Cape Canaveral and KSC already exists, is well situated for vertical ascents to the east, and has unique and valuable infrastructure that will go begging for use. Ellington and any other site situated in proximity to densely populated areas and civil airports with their potentially conflicting traffic patterns will likely prove to be problematic even for horizontal landing vehicles; vertical landings either powered or parachute-borne would appear to be out of the question as would vertical ascents.

A spaceport facilitating polar orbit launches would be attractive in view of the forecast for more LEO communication satellites based on constellations. That’s assuming VAFB could not be made available for that purpose.

Bottom line is I fear we’re setting up a “Space Authority bubble” that will collapse once the current crop of commercial space competitors thins out, becomes consolidated, and completes the required flight testing. Where we are today is akin to witnessing the first flight of the Wright Flyer in NC and immediately laying out the plans for JFK, Hartsfield, IAH, LAX, Ohare, SFO, etc. It’s putting the cart in front of a horse that is yet even to be born.

As with alternate energy, tax credits, abatements, and other incentives for building capabilities and infrastructure only make sense if the underlying business/economic case makes sense without the (by design) short-term financial enhancers. I’m not convinced that I see a compelling business case for a plethora of spaceports.

Ellington might prove well suited to suborbital systems that take off and land conventionally and would overfly the nearby Gulf. The apparent golden age of nano-sats that could be launched using carrier aircraft as a first stage would also be a good match, but the issue of recovering vehicles returning from orbit remains. The possibility of parachute landing in the Gulf and speedy return to NASA JSC and the Houston Medical Center via Ellington would appear to hold some promise for high value biological samples and experiments.