon’s Project Kuiper broadband constellation — a venture aiming to compete with SpaceX’s dominant Starlink service — Limp foresees a dramatic increase in launch demand across the industry.
“There’s going to be other mega constellations. The government’s going to need more. Civil space is going to need more,” Limp said. “I envision a world in the not-so-distant future when there are multiple launches every single day, and I just don’t think we’re thinking about the infrastructure. We’re not planning for that world.”
The Blue Origin chief also raised competitive concerns: “China is going to launch that often. Trust me. I’ve competed in China for a long time. They’re going to figure it out, and we have to get out in front of this.”
Current bottlenecks
Jon Edwards, SpaceX’s vice president of Falcon launch vehicles, highlighted that even at Cape Canaveral — the busiest U.S. spaceport — current protocols don’t allow simultaneous launches by different providers.
“We don’t want to shut [others] down when we’re doing an operation, and vice versa,” Edwards explained. “So the biggest challenge is going to be the amount of activity and being able to manage that with the current infrastructure.”
Edwards suggested federal launch ranges should conduct exercises simulating multiple daily launches to identify bottlenecks, similar to what SpaceX did internally. Around five or six years ago, when SpaceX was launching less than 20 rockets annually, Musk challenged the company to determine what would be required to reach 100 launches per year.
“We really took it seriously and tried to think about all the bottlenecks and the challenges associated with doing that, and lo and behold, here we are,” said Edwards. SpaceX completed 124 Falcon missions in 2024, dramatically outpacing its rivals and putting pressure on launch infrastructure.
“The federal ranges need to go through that same exercise and do something about it, because we’re just going to keep getting in each other’s ways,” Edwards added. “And America is not going to reach the full potential of what we’re capable of if that’s still a problem five years from now.”
Recent legislative changes
Some progress is already underway. Congress recently authorized changes allowing space launch companies to pay for infrastructure upgrades at the major launch sites. The Space Force received new authorities to collect additional fees from commercial launch providers using U.S. military spaceports to help finance modernization efforts.
The 2024 federal budget includes $1.3 billion for the Space Force to upgrade infrastructure at Cape Canaveral and Vandenberg over the next five years. Additionally, the Space Force is working to revise policies that currently restrict it from accepting in-kind contributions from commercial companies — a change that would enable practices similar to those used by port authorities.
Governance and spending priorities
Tory Bruno, president and CEO of United Launch Alliance, said he welcomes these reforms but called for increased dialogue between the government and launch operators on how funds are allocated.
“We’re paying fees, and we should. I think we’ve all said we ought to contribute to that common infrastructure we use,” Bruno said. “But I’d like to suggest also that since we’re paying for this, we ought to have a say in a formal way of recommending what it gets spent on.”
Bruno proposed establishing “a joint government and user board that oversees and can agilely prioritize those investments year to year as the needs change.”
Edwards agreed with Bruno’s proposal, emphasizing that investments should “go after the bottlenecks, go after the things that are limiting the overall rate of launch at any given federal range.” On fees, Edwards added: “We just got to make sure it’s fair. Maybe this board could have debates about that and make sure it’s fair, transparent and well communicated.”
Limp, however, expressed concerns that establishing a new oversight board could introduce delays. “I think we’re all willing to invest up front, but I worry about the bureaucracy that might be added, that we’d spend more time debating where dollars would be spent versus just doing it.”
Modernizing airspace management
Drawing on his experience from 15 years at Amazon, Limp suggested that launch companies would benefit from modernizing flight planning and airspace restrictions.
While the Space Force and the Federal Aviation Administration invest significant effort in ensuring safety, “they rely on outdated technology to do their jobs,” according to Limp. “We can modernize that flight planning and the risk assessment, and we could do in an hour what takes 60 days right now,” he said.
Such improvements would be essential for supporting increased launch cadence. “If we’re going to fly three times a day, you don’t get 60 days for a flight plan. If you need rapid response to get rocket cargo somewhere, you have to plan that mission in 20 minutes,” Limp explained. “The tools exist, and so I would probably start there and spend money on those kinds of things that unblock.”
U.S. launch sites remain ideal
Despite projected constraints at U.S. space launch ranges, executives didn’t express interest in establishing operations at overseas facilities, citing complex logistics challenges and the fact that Cape Canaveral and Vandenberg offer unique advantages difficult to replicate elsewhere. Both sites are situated on coastlines, enabling rockets to fly over open water and minimize risks to populated areas. Cape Canaveral’s location at 28 degrees north latitude provides an efficiency boost from Earth’s rotation for eastward launches, while Vandenberg’s position is optimal for polar and sun-synchronous orbits.
“There aren’t many locations that can meet all these requirements,” Limp noted, adding that regulatory issues associated with transporting increasingly large rockets make changing locations impractical. “These rockets are ever getting larger and larger,” he said. “Moving them around is not simple.”
Edwards shared SpaceX’s experience with international operations, citing a recent Falcon 9 booste landing in The Bahamas after launching Starlink satellites. “We thought that would be a pretty simple process to get that through, and it took us three and a half years,” Edwards revealed. “We landed one booster in The Bahamas, and it went well. But there can be a lot of challenges and hoops and red tape and all sorts of stuff that you have to jump through.”
The SpaceX executive also recalled the logistical challenges from the company’s early days when it launched several Falcon 1 rockets from the Kwajalein Atoll in the Marshall Islands between 2006 and 2009.
“The tyranny of orbital mechanics dictates where you get to launch from,” Bruno added. “So there will be a point in the future where the few other suitable launch sites are attractive to us, but that’s not now. Now our investments are better spent in improving the sites we already have.”
Sea-based launch platforms
While overseas launch locations don’t appear attractive for now, sea-based launch options could become viable alternatives as land-based facilities reach capacity, according to the executives.
The concept was pioneered decades ago by Sea Launch, a multinational company created in 1995 to provide equatorial launch services using a mobile maritime platform. Though Sea Launch ceased operations in 2014 due to technical problems and insufficient demand, sea-based space launches have gained momentum in recent years.
China has conducted over a dozen space missions from ocean platforms in the past few years, while in the United States, startup The Spaceport Company has acquired a former Navy vessel for suborbital missions and missile tests. And Rocket Lab recently revealed details about an ocean landing platform that it would use to land and recover its future Neutron rockets after missions.
Bruno suggested that given projected constraints at current ranges, “a sea base frees you from that a little bit. We get to choose our location.” He noted that ventures like Sea Launch were “a little ahead of its time. But I think that time is swinging around.”
Edwards added that another factor driving interest in sea-based launches is that “rockets are getting bigger, and they’re getting louder.” The sonic booms from returning rockets that land back at the launch pad may become problematic as launch frequency increases.
“I think noise is going to become a bigger problem in the next five to 10 years,” Edwards predicted. “And being able to be 20 miles out, or whatever, would be great.” He suggested that sea-based launch could work with sufficiently large vessels or rigs, or that “islands could be another option where you could set up some permanent infrastructure.”
