Alternate Space Ports?

Using a surviving Imperial Germany who retains its colonial possessions I chose Mtwara in modern Tanzania (German East Africa). It was the best choice for Germany, offering a near Equator position to boost launches, ocean down range, access to port facilities, decent climate, land to develop infrastructure such as electrical generation, housing, some industry, etc., and is in territory it has control of and can keep secure. And it turns the whole ground nut debacle into a success for an African colony.

This, along with the suggestions for the Italians in Somalia and British in Kenya are interesting, given the obvious implication of a Space Race in a No WWI-world if all three are combined; in effect, they go from a Race for Africa, to a Race to the Stars from Africa.
 
This, along with the suggestions for the Italians in Somalia and British in Kenya are interesting, given the obvious implication of a Space Race in a No WWI-world if all three are combined; in effect, they go from a Race for Africa, to a Race to the Stars from Africa.

Might be a rather more progressive race for Africa, especially a region so otherwise neglected and war torn. Perhaps the notion of backwardness is altered as the gateway to space is in Africa, hopefully far more uplifting on the ground as well as in the air.
 
Am surprised no-one has yet brought up the actual Australian launch site at Woomera (used for Anglo-Australian, UK and US launches from the 1950s onwards) and the proposed spaceport at the north-eastern tip of Australia at Cape York http://blogs.slq.qld.gov.au/jol/2013/10/21/whatever-happened-to-the-cape-york-spaceport/

Woomera (https://tools.wmflabs.org/geohack/g...ra_Range_Complex&params=30.9553_S_136.5322_E_) has the White Sands (https://tools.wmflabs.org/geohack/g...0_08_N_106_24_21_W_type:airport_source:dewiki) problem with too much "important stuff" downrange to the east :)

Cape York suffered from two major issues that I can find; 1) Nobody who actually lived there was in fact interested in the spaceport proposal and at the time the transportation infrastructure wasn't considered 'viable' without massive, (and expensive) improvement. 2) The 1979 "Moon treaty" (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Moon_Treaty) which Australia is a signatory/party which would have made use of "Russian" (Zenits) rockets for launching US satellites a legal Gordian Knot of epic proportions. (Neither the US or USSR/Russia are signatories nor abide by the treaty and to remain "legal" the Australian government would have had to 'enforce' the treaty on both parties and overseen every launch.. with all that implies)

Randy
 

As someone who a) lives in Australia and b) has travelled extensively in that part of Australia, there's not a lot of 'important stuff' downrange for at least 1500km. Unless you count the odd open-cut mine along with kangaroos, sheep, cattle, mallee scrub and saltbush as 'important'.

HW
 
As someone who a) lives in Australia and b) has travelled extensively in that part of Australia, there's not a lot of 'important stuff' downrange for at least 1500km. Unless you count the odd open-cut mine along with kangaroos, sheep, cattle, mallee scrub and saltbush as 'important'.

HW

"Technically" everything 'downrange' (because you HAVE to consider it) is the entire east coast of the nation which DOES contain some 'important' bits :) I can't find it now but there was a very nice picture of a Blue Streak first stage with the only visible 'damage' were the engines being smashed flat... Now imagine that in a Brisbane suburb... "Rocket" people do, by trade and training.

How would it compare to a site in Kenya for example with a better surviving Empire and more developed British led program?

Infrastructure, in-place/natural, transportation, economics of establishing more and supporting thereof on a regular basis all factor in to such decisions. As does, (touched on but not in depth yet) what kind of (and support systems thereof) launch system is everything being geared for. There is a reason neither Johnston Atoll or Matagorda Texas was 'seriously' considered for a major launch point despite one being VASTLY easier and cheaper.

Randy
 
Dathi THorfinnsson wrote:
Is Boca Chica easier than Matagordo?

Now? A bit as the area around Matagorda (which is the way spellcheck insists on spelling it even as google maps says it's wrong : ) ) is much more built up and therefore difficult to 'fit' large new infrastructure into. Earlier Matagorda was initially considered because it lacked that build up which also meant that building it up was going to be expensive especially since it was going to have to be 'away' from the main area due to the nature of rocket launch. Boca Chica wasn't on the 'map' literally earlier because it didn't have the transportation and servicing needed to make it a viable 'hub' and THAT would have to be built first further increasing the costs.

Why is SpaceX going there now? Because that transportation system IS in place* AND Boca Chica (and the surrounding area) courted and offered incentives for the privilege which they couldn't actually do to a 'government' operation. (In fact the 'incentive' is largely on the government side in any case) In any case it's still questionable that SpaceX will actually 'launch' anything from there as BFR/BFS is rather obviously FAR over the limits of what could reasonably launched in the area unless they 'float' it out to sea. And that's ANOTHER set of issues...

The 'problem' with a Texas launch site has always been LV size and range safety needs in that such a launch site would 'close/delay' a large section of the Texas Gulf Coast air and maritime traffic as well as a number of oil platforms and off-shore operations. Frankly there's a good reason such sites have always 'failed' to fly in the past and why everyone was so surprised at SpaceX saying they were going to actually launch from there. Build, and ship (barge actually) from there to Florida yes, launch, very much not so much sense. "Reusability" be damned it would seem to be far too disruptive to be allowed often enough to be viable and that's before we get into size because 'smaller' actually is easier. Look at all the stuff they COULD overfly, (again never mind IF or the planning the people in charge of the decision have to ASSUME something will go wrong, it is their job after all) and think it through and the chances are slim SpaceX is actually going to get permission to do so.
https://www.google.com/maps/place/P...66ccad52215a0f!8m2!3d26.0734368!4d-97.2085762

(It was actually worse for Matagorda but had 'some' advantages for 'higher inclination' orbits which was what interested the Air Force initially: https://www.google.com/maps/place/Matagorda,+TX+77457/@24.778537,-91.7031482,6z/data=!4m5!3m4!1s0x8641dbaece3569e5:0xb2cb46e9ae7cf095!8m2!3d28.691133!4d-95.9682714)

Size matters :) Mostly because the bigger the LV the bigger the sound, thermal and possible 'disaster' radius but things like flight rate and operational parameters matter just as much. Spaceports will probably always have higher levels of all the above than an airport and those impact where you 'want' an airport so... (For example a Laser Launch system or Accelerator System such as a MagLev or Track will have to consider the 'down-range' effects of the system itself. Ie: Anything down-range of the laser has a chance to get 'shined' on with all that entails and the Accelerator System is throwing big chunks of stuff 'down-range' possibly over people's heads that will be throwing out large sonic boom footprints etc)

* Being honest in today's world the worldwide transportation and supply system is nearly ubiquitous so many places that earlier might be not considered today would be and would actively be seeking out such opportunities whereas earlier they might not.

Randy
 
How would it compare to a site in Kenya for example with a better surviving Empire and more developed British led program?

Depends really, see:
https://www.bing.com/search?q=kenya...733ab4d07e93819681b9152f2&cc=US&setlang=en-US

If you go inland you need to build the transportation and infrastructure again AND overfly somebody on the way out. Coastal is better but it's narrow which means your displacing and/or hemming in some of the import/export interface but its the only way to avoid the overflights. Offshore is a maybe but then if you go that route why specifically choose Kenya? Some political and public relations upsides but downsides as well so it may be a wash.

Randy
 
Australia was only the third nation to launch a satellite. http://www.abc.net.au/news/2017-11-29/50-years-since-first-satellite-launch-wresat/9205878

Latest proposal is for a Northern Territory space port https://www.news.com.au/technology/...r/news-story/eb7841c5b39e04fd31302e8b1056e3ab

The European Space Agency uses equipment/installations at Guyana that was originally installed at Woomera. While Woomera was in use there were some wonderful artist's impressions painted of how we would be taking off from the spaceport there soon.

I still have a copy of "Space Port Australia" by Brett Gooden which is a proposal for the Cape York Spaceport

Our space agency is only a week old, though, with the Space Office being canned by a previous government as a cost cutting measure of little foresight.
 
I live about half a mile from where the Dan Dare comic strip had its Spaceport does that count
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dan_Dare
Spaceport
7aa42f6655e78b1b2b9bafe18b6b8cd4--comicon-paradiso.jpg
 
Top