Posted on 02/23/2018 12:08:23 PM PST by Elderberry
A group of five U.S. private rocket companies met with Brazilian officials in December. Boeing, Lockheed Martin and Vector are interested in launching from the equatorial Alcantara launch complex. The coastal launch site would offer cost savings by its ability to reach orbits often preferred for satellites.
A group representing five U.S. private rocket companies visited Brazil in December to meet with the nation's space agency and analyze the possibility of launching from the equatorial Alcantara launch complex.
The U.S. Department of Commerce was informed about the trip, which was organized by members of the private space industry. The group met with multiple Brazil government and military officials and looked at facilities that may be suitable for manufacturing, assembling and launching satellites.
The launch complex on Brazil's northern coast offers an opportunity to launch near the equator, much like the Guiana Space Centre, which is north of the equator in French Guiana.
An equatorial launch complex offers the opportunity to decrease the amount of fuel the rockets need to reach geosynchronous orbits — often the preferred location for satellites — by as much as 20 percent or more, lowering the cost of each launch. Boeing, Lockheed Martin and Vector are interested in the cost savings Alcantara may offer to launch satellites.
"Vector is very interested in the opportunity," Vector CEO Jim Cantrell told CNBC, adding that the visit included company representatives from Boeing BA , Lockheed Martin LMT , SpaceX and Microcosm.
"Alcantara has a number of advantages, one of them being its ability to reach geosynchronous orbit. It takes much less fuel to launch from the equator to those orbits," Cantrell said.
Brazil's Defense Minister Raul Jungmann told reporters Thursday the complex may be able to support up to five launch pads, key to multiple companies establishing operations.
(Excerpt) Read more at finance.yahoo.com ...
That might be attractive to SpaceX, who currently has to trade off payload for the extra fuel required to soft land their boosters.
Why not Ecuador? They get a head start on the ground level...........
Seems this savings would be more than offset by the expense of getting all the equipment, personnel, material (and the fuel) down there.
I have to believe they've already applied all this to a spreadsheet and are satisfied it offers a savings... but I just don't see it.
Vector CEO Jim Cantrell told CNBC, adding that the visit included company representatives from Boeing BA , Lockheed Martin LMT , SpaceX and Microcosm.
Probably infrastructure. You need large airports and good roads.
You need ocean to the east to drop rocket stages and in case of an accident.
Ecuador is a choice, but they’d be launching towards the east over the Ecuador mountains and Brazil - Any prob lems and you’re bombarding IRBM parts on Brazil.
But, that could be a viable jungle landing site too for SpaceX.
Getting the rocket boosters out of the jungle, back to the seacoast (barge to Cape Canaveral or West Coast US? Getting satellites and boosters and upper stages to/from Ecuador at what port? Through Panama Canal takes a bit longer, costs canal fees of several hundred thousands dollars for the ship.
One other possible cost item is that the US may be imposing environmental fines — or be close to taking this action.
Brazil probably not so much.
An equatorial launch complex offers the opportunity to decrease the amount of fuel the rockets need to reach geosynchronous orbits — often the preferred location for satellites — by as much as 20 percent or more, lowering the cost of each launch. Boeing, Lockheed Martin and Vector are interested in the cost savings Alcantara may offer to launch satellites.
...
Rocket fuel is cheap compared to the cost of the rocket, much less than 20%. And then there is the cost and time to transport the rocket to Brazil.
I don’t think SpaceX would be interested until the BFR rocket is operational. It could fly to any spaceport in the world.
The issue is not the cost of the fuel, the issue is that you can put a bigger payload up with the same rocket if you launch from the equator. Transporting the rocket to Brazil is cheap when the alternative is using a bigger rocket.
I wonder about the extra cost in bringing all the personnel to Brazil. I was at the Kennedy Space Center a few weeks ago. Looked likes it takes a lot of bodies to launch a rocket.
Transporting the rocket to Brazil is cheap when the alternative is using a bigger rocket.
...
That’s true for everybody except SpaceX.
As I recall the Outer Space Treaty of 1967 holds host countries liable for its provisions, and the move to launch overseas does not remove FAA/US liabilities from domestic companies.
That treaty didn't become a public concern until the present century. It's worth a read.
"Peace in Space, Good Luck on Earth."
Is Sealaunch still in business?
We have territory, uninhabited territory, within a degree of latitude from the equator. But the Interior Department is jealous of its guano-encrusted bird habitat. (Amelia Earhart's never-reached last destination.)
Arthur C. Clarke once speculated about the many Third World locations that might have a future supporting ground support for space elevators, though our descendants might need to mine the Moon for sufficient materials.
I think the James Webb Space Telescope launch is planned for an ESA Arianne 5 from the Guiana Space Centre, northwest of Kourou.
From the article: Vector CEO Jim Cantrell told CNBC, adding that the visit included company representatives from Boeing BA , Lockheed Martin LMT , SpaceX and Microcosm.
That might be attractive to SpaceX, who currently has to trade off payload for the extra fuel required to soft land their boosters.
Nope, the opposite is true. If the economics of launch had to do with the price of fuel, SpaceX wouldn't have used propulsive landing in the first place. As Moonman62 said, the cost of fuel is a tiny fraction of a launch.
Last time I ran the numbers, and I'd enjoy a correction, Equatorial angular momentum adds 300 meters per second from launch over KSC/CCAFB. One reason SpaceX might not have hustled for that extra push is their dependency on federal funding.
Since SpaceX is way down at the bottom of the list when it comes to federal funding, not to mention that at least Boeing and LM are also on the list, the second part of that makes no sense. Equatorial launch makes it possible to get more into orbit with the same fuel.
SpaceX is doubtless scouting locations for suborbital service by the BFS, although getting a little bonus in the payload can't hurt as they take over the entire commercial lanuch business.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.