Which is the best location for a spaceport?
- Thread starter Heisenberg
- Start date
that would be on extinct volcano in nation Equador at equator, if we stay in same area.
back to topic
from the list, Guyana is best launch option near at equator.
if you want launch geostationary satellite in Orbit.
Flocculencio
Donor
Singapore. It's essentially at the crossroads of most international terrestrial trade and transport routes and already has highly sophisticated logistics infrastructure.
Guyana, because there's lots of space. Barbadians would end up breathing rocket fuel fumes.
Of those:
Belieze is right out, way too much overflight of the rest of the Caribean islands to be doable if you're dropping stages. Maybe if you were fully-reusable and had proven safety margins closer to airlines than current launch providers, but that's a ways off.
Jamaica has much the same issues.
Barbados is better as far as position, but it's tiny and from the looks of it, carving out a couple sqaure miles for a launch site would be very challenging. Even if you're thinking something airlaunched of Skylon-esque, the runway's too short and extending it would be a challenge.
Trinidad has good position and looks to have land available. Guyana, though, is definitely the prime canidate of that list.
As far as Singapore: looking at Google Maps, they don't have room, and there's the Philipines, Malaysia, and Indonesia in the way of an easterly launch track.
Belieze is right out, way too much overflight of the rest of the Caribean islands to be doable if you're dropping stages. Maybe if you were fully-reusable and had proven safety margins closer to airlines than current launch providers, but that's a ways off.
Jamaica has much the same issues.
Barbados is better as far as position, but it's tiny and from the looks of it, carving out a couple sqaure miles for a launch site would be very challenging. Even if you're thinking something airlaunched of Skylon-esque, the runway's too short and extending it would be a challenge.
Trinidad has good position and looks to have land available. Guyana, though, is definitely the prime canidate of that list.
As far as Singapore: looking at Google Maps, they don't have room, and there's the Philipines, Malaysia, and Indonesia in the way of an easterly launch track.
Last edited:
Spaceport for which nation? In any case "as near as the Equator as possible" is your answer. So Guyana. For an International, heavy duty spaceport (including a space elevator) I would recomend Singapore (huge, busy port and infrastructure. But it would need to be built on the ocean, probably.), somewhere in Ecuador or Brazil, or even Kenya or Gabon (existing ports and infrastructure would need to develop of course).
And if you really want to aim to crazy, pick Nauru. The nation is bankrupt enough that I can see them renting the island to a space elevator corporation. It's near the equator, in a rather neutral location so nobody can monopolize trade (well, nations in the Pacific basin can try). Building infrastructure can be a bitch though.
And if you really want to aim to crazy, pick Nauru. The nation is bankrupt enough that I can see them renting the island to a space elevator corporation. It's near the equator, in a rather neutral location so nobody can monopolize trade (well, nations in the Pacific basin can try). Building infrastructure can be a bitch though.
I'm going to say Guyana. Closer to Equator than the others AFAIK, which is best for GTO launches and most BEO to the best of my knowledge.
Guyana is the best option on the list, though I always though East Africa near the equator would be a good location for a spaceport. Of course, this would require the infrastructure in the area to be massively improved.
None of the Above
Why this obsession with spaceports and hurricanes? Any spaceport which has to hide in the basement on a regular basis every year is not worth the cost. A major mistake was not using White Sands, New Mexico for OUR spaceport. Excellent weather and Fort Bliss to the East for a first stage descent.
Otherwise, Guam may be the best U.S. territory launch site.
For the rest of the world, build the spaceport in Sri Lanka.
Why this obsession with spaceports and hurricanes? Any spaceport which has to hide in the basement on a regular basis every year is not worth the cost. A major mistake was not using White Sands, New Mexico for OUR spaceport. Excellent weather and Fort Bliss to the East for a first stage descent.
Otherwise, Guam may be the best U.S. territory launch site.
For the rest of the world, build the spaceport in Sri Lanka.
Tallest Skil
Banned
Obviously Guyana. Actually on the Equator would be better, but if these are the only choices…
Singapore is in an impossibly bad position for a space launch site, as e of pi said, whatever its other virtues. There's no range worth speaking of, and the very business that makes it logistically attractive means its impossibly risky to actually use; even the ocean has enough ships that there's a nontrivial chance of dropping your boosters/first stages on someone's head.
In any case, the actual logistics loads of actual spaceports are not too high per se, since all but the very very busiest don't actually do much, the main problem is keeping reasonably close to manufacturing sites and being on the coast; this is why despite early proposals by von Braun, Christmas Island (the Pacific one) was never actually used as an American launch site, and Guam or Hawaii were never seriously considered. You can also look at SpaceX's use, or rather non-use, of Kwajalein once they stopped building the Falcon 1. It proved to be so distant from the manufacturing site that despite the performance advantages it was unattractive for actual use.
Similarly, since White Sands first of all had no access to the sea and hence barge shipping for oversized first stages like the S-IC, and second of all had no coastline anywhere nearby, meaning larger rockets would pose an unacceptable risk to nearby populations (and yes, there are people who live near enough to White Sands for that to be a risk, for example El Paso), it stopped being really used after the first few years of American space research, and most activity shifted to Canaveral or Vandenberg. There was some consideration of using White Sands as a launch site for Shuttle, especially early on when Shuttle wasn't supposed to be dropping boosters, since it could be an all-purpose all-azimuth site, but the lack of infrastructure compared to Canaveral and Vandenberg sunk that one (I've also heard the sands of White Sands caused problems on STS-3, which did a landing there as an alternate to Edwards, but I'm not sure of their exact nature).
Baikonur was a bit of an exception to that, but the Soviets had few good choices, and overall they did about as well as they could. Note that Pletsek is much more conventional in location, except for being near water (they were shipping everything by rail anyways, after all).
So what you're really looking for is a site which is close enough to major shipping routes that it's not problematic to have traffic come by, but not so close that there's a risk of falling parts landing on important shipping, while having sea access and a large clear range to the east and, preferably, south or north (for polar launches). Being near the equator is also handy. East Africa is probably your best bet for the total package, although as noted earlier political and infrastructural issues would be a problem. The tip of Somalia is probably one of the best overall launch sites in the world, rivaled mainly by Brazil's Rio Grande do Norte.
Of course, if you're operating under non-historical conditions, like having space elevators or fully reusable launch vehicles and a great deal of space-Earth traffic, then the ideal would be somewhat different.
Here's a question: presume a technological situation where rockets and stages are not being shed as vessels ascend to orbit. What about Sao Tome?
Also, if we're thinking grand and planning in terms of a space elevator, does proximity to large mineral resources and industrial infrastructure become necessary? If so, how does that change the answer?
Ah, just looked up a list of world iron ore producers: Australia, Brazil, China, India.
Also, if we're thinking grand and planning in terms of a space elevator, does proximity to large mineral resources and industrial infrastructure become necessary? If so, how does that change the answer?
Ah, just looked up a list of world iron ore producers: Australia, Brazil, China, India.
Because you'll be dropping your stages all over Texas and Oklahoma, or further east, and that simply will not fly with the public.
There's a reason why places like Cape Canaveral and Kourou in French Guiana have been the centers of most launch activity. They are the perfect combination of plenty of available land, near infrastructure, and are wide open for thousand miles and more with nothing but ocean to their east for dropping stages or falling pieces from failed launches.
I don't know what Heisenberg plans for TL
but it sound for British space program the list are former colony or oversea territory.
again Guyana would be the best, because easy to reach from England by boat or aircraft
see the reason why the french build there space port in French Guiana!
but it sound for British space program the list are former colony or oversea territory.
again Guyana would be the best, because easy to reach from England by boat or aircraft
see the reason why the french build there space port in French Guiana!
Northern Queensland offers real possibilities as well. The problem is that it's a lot farther away from England than Guyana.