7-03. Supplemental Information- Utah Spaceport Initial Feasibility Study.pdf

AEROSPACE REPORT NO.

ATR-2026-00378

Utah Spaceport Initial Feasibility Study

January 16, 2026

K. Rolf Bohman Emerging Missions Flight Dynamics Department Engineering and Technology Group

Prepared for:

Utah Department of Transportation 4501 South 2700 West Salt Lake City, UT 84114

Contract No. P25-008098

Authorized by: Civil Systems Group

PUBLIC RELEASE IS AUTHORIZED, DISTRIBUTION UNLIMITED.

© The Aerospace Corporation, 2026

Utah Spaceport Initial Feasibility Study

Rolf Bohman Mission Operations Subdivision

The Aerospace Corporation

January 16, 2026

Summary

This study is a public safety risk feasibility assessment; no guarantees of licensure based on risk, or other regulatory or local considerations are made.

• Aerospace Corporation performed a public safety risk feasibility study for the Utah Department of Transportation (UDOT), following similar physics-based methodologies to those outlined in the Title 14, Code of Federal Regulations (14 C.F.R.), Part 420 appendices.

• The methods recommended in 14 C.F.R. part 420 do not guarantee launch licensure, and any given launch provider mission would need to be reassessed in accordance with 14 C.F.R. part 450.

• Multiple sites were assessed and produced different risk levels for different profiles.

• The results of the study indicate that a spaceport within the state of Utah may produce mission trajectories that would not exceed the risk criteria regulation in 14 C.F.R. § 450.101. This conclusion may not be valid for every mission for every launch operator, and 14 C.F.R. part 450 would require reassessment.

– Note: FAA regulations, in 14 C.F.R. § 450.101, state that the criteria for acceptable collective public risk is met when the risk of serious injury for a launch or reentry is below 1E-4, often colloquially stated as 100 serious injuries, or less, in 1,000,000 launches or reentries.

• Other aspects of achieving a spaceport license and potential difficulties with a mission approval or license determination are alluded to but are not expounded upon.

• Further technical detail will be delivered to UDOT as requested.

• Perform a risk analysis for representative launch vehicles from proposed spaceport sites in Utah state.

The analysis will evaluate the expected casualty (EC) for various orbital launch trajectories from Utah’s select sites.

• What is “expected casualty”?

– The risk metric used in FAA regulations to determine a measure of acceptable public risk

– It is a quantitative measure for the expected number of casualties, meaning serious injury or worse, from an operation

– Product of probability of occurrence and the outcome (consequence)

– For overflight: EC = (Probability of Impact) x (Debris Casualty Area) x (Population Density)

• Who needs to know that value and why?

– FAA / Office of Space Transportation (AST)

• To satisfy licensing regulations, including for risk to all members of the public, which must not exceed 1x10-4 serious injuries (or roughly < 100 serious injuries per million operations)

• This is known as Flight Safety Analysis; however, this study is a special subset.

Study Objective

This study is a public safety risk feasibility assessment; no guarantees of licensure based on risk, or other regulatory or local considerations are made.

CFR Title 14: Aeronautics and Space

This study is a public safety risk feasibility assessment; no guarantees of licensure based on risk, or other regulatory or local considerations are made.

Launch to Orbit: Rockets Don’t Go Straight Up They also drop spent mass (stages) to increase efficiency

First Stage separation may result in a ballistic fall or a recovery, which can be propulsive (pictured) or via parachute or other options

OR

Payload Fairings may also result in ballistic fall or recovery operations

This study is a public safety risk feasibility assessment; no guarantees of licensure based on risk, or other regulatory or local considerations are made.

Orbital Launch Trajectories: North & South, From Utah

Expected Casualty depends on the population being overflown

Direction of launch (flight azimuth) determines the orbit inclination achieved

This study is a public safety risk feasibility assessment; no guarantees of licensure based on risk, or other regulatory or local considerations are made.

Launch Vehicle (LV) Ascent and Booster Recovery Trajectories

Ascent to orbit

Downrange booster recovery

Booster return

Ascent to orbit

This study is a public safety risk feasibility assessment; no guarantees of licensure based on risk, or other regulatory or local considerations are made.

Examples of Stage 1 Ascent Flight Hazard Corridors

Hazard Corridors are regions that are at risk during launch vehicle ascent, with a corresponding probability of impact.

This study is a public safety risk feasibility assessment; no guarantees of licensure based on risk, or other regulatory or local considerations are made.

Examples of Booster Staging and PLF Impact Probability Ellipses

PLF

Booster

This study is a public safety risk feasibility assessment; no guarantees of licensure based on risk, or other regulatory or local considerations are made.

LandScan Gridded Population Density (0.5 x 0.5 ArcMin)

This study is a public safety risk feasibility assessment; no guarantees of licensure based on risk, or other regulatory or local considerations are made.

LV Overflight Traces to Desirable Orbits from Utah Sites 1–7

Flight Azimuth 90° to Inclination ~40°

Flight Azimuth 191° to Inclination 97°

Flight Azimuth 347° to Inclination 97°

This study is a public safety risk feasibility assessment; no guarantees of licensure based on risk, or other regulatory or local considerations are made.

Expected Casualty Overflight Corridors

This study is a public safety risk feasibility assessment; no guarantees of licensure based on risk, or other regulatory or local considerations are made.

Orbital Recovery Trajectory: Capsule Return Example

This study is a public safety risk feasibility assessment; no guarantees of licensure based on risk, or other regulatory or local considerations are made.

• Simulate potential space launch missions utilizing Aerospace’s Trajectory Optimization Program (TOP) and Expected Casualty Assessment Suite

• Assumptions

– Experienced operator with a proven vehicle, Small-lift capability, launch vehicle ascent to mission orbits: LEO inclined & SSO

• Note: the vehicle reliability resulting from this assumption is on the order of ~94%

– Booster recovery via parachute system; expended payload fairing (PLF)

– LandScan population database applied “as is” – no modifications to account for near pad evacuation

– Casualty-causing area is due to inert debris only; rocket body explosive impacts were not considered

• Parameters (notional values)

– Casualty Area: AC stage 1 = 155 m2; AC stage 2 = 30 m2 AC booster = 28 m2 (parachute impact); AC PLF = 13 m2

– Failure Probabilities (PF): PF stage 1 = 0.03; PF stage 2 = 0.03;

PF booster recovery = 1 (parachute/uncontrolled); PF PLF impact = 1 (expended)

Analysis Methods and Assumptions

This study is a public safety risk feasibility assessment; no guarantees of licensure based on risk, or other regulatory or local considerations are made.

Population Overflight Analysis Results For Small LV

Site Location Expected Casualty for Ascent (per million)

Az = 90 Az = 191 Az = 347

1 Delta (Lat 39.1°) 30* 1940 8

2 Wendover (Lat 40.9°) 3894 21478 13

3 Green River (Lat 38.9°) 74 61 389

4 Promontory (Lat 41.7°) 77* 426 32

5 Bluff (Lat 37.3°) 137 4307 48

6 Kanab (Lat 37.1°) 22 9 15

7 Vernal (Lat 40.2°) 74* 178 52

Azimuth = 90° : Highest performing launch to orbit; resulting inclination is the same as Site latitude

* Launch azimuth rotated from 90 to avoid population and lower EC; this results in reduced lift capability Azimuth = 191° : Southerly to Sun-Synchronous Orbit, Inclination = 97.6° Azimuth = 347° : Northerly to Sun-Synchronous Orbit, Inclination = 97.6°

This study is a public safety risk feasibility assessment; no guarantees of licensure based on risk, or other regulatory or local considerations are made.

• Simulate potential space launch missions utilizing Aerospace’ Trajectory Optimization Program (TOP) and Expected Casualty Assessment Suite

• Assumptions

– Experienced operator with a proven vehicle, Medium-lift capability, launch vehicle ascent to mission orbits: LEO inclined & SSO

• Note: the vehicle reliability resulting from this assumption is on the order of ~98%

– Booster Return to launch site or Downrange recovery; expended payload fairing (PLF)

– LandScan population database applied “as is” – no modifications to account for near pad evacuation

– Casualty-causing area is due to inert debris only; rocket body explosive impacts were not considered

• Parameters (notional values)

– Casualty Area: AC stage 1 = 1700 m2; AC stage 2 = 350 m2 AC booster = 1100 m2; AC PLF = 200 m2

– Failure Probabilities (PF): PF stage 1 = 0.005; PF stage 2 = 0.007;

PF booster return/recovery = 0.01; PF staging = 0.01; PF PLF impact = 1 (expended)

Analysis Methods and Assumptions

This study is a public safety risk feasibility assessment; no guarantees of licensure based on risk, or other regulatory or local considerations are made.

Population Overflight Analysis Results: Medium LV Site 1

Mission Orbit

Flight Azimuth

Expected Casualty for Ascent (per million)

Stage 1 Booster Return

Staging Ellipse

Expended PLF* Stage 2 Total Ec

SSO 190 22 8 2 61 19 112

SSO 330 2 3 1 767 39 812

SSO 355 1 1 9 71 11 93

Downrange

SSO 190 27 52 92 2220 9 2400

SSO 355 1 1 1 10 11 24

LEO 40 97 11 10 6 1 25 53

LEO 63 145 3 2 3 1 66 75

SSO: Sun-Synchronous Orbit, Inclination = 98° LEO 40: Low Earth Orbit to Inclination = 40° LEO 63: Low Earth Orbit to Inclination = 63° *Expended PLF: Payload Fairing is assumed as an uncontrolled, planned jettison

This study is a public safety risk feasibility assessment; no guarantees of licensure based on risk, or other regulatory or local considerations are made.

Findings

• Preliminary casualty risk assessment indicates all the Site locations likely have acceptable individual risk (PC < 1/million) for all the trajectories analyzed as specified by Federal Regulation Part 450 risk definition. This is primarily due to the nearest population exceeding 10 miles distance from the launch pad location.

• Preliminary casualty risk assessment indicates all Site locations have potential launch corridors with acceptable collective risk (EC < 100/million) as specified by Federal Regulation Part 450 risk definition assuming a flight-proven LV.

• A highly-reliable launch vehicle (demonstrated success of 95% or better) can meet risk criteria during overflight of significant population during upper stage phases of flight.

• The most challenging areas in terms of public risk are finding acceptable locations for staging events, and especially for jettisoned objects such as a payload fairing.

• There are mitigation strategies that can be employed but often result in flight constraints, which may adversely affect the LV performance, which is undesirable to the launch provider.

• New or less reliable launch vehicles are likely problematic – might be difficult to find an acceptable flight hazard corridor. Recommend further study if such a vehicle is pursued.

This study is a public safety risk feasibility assessment; no guarantees of licensure based on risk, or other regulatory or local considerations are made.

Additional Considerations

• Orbital recovery missions such as capsule returns are viable, assuming a large recovery area; UTTR has been doing it for many years.

• Other hazards:

– Toxic propellants, explosive potential, distant focused overpressure, sonic boom, radioactive materials

– All are primarily a concern only within ~20 miles of the launch site (near pad risk)

• Aircraft risk:

– It is non-trivial because there is air traffic over western US “24/7”

– Airspace and NOTAM (Notice to Airmen) coordination will be required

• Roads

– Transiting ground population was not included in the assessment

– Monitoring or restricting transiting population may be necessary for high-risk areas, impact locations or near pad

• Environmental Concerns

– Secondary effects of impacting objects were not considered

– Noise level sensitivity, such as public nuisance or wildlife impacts, from launch and/or reentry were not considered

• Neighboring States (Idaho, Colorado, Arizona) risk:

– No requirement, but inland, orbital launch is a new paradigm; other US launch sites (Alaska, California, Florida, Texas, Virginia) don’t really put residents of other states at risk – may desire coordination

– Alternative LVs will have different staging locations – possibly in Canada or Mexico

This study is a public safety risk feasibility assessment; no guarantees of licensure based on risk, or other regulatory or local considerations are made.

Backup Technical Information

Population Overflight Analysis Results: Small LV to LEO

Site Flight Azimuth

Expected Casualty for Ascent (per million)

Stage 1 Booster Recovery

Expended PLF Stage 2 Total Ec

1 90 12 390 33 25 460

1 97 5 6 4 15 30

2 90 57 251 3552 34 3894

3 90 18 5 30 21 74

4 90 67 113 43 21 244

4 100 13 3 41 20 77

5 90 26 1 70 40 137

6 90 4 1 1 16 22

7 90 38 12 17 38 105

7 80 22 8 6 38 74

This study is a public safety risk feasibility assessment; no guarantees of licensure based on risk, or other regulatory or local considerations are made.

Population Overflight Analysis Results: Small LV to SSO

Site Flight Azimuth

Expected Casualty for Ascent (per million)

Stage 1 Booster Recovery

Expended PLF Stage 2 Total Ec

1 191 14 298 1619 9 1940

2 191 98 21377 1 2 21478

3 191 2 21 8 30 61

4 191 2 402 8 14 426

5 191 16 4238 35 18 4307

6 191 1 7 0 1 9

7 191 2 171 2 3 178

This study is a public safety risk feasibility assessment; no guarantees of licensure based on risk, or other regulatory or local considerations are made.

Population Overflight Analysis Results: Small LV to SSO

Site Flight Azimuth

Expected Casualty for Ascent (per million)

Stage 1 Booster Recovery

Expended PLF Stage 2 Total Ec

1 347 4 2 1 1 8

2 347 3 6 2 2 13

3 347 8 357 8 16 389

4 347 4 12 15 1 32

5 347 11 4 20 13 48

6 347 5 2 6 2 15

7 347 1 41 1 9 52

This study is a public safety risk feasibility assessment; no guarantees of licensure based on risk, or other regulatory or local considerations are made.

LV Reliability Estimates Based On Flight History

This study is a public safety risk feasibility assessment; no guarantees of licensure based on risk, or other regulatory or local considerations are made.

Casualty Area Calculation h th i r r i N human radius = 0.34 m radius for the object of total surviving objects

• LV breakup models, known as debris catalogs, are constructed

• Includes number of fragments, mass and size

• Unsheltered, Casualty-causing area is according to the equation:

This study is a public safety risk feasibility assessment; no guarantees of licensure based on risk, or other regulatory or local considerations are made.

𝐴𝐴𝐶𝐶 = �

𝑖𝑖=1

𝑁𝑁

𝜋𝜋 𝑟𝑟ℎ + 𝑟𝑟𝑖𝑖 2

Calculation of Risk: Expected Casualty

Pi is Probability of impact in area i Di is the population density in area i AC is the casualty area of impacting debris

• An acceptable value of EC for a specific launch is not to exceed 100x10-6 (100 in 1,000,000)

Ci i iC ADPE ∑=

• For space launch missions, the risk to public is measured in terms of the expected human casualties caused by ground impact of debris.

This study is a public safety risk feasibility assessment; no guarantees of licensure based on risk, or other regulatory or local considerations are made.

The impact probability is made up of the probability density in the downrange direction, and the probability density in the crossrange direction.

0.5 yi y yi i

Ii F b y tP P e t σ πσ

PF2 : Probability of Stage Failure Δti : Dwell Time for Region i tb2 : Burn Time of Stage σy : Crossrange Standard Deviation yi : Crossrange Distance from IIP Trace

Impact Probability

This study is a public safety risk feasibility assessment; no guarantees of licensure based on risk, or other regulatory or local considerations are made.

Cognizant Program Manager Approval:

Aerospace Corporate Officer Approval:

Utah Spaceport Initial Feasibility Study

Kelley D. Litzner, SYSTEMS DIRECTOR - ENGINEERING PROGRAM MANAGEMENT

FEDERAL & COMMERCIAL PROGRAMS

CIVIL SYSTEMS OPERATIONS

CIVIL SYSTEMS GROUP

James M. Myers, SENIOR VP CIVIL SYSTEMS GROUP

OFFICE OF EVP

© The Aerospace Corporation, 2026.

All trademarks, service marks, and trade names are the property of their respective owners.

SG501

Content Concurrence Provided Electronically by:

Office of General Counsel Approval Granted Electronically by:

Utah Spaceport Initial Feasibility Study

Glenn W. Law, SYSTEMS DIRECTOR - ENGINEERING PROGRAM MANAGEMENT AND SYSTEMS ENGINEERING

CIVIL & COMMERCIAL LAUNCH PROJECTS

LAUNCH SYSTEMS DIVISION

DEFENSE SYSTEMS GROUP

Kien T. Le, LEAD IP COUNSEL

OFFICE OF THE GENERAL COUNSEL

OFFICE OF GENERAL COUNSEL & SECRETARY

© The Aerospace Corporation, 2026.

Export Control Office Approval Granted Electronically by:

Utah Spaceport Initial Feasibility Study

Angela M. Farmer, SECURITY SUPERVISOR

GOVERNMENT SECURITY

SECURITY OPERATIONS

OFFICE OF THE CHIEF INFORMATION OFFICER

© The Aerospace Corporation, 2026.