Eyes Turned Skywards

[Shevek23]

Originally Posted by Chuck Mandus

...I think a Saturn 1B or 1C could have done the job just as well.

Everyone says a 1B launch was more expensive than a Titan III would be. What I wonder though is how much cheaper the 1Bs, or better yet something like this timeline's 1C, could be if it were purchased in large and reliable production runs.

The 1B after all was pretty much thrown together in a hurry, and it involved a big cluster of first-stage engines that at the time (early '60s) were the most powerful ker-lox engines on the shelf, having just recently been put there too. Its tankage and structure were also improvised. So it might be expected it would not be cheap for its payload, because it involved numerous small parts and essentially keeping part of the production lines of two older rocket systems in place (the first stage being a cluster of many stage segments of one rocket system around a bigger one). When the F-1A engine became available, having the capacity of all eight of the old H-1 engines and more, and meanwhile the tankage/structure was integrated along the same lines as the Saturn V stages, I'd think that alone would bring the cost down--obviously one F-1A would cost more than one H-1 but not necessarily more than 8 of them; the better first stage design involves both weight savings (making the new version more cost/effective even at the same cost) and presumably somewhat simpler fabrication and reduced materials cost; a single engine is a disaster if it goes out but that's what escape systems are for whereas 8 engines make it more likely at least one will go out even if the probability of any one going out is less than that of the F-1A failing. So the 1C should be an easier sell than the 1B just on its merits. Locking in DoD patronage, not of the 1C to be sure but its successor the Saturn Multicore family, is a coup for Boeing. I'd like to know if the cost per tonne to a given orbit of the Multicore system (let's just say, of a M02 launch, that being most comparable to either a Saturn 1C or a Titan III) is at last going to come down to the same ranges as Titan III OTL by this time period.

Unless the engines themselves cost considerably more, or the costs involved in managing the relatively modest cryogenic demands of liquid oxygen are quite high, I don't see why "storable" based systems should be inherently cheaper, considering the ongoing risk management involved with them. The engines can indeed be cheaper and lighter for a given thrust I suppose, since the hypergolic self-ignition takes care of starting its burn and I believe there are other factors too that tend on the whole to make hypergolic engines simpler hence both cheaper and lighter. But is the price difference and/or thrust/weight difference a matter of 10 or 20 percent, or a factor of 2 or 3 or more?

On the whole I suspect the superior economics of the Titans mainly were because the Air Force was a big customer, doing more launches than NASA did, and they could integrate orbital launch operations in with their ICBM operations as long as Titan IIs were operational in SAC's inventory. There can be no question that a liquid-fuel ICBM should be storable-based, given the premium on quick launches and the impracticality of leaving even liquid oxygen, let alone hydrogen or even methane, in cryogenic tanks in missiles standing by in silos. The only question is, should the Air Force have had liquid-fueled ICBMs at all, and the answer to that in the 60s anyway was "yes." They couldn't make solid-fueled ICBMs until a considerable amount of development had happened.

So the Titan 1 with its kerlox fuel had to give way to the storable Titan II, and this was happening right as both NASA and the Air Force also needed bigger payloads. And once both agencies invested in launch facilities geared to Titans, there was an incentive to upgrade them rather than strike out in a new direction. OTL NASA helped lock in the Titan family dominance by developing something quite radically different from your basic one-shot multistage rocket, so for anything more modest than a payload that justifed an STS launch it was either Titan or its smaller rivals. Of course the Titans were then upgraded to make their payload sizes competitive with an STS payload, and so were some of the rival systems.

Sadly the Wiki page for this timeline does not list tonnages to orbit for any of its versions of the Titan launchers; looking at OTL figures I think it's about right to say the largest Titans available can manage about half the 23-27 tonnes to various low Earth orbits Saturn M02 is projected to.

So, a minimal multibody launch can cost up to twice as much as a single big Titan launch and still come out ahead on a per tonne basis--unless the minimum 23 tonne load is excessive for most purposes. I gather from the Spacecraft and Launch systems page though that Delta rockets will be filling in the gap between zero and 20 tonnes. The upgraded multibodies--well, I'm a nervous Nellie about using solid fuel boosters on a manned launch too, but we are talking about nearly doubling the capacity with just one pair of solids, so assuming an M02 is marginally competitive with a Titan III on a cost per tonne basis, an M22 should be considerably cheaper--assuming NASA or DoD (who also launches for nominally civilian but shadowy security agencies like NSA) wants a 43+tonne payload! H03 ought to cost something like 3 times as much for the hardware but still is only one launch--a bit more dramatic than a single-core launch, so the price will be somewhere between close to an M02 launch to three times as much depending on how much of the total bill for a launch is for the cost of the rocket itself versus operations. With something like 5 times the payload to orbit of a typical Titan III an H03 launch can afford to cost up to 5 times a Titan III launch, which seems about what a pessimistic guess based on assuming operations costs are a small fraction of the whole would estimate it would cost.

[e of pi]

Well, speaking of launch vehicles that aren't using Nitrogen Tetroxide and UDMH, anyone given any thought to what ESA might be up to ITTL with the kerolox Blue Streak-based Europa instead of the all-hypergol Arianes? Perhaps any interest in the direction of future ESA planning and development? If you are, you're in for a treat this week, as we pop from Japan to Europe for another international update. As a note, the LV specs for this update are now all added to the Eyes tech specs wiki page.

Eyes Turned Skyward, Part II, Post #2

In 1982, the European Space Administration had recently celebrated several major milestones. First, the organization celebrated its tenth year of operations, and twenty years since the original 1962 conferences that began the formation ESRO and ELDO, its parent organizations. Second, the Europa launch vehicle family had celebrated its first decade of full operation (though the tenth anniversary of the first Europa-launched satellite had occurred two years prior). In that time, Europa 1, the four-stage Europa 2, and the booster-assisted Europa 2-TA had racked up dozens of successful launches with remarkably few failures after the declaration of full operational status in 1972. Similarly, many of science and telecommunication projects ESA had inherited from ESRO (some launched on the Europa launchers, some on American vehicles) had made spectacular strides, proving that Europe was on the cutting edge of space science and investigation of the practical benefits of spaceflight. Moreover, ESA was on the verge of taking several dramatic steps forward, building on its heritage to achieve ever greater successes and milestones in spaceflight.

The first of these improvements was the ongoing work on the Europa 3 vehicle and related developments derived from work on the project. The Blue Streak first stage had become the major limiting factor on further developments of the basic Europa rocket, both due to its thrust and its propellant loadout. Even the addition of the powerful solids used by the Europa-TA boosted the payload to low Earth orbit to just over two metric tons, and the addition of the boosters had required modifications to the Europa core to support the added thrust of the boosters. Thus, in 1979 ESA had authorized the development of a new vehicle which would both by itself push beyond Europa 1 and 2’s abilities, as well as opening up new development paths for future growth. This Europa 3 was a brand-new two-stage vehicle, with each of the new stages opening its own development path. The first was kerolox first stage named Griffin, which in many ways was a “fat Blue Streak.” It would be built in the UK by British Aerospace, the inheritor of the Blue Streak production line with the various consolidations of British aerospace companies in the late 1970s. The stage would have a 170 inch (4.31m) diameter, but the same height as Blue Streak, resulting in a fuel load double that of Blue Streak. To lift this fuel, it would use four of the sameRZ.2 engines that powered Blue Streak, with control being provided through one-axis gimballing of each engine.The second new stage was the French Aurore, a 4m-diameter hydrolox stage to be built by Aerospatiale using six Snecma HM-7B engines, with control provided by one-axis gimbaling of paired engines. The HM-7B was an improved version of the never-flown but extensively-tested HM-7, which had been under consideration for a hydrolox third stage for Europa 2-TA. The variant offered with improved chamber pressure and a slightly enlarged nozzle for better thrust and specific impulse. For launches to geostationary or other high-energy orbits, an additional German-built Astris third stage (already used on the Europa 1 and 2 vehicles) could be added, both increasing payload and critically providing re-start capability as the HM-7B was only designed to be ignited once.

Altogether, the booster would have a payload of over 7600 kg, with the Astris third stage allowing a payload to GTO of nearly 1800 kg. However, more impressive than the new vehicle itself was the potential evolutions and derivatives of the vehicle. The Griffin stage had been designed specifically to be compatible with the length of the Blue Streak, allowing a potential upgrade that would add Blue Streak strap-on boosters and add additional upper stages, boosting upper-end payloads as high as 18.4 metric tons to LEO--higher than the American Delta 4000, and nearly equivalent to the Saturn 1B, and allowing nearly 7,400 kg to be injected to a geosynchronous transfer orbit or other high-energy orbit. Further, the 4m diameter of the Aurore upper stage was intended to be (barely) compatible aerodynamically with the Blue Streak first stage of the Europa 1 and 2, allowing use of a half-length version with only three engines installed as an upper stage for Blue Streak. Such a Europa 2-HE (High Energy) could offer a payload of 3700 kg to LEO and 650 kg on to GTO, exceeding the capability of the Europa 2-TA while eliminating the expense and handling costs associated with the solid rocket boosters and several unique stages of Europa, mainly the French Coralie. While development of these derivative uses of Europa 3 hardware was intended to be deferred until after the 1985 flight date of the basic vehicle to fit within the limited ESA budget, exploration of applications to use this potential of Europa 3 and its future developments were well underway by ESA members even by 1982.

One of the most attractive of these applications was the one that justified the larger Griffin-based vehicles being explored: achieving, at long last, an independent European manned spaceflight ability. Though the driving issue of the Seat Wars had been settled by the introduction of the Block III+ Apollo and the offer of a permanent ESA slot on Spacelab (at least through 1983, at which point the 5-year agreement would be up for renewal), the undercurrents of emotion that had driven the conflict to such heights had not been resolved. Many within the European program still felt like their program’s accomplishments were marginalized by their dependence on American “charity” for crew access to their own research module on Spacelab. This wasn’t an unjustified view, as many in the American program viewed the European program as definitely pacing the American and Russian programs, rather than being true equals. However, the capabilities of future Griffin-based vehicles could allow Europe to develop its own independent manned capability, and thus approach future collaborations as true partnerships of equals. After all, the original Soyuz capsules of the Russian station program had massed less than Europa 3’s 7600 kg payload, and Salyut 1, the first Russian space station, had been approximately 18.4 metric tons according to Western estimates--roughly the same as the upper capacity of the Europa 3 variants under study. Even with the Europa 3 three years from flight and the variant many more out, this new empowerment colored the ongoing negotiations for the renewal of ESA’s agreements with NASA for flights to Spacelab and ESA’s level of involvement in the ongoing NASA studies on post-Spacelab space stations. In particular, ESA began to to explore the potential of bartering not simply hardware development for crew slots (as they had in the case of the original 5-year agreement, building the Spacelab European Research module in exchange for crew access on NASA Apollo capsules), but also offering cargo resupply or crew rotations to the station in exchange for the launch of any of their own modules that might exceed eventual Europa variant’s 18.6 mT capacity. As part of this, ESA studied several vehicle configurations in some depth, from traditional capsules to the more exotic designs like spaceplanes. Options were examined that ranged from bare-bones two-seat (or cramped three-seat) vehicles designed to fit on the basic Europa 3 to Apollo-scale capsules designed for the mid-range variants to more elaborate “shuttle” spaceplanes that might carry as many as five crew plus cargo in a payload pay and would using the full 18.6 metric ton maximum capacity of the Europa 3 family. While any implementation of such plans were also deferred until after the development of Europa 3 was completed, they were being very actively examined, and the long-awaited independent European access to space seemed only a matter of time. It had been a very active decade for ESA, and the future looked even brighter.

[Bahamut-255]

Woo hoo! A new ESA update!

Interesting design for your Europa 3. And it looks like there's going to be a need to switch from an Imperial 1st stage to a Metric 2nd stage.

Reusing some of the Europa 1&2 tech that functioned properly for it should help with the development - Blue Streak and RZ.2. And it would appear that they have quite a few options for any manned spacecraft they might want. From Soyuz, to Apollo, to Hermes - yeah, RIGHT!!

I any case, my guess would be that you already have a good idea of what you're after in that regard, and spacecraft masses of between 7,000 and 17,500Kg is what appears to be within the limits of this particular design.

[e of pi]

Originally Posted by Bahamut-255

Woo hoo! A new ESA update!

I thought you'd like that.

Interesting design for your Europa 3. And it looks like there's going to be a need to switch from an Imperial 1st stage to a Metric 2nd stage.

Yeah. BAe has to do that--Aerospatiale says if they want to use inches, do, but they get stuck with the fairing between the stages. As for it being interesting--I had to find some way to distinguish my ESA from yours, considering you stole the PoD from me, didn't I? :P ESAs getting away with some extensive development (the new-diameter Griffin and Aurore tooling, plus of course the actual final stages themselves) by saving on engine development. Of course, it's still very ambitious; the delay from contract to first flight--roughly from '79 to '85--is mostly due to the tight funding stretching the development out. Note that the comparatively better-funded Multibody will fly about the same time, despite Europa 3's two-year head start.

[Bahamut-255]

Originally Posted by e of pi

I thought you'd like that.

Was it that obvious?

Yeah. BAe has to do that--Aerospatiale says if they want to use inches, do, but they get stuck with the fairing between the stages. As for it being interesting--I had to find some way to distinguish my ESA from yours, considering you stole the PoD from me, didn't I? :P ESAs getting away with some extensive development (the new-diameter Griffin and Aurore tooling, plus of course the actual final stages themselves) by saving on engine development. Of course, it's still very ambitious; the delay from contract to first flight--roughly from '79 to '85--is mostly due to the tight funding stretching the development out. Note that the comparatively better-funded Multibody will fly about the same time, despite Europa 3's two-year head start.

Well it's not like there are any good PODs that keep the UK in. So I suppose all that can really be done is to keep the designs unique - guess we'll find out who's got the better one.

[e of pi]

Originally Posted by Bahamut-255

Well it's not like there are any good PODs that keep the UK in. So I suppose all that can really be done is to keep the designs unique - guess we'll find out who's got the better one.

Actually, since then I've been digging around some more about Europa, and came across the Cora 1 and 2 test program--intended to test out the Coralie and Astris stages in ground-launch before they were used with Europa. Flew three test flights, Coralie only, two failures. Since similar issues were then encountered on Europa flights, I'm inclined to believe they simply ever bothered to properly fix them, despite a nearly two-year gap. If that was actually expanded into the proper test and proving program it was meant to be (perhaps at UK insistence?), it'd be a bit better justification for Europa working than the "make-work juice" we basically used ITTL without too much difference in the result. You know, just in case someone around here is working on an ESA TL that's a bit less far along than Eyes is?

[Bahamut-255]

Originally Posted by e of pi

Actually, since then I've been digging around some more about Europa, and came across the Cora 1 and 2 test program--intended to test out the Coralie and Astris stages in ground-launch before they were used with Europa. Flew three test flights, Coralie only, two failures. Since similar issues were then encountered on Europa flights, I'm inclined to believe they simply ever bothered to properly fix them, despite a nearly two-year gap. If that was actually expanded into the proper test and proving program it was meant to be (perhaps at UK insistence?), it'd be a bit better justification for Europa working than the "make-work juice" we basically used ITTL without too much difference in the result. You know, just in case someone around here is working on an ESA TL that's a bit less far along than Eyes is?

Other info I came across - but can't find again - suggests that they knew of the faults before flight-testing, but chose to do nothing and hope for the best. A real Crowning Moment of Stupid.

[Michel Van]

Originally Posted by e of pi

Actually, since then I've been digging around some more about Europa, and came across the Cora 1 and 2 test program--intended to test out the Coralie and Astris stages in ground-launch before they were used with Europa. Flew three test flights, Coralie only, two failures. Since similar issues were then encountered on Europa flights, I'm inclined to believe they simply ever bothered to properly fix them, despite a nearly two-year gap. If that was actually expanded into the proper test and proving program it was meant to be (perhaps at UK insistence?), it'd be a bit better justification for Europa working than the "make-work juice" we basically used ITTL without too much difference in the result. You know, just in case someone around here is working on an ESA TL that's a bit less far along than Eyes is?

Ohh yes, the Cora Testflight program.

Original plan: the second and third stage had to be tested, before they put on Blue Streak.
First test flight was in 27. November 1966, the second 18. Dezember 1966 from Hammaguir in Algeria.
The german third stage was not ready for Test. because on 19 october 1966, it test stand and stage it self were sorely damage after tank rupture cause fire.
so Cora (Sea level version of Coralie) got a second dummy Stage.
the First testflight G1, 62 sec after launch they lost control over the rocket.
the second testflight G2 wend good, but had also problems because the autopilot deviate from curse.
then the contract with Algeria about use of Hammaguir expired, so they had to move to de Biscarosse military test Launch site.
Strangely CNES declare Coralie for Flight ready after G2 fiasco !

4 august 1967 the Europa F6.1 test flight: the first Blue streak / Coralie end in failure because Coralie din't ignited.
on 25. October 1967 was the third test G3 flight of Cora 1, again a failure because massive problem on electronic system of Cora.
6 december 1967 the Europa F6.2 test flight, this time Coralie ignited, but not separate from Blue Streak because of problem of Coralie electronic system.
almost a Year CNES needed to get the Bugs out Coralie
30 November 1968, the Europa F7 test flight, the Coralie work perfect, but the separate system between Coralie and Astris. Trigger the self destruct system of the Europa rocket...

[Expat]

The Japanese and European updates reminded me of a question I don't think I ever got around to asking in Part I (apologies if I did.) The Arabian peninsula is home to a helluva lot of "mad money." Any chance this renewed space race will catch the eye of some bored oil-rich billionaires looking to make their way into the history books? I'm not thinking Saudi Arabia (or the UAE or whoever) as an actual competitive space power (at this stage, anyway) but they could throw a lot of money at Japan or Europe in exchange for something as simple as recognition.

One extremely simple advance they'd probably want (might even have already in the 1970s) is a GPS that can point the faithful with 100% accuracy towards Mecca.

[Michel Van]

Originally Posted by Expat

The Japanese and European updates reminded me of a question I don't think I ever got around to asking in Part I (apologies if I did.) The Arabian peninsula is home to a helluva lot of "mad money." Any chance this renewed space race will catch the eye of some bored oil-rich billionaires looking to make their way into the history books? I'm not thinking Saudi Arabia (or the UAE or whoever) as an actual competitive space power (at this stage, anyway) but they could throw a lot of money at Japan or Europe in exchange for something as simple as recognition.

One extremely simple advance they'd probably want (might even have already in the 1970s) is a GPS that can point the faithful with 100% accuracy towards Mecca.

would be nice, but middle East politic make this almost impossible.
Because a Arabic launch rocket could be considerate as a ICBM by USA, Israel and there Allies

there only three nation in middle east who try it. (Iran not count. there Persians culture, not arabic)

Lydia try to use ORTAG hardware to make a medium range missile out it, but failed more miserable, do to limitation of concept more here:
http://www.alternatehistory.com/disc...&postcount=589

Iraq try by cluster 5 scud rocket to launch a 50 kg test satellite in 1989
they claim it reach orbit, USA say it never made it orbit.
but in 1991 Iraq invade Kuwait and USA strike back.

Israel launch also Satellite and spysatellite
but the rocket Shavit is a derivate of medium range missile Jericho 2 and is used for Military payloads only.
it's launch brings tension between Israel and it's arabic neighbors.

Back to main topic
e of pi, great work on Europa 3 Rocket

[Expat]

Well the launch could be in Japan or Europe (or wherever they might launch from.) It doesn't even have to be an Arab program to use Arab money.

[Michel Van]

Originally Posted by Expat

Well the launch could be in Japan or Europe (or wherever they might launch from.) It doesn't even have to be an Arab program to use Arab money.

mean Zillion of Saudi Arabia petrol Dollar to ESA?
were there not a Saudi Arabia prince who made a Space shuttle flight ?
seem with this option, europa could get fast a Manned spacecraft

[Warringer]

Personally I'd like to see the Hermes being chosen as ESA's answer to the Apollo Block III+.

[Shevek23]

If an Arab coalition did set out to develop their own launch capability, I'd think they'd look at the Somali coast as their launch site. Could this lead to the intervention of major Arab powers in Somali politics, to stabilize the place so they could use it?

Their efforts might backfire to be sure, or be frustrated by one superpower or the other intervening.

In my prior surveys of world geography looking for the "ideal" equatorial launch site, Somalia came close. Unfortunately there isn't a place in the world that matches every criterion I'd think would be ideal--an eastern coast, on the equator (or if we must compromise on that, within 15 degrees of it) with a wide expanse of ocean fanning out north and south to the east with thousands of miles of emptiness, except for very small islands with few to no people on them where tracking bases could be set up--AND the coast is a highland, the higher the better, with sheer cliffs going down to the sea and no people living inconveniently under your launch track.

The highland part is hard to fulfill; there aren't any such sheer cliffs leading up to a stable launch site that is a significant height above sea level. We're pretty much left with beaches if we want to avoid significant populations being under the launch tracks, and essentially sea level launches. Well, Canaveral and Kourou are both practically at sea level and I don't think the sorts of altitudes that are low enough for people to easily acclimate to offer really significant performance advantages.

The island of Hawaii might work pretty well for a US program, but putting the rocket base on the peaks would mean putting them up where it snows even in the tropics, and I believe the observatories that operate there do have issues with how thin the air is (which is much of the point of looking for a high altitude launch site of course) and eastward of those highlands there must be people living who would either be at risk with each launch or have to be moved. Factor in that the cost of living and working in Hawaii is higher due to its isolation from the rest of the USA (which still is the closest continental land. the nearest point being somewhere on the California coast between Los Angeles and the Bay Area) and I can see why we've stuck with Canaveral. Even Arthur Clarke's recommended site of New Guinea will have people downrange of the highland launch sites he was urging (and lots of islands in the farther reaches of it), and developing those launch sites would be an epic feat of logistics.

So Kourou is about ideal for a European program. But Somalia would be very good for one based in the Arabian/Persian Gulf region.

Having rushed in where angels feared to tread I'm going to wait and see what the authors have the ESA doing regarding manned flight. Sorry, Warringer, I like space planes too but don't get your hopes too high yet.

[Archibald]

From wikipedia...

On 24 January 1968, British Prime Minister Harold Wilson announced its decision, reaffirmed in March 1971 by Prime Minister Edward Heath to end the treaty relationships with the seven trucial sheikhdoms which had been, together with Bahrain and Qatar, under British protection. Days after the announcement, the ruler of Abu Dhabi Sheikh Zayed bin Sultan Al Nahyan, fearing vulnerability, tried to persuade the British to honour the protection treaties by providing the full costs of keeping the British Armed Forces in the Emirates.
Not only did the British Labour government rebuff the offer, it did so in a way that offended the Emirati rulers.[33] After Labour MP Goronwy Roberts informed Sheikh Zayed of the news of British withdrawal, the nine Gulf sheikhdoms attempted to form a union of Arab emirates, but by mid-1971 they were still unable to agree on terms of union even though the British treaty relationship was to expire in December of that year.[34] Bahrain became independent in August, and Qatar in September 1971. When the British-Trucial Sheikhdoms treaty expired on December 1, 1971, they became fully independent.[35] The rulers of Abu Dhabi and Dubai decided to form a union between their two emirates independently, prepare a constitution, then call the rulers of the other five emirates to a meeting and offer them the opportunity to join. It was also agreed between the two that the constitution be written by December 2, 1971.[36] On that date, at the Dubai Guesthouse Palace, four other emirates agreed to enter into a union called the United Arab Emirates. Ras al-Khaimah joined later, in early 1972.[37][38]

What if that arrangement worked - and then, the UAE did the same for the British space program ? Notably the diminutive Black Arrow ?

Man, that would be fun. British rockets launched from Somalia with UAE money... I like this.
We should have a dedicated TL for that.

[Dathi THorfinnsson]

Originally Posted by Shevek23

If an Arab coalition did set out to develop their own launch capability, I'd think they'd look at the Somali coast as their launch site. Could this lead to the intervention of major Arab powers in Somali politics, to stabilize the place so they could use it?

Their efforts might backfire to be sure, or be frustrated by one superpower or the other intervening.

In my prior surveys of world geography looking for the "ideal" equatorial launch site, Somalia came close. Unfortunately there isn't a place in the world that matches every criterion I'd think would be ideal--an eastern coast, on the equator (or if we must compromise on that, within 15 degrees of it) with a wide expanse of ocean fanning out north and south to the east with thousands of miles of emptiness, except for very small islands with few to no people on them where tracking bases could be set up--AND the coast is a highland, the higher the better, with sheer cliffs going down to the sea and no people living inconveniently under your launch track.

The highland part is hard to fulfill; there aren't any such sheer cliffs leading up to a stable launch site that is a significant height above sea level. We're pretty much left with beaches if we want to avoid significant populations being under the launch tracks, and essentially sea level launches. Well, Canaveral and Kourou are both practically at sea level and I don't think the sorts of altitudes that are low enough for people to easily acclimate to offer really significant performance advantages.

The island of Hawaii might work pretty well for a US program, but putting the rocket base on the peaks would mean putting them up where it snows even in the tropics, and I believe the observatories that operate there do have issues with how thin the air is (which is much of the point of looking for a high altitude launch site of course) and eastward of those highlands there must be people living who would either be at risk with each launch or have to be moved. Factor in that the cost of living and working in Hawaii is higher due to its isolation from the rest of the USA (which still is the closest continental land. the nearest point being somewhere on the California coast between Los Angeles and the Bay Area) and I can see why we've stuck with Canaveral. Even Arthur Clarke's recommended site of New Guinea will have people downrange of the highland launch sites he was urging (and lots of islands in the farther reaches of it), and developing those launch sites would be an epic feat of logistics.

So Kourou is about ideal for a European program. But Somalia would be very good for one based in the Arabian/Persian Gulf region.

Having rushed in where angels feared to tread I'm going to wait and see what the authors have the ESA doing regarding manned flight. Sorry, Warringer, I like space planes too but don't get your hopes too high yet.

Launching from altitude has theoretical advantages, but massive practical disadvantages. To get high enough that air is perceptibly thinner, which imo is the only significant advantage, guarantees you are high enough that snow and ice will be problems. Your "cliff" idea offers no advatage at all, that i can see.

As for expanses of ocean north and south, well you only need north OR south, because you can get polar orbits either way.

So Kourou really is very close to being ideal.

As for islands for tracking stations, ships might be a bit more expensive, but they offer far more flexibility.

[Shevek23]

Originally Posted by Dathi THorfinnsson

...Your "cliff" idea offers no advatage at all, that i can see......

I want to clarify, all I mean by that is that the launching base, which in a perfect world would be high up, has absolutely no one living east of it to the sea. How do we arrange for that? Humans being as land-hungry as we are, by having no land whatsoever between the site and the ocean--in other words, the site is up half a mile or more, but is right next to the ocean just to keep people from being in the way, therefore the slope is as high as physically possible on Earth, and that means a steep cliff plunging down to the water.

I hope no one thinks I meant anything wacky like diving down the cliff or something like that.

[Dathi THorfinnsson]

Originally Posted by Shevek23

I want to clarify, all I mean by that is that the launching base, which in a perfect world would be high up, has absolutely no one leaving east of it to the sea. How do we arrange for that? Humans being as land-hungry as we are, by having no land whatsoever between the site and the ocean--in other words, the site is up half a mile or more, but is right next to the ocean just to keep people from being in the way, therefore the slope is as high as physically possible on Earth, and that means a steep cliff plunging down to the water.

I hope no one thinks I meant anything wacky like diving down the cliff or something like that.

Quite. But unless your cliff is multiple km high, and no cliff is, it wouldnt do you any good.

Actually your best approximation might be the andes - if the were facing the other way. High mountains, atacama desert below with almost no people...

But you notice that no space power, even russia who launches over land, and at high latitude, bothers with elevation.

Height of lauch site can be massively over rated.

[Expat]

Originally Posted by Shevek23

The island of Hawaii might work pretty well for a US program, but putting the rocket base on the peaks would mean putting them up where it snows even in the tropics, and I believe the observatories that operate there do have issues with how thin the air is (which is much of the point of looking for a high altitude launch site of course)

I can personally vouch for the thin air up on Mauna Kea, but it's not a good launch site for a lot of other reasons. First off, it's not on the coast, it's about 20-30 miles inland. And Hilo (largest town on the island) is almost directly east of it. It's also got a killer grade to traverse (this would be a problem with most Hawaiian highlands) and the natives hold it sacred and are already pissed that the observatories are there (this is also going to be a problem with many other peaks on the islands, let alone the environmentalists, let alone the NIMBYs.)

[Expat]

And about the Arabs, I'd think an Arab/Japanese partnership might be even more beneficial than a European one (or a solely British one.) This is especially true in the long term. Because of China, developing any kind of launch capability on Japan would look incredibly provocative. Their entire program (if it developed) would have to be located somewhere besides East Asia. Then, when the Japanese bubble bursts, petrodollars could completely float the Japanese effort- an effort that would otherwise evaporate (or at least become much less productive.)