Slashdot Mirror

Why would you want to launch from a sea platform that's rocking around in the waves? Why not launch from land somewhere?

Not that big of a deal. Sea Launch does this all the time. Though their launch platform is probably quite a bit more stable considering most of it is under water.

...into international waters. You don't have to get permission to leave the planet from there...

You said: "It's almost impossible for a US based company (or any company based in the West) to go to some third world nation for a launch." The problem is that even if they're not really third world nations - the possibilities for terrorists and the like are always present.

Virgin Galactic could always move their operations to another launch site - so let's look at the contenders:

The European Space Agency (ESA) launches it's missions from their French Guiana base which is in South America. Not exactly a third world nation since it's "part of" France - but the area itself is hardly developed. I imagine they could more easily bribe and conspire in that environment [outside the base itself].

The only other serious launching site are the Russian ones (Baikonur etc) - they're already in the business of serving the rich space tourists. Now, the Russians have lived through more terrorism than the US ever will - they know their stuff. Still a few extra dollars will get you far...

On another note NASA used an African site in Gambia as backup for several missions - I imagine the Gambians would welcome the business. They would certainly accept a few extra dollars - and we all know where that leads...

On a final note there's always SeaLaunch - though I hardly think that they're going to launch SpaceShipOne from there!

To be quite honest, that's utter bull. You don't have to take up and land in america. The world is bigger then those 50 states alone. Even if the JAA adopts those rules I doubt that all countries would actually adhere them. No doubt that there are a few countries like development countries that'll just give the JAA the finger :) Also, there are ways around it aswell: http://www.sea-launch.com/ Sea Launch can launch (launches?) from the equator in international waters.

Sea launch http://www.sea-launch.com/ successfully launched an almost 6,000kg EADS-built satellite to orbit for Inmarsat.

Sea Launch continues their record of being one of the most (the most?) reliable satellite launching system and the most cost-effective.

And they also show that despite what other posters have said, the US is not far behind in this area.

But note that Sea Launch isn't an American company only. In fact, their successes have been atop Russian and Russian-derived launch vehicles.

I used to work on that launch project, Sea Launch. It was alot of hard work, but it was also alot of fun. http://www.sea-launch.com/ Novel to follow: For three to four weeks at a time we would put to sea, with the rocket resting peacefully in the hangar. During the one and a half week trip to the equator from Long Beach the crew would spend the time performing launch rehearsals and verifying their system readiness to support the launch. Needless to say there was plenty of time for recreation. Basketball, volleyball, table tennis, and spin classes in the cargo hold followed by poker and darts in the bar. But nothing beats launch day! You have been preparing for this day for the past three months. You have spent countless hours double-checking your launch procedure and launch support equipment. At L minus one hour it starts to get real intense. I take my usual position in front of the RF tracking station after launching the final weather balloon to check upper atmospheric winds. I watch my spectrum analyzers and AGC levels to ensure maximum signal quality. You take one final look over your shoulder at the rocket standing 6 kilometers away on the Launch Platform. Then the final countdown; 10, 9, 8, 7, 6, 5, 4, 3, 2, 1, Launch! I see the position change in the signal and I engage autotrack, my fingers poised above the handwheels ready to take over should the autotrack fail. Finally the sound hits the ship and you see the equipment rack light up in this bright orange-yellow light, but you cannot look away from the antenna control. The next three minutes of telemetry data rest solely on your shoulders. Finally the call comes over the net, TDRS has picked up the signal; data recorders are switched to the NASA feed and you relax knowing that you job is done. You stow the antenna and secure your position before signing off the net to go party with the crew on the weather deck. And then there is the sail home, one week of the most absolute boredom you can ever experience. I read all 5 Harry Potter books in an row, twice, because I needed something to do. But eventually that passes and you hear that call of Catalina Island off of the starboard bow. Seeing the smog of LA is one of the sweetest sights of that whole trip. You take a couple of days to get to know your family again, and then do it all over again. Justin Miles Former Sea Launch RF Technician

Theat is incorrect. Sea Launch has been launching payloads since 1999. National Geographic TV just aired an episode of Megastructures about the company and their semi-submersible launch pad. It will air again on Wednesday, August 10. Pretty neat project they have.

http://www.sea-launch.com/

They have launched over a dozen payloads, including several satelites for Direct TV and three XM Radio satelites(Rock, Roll, and Rhythm.)

Their heaviest payload so far was 13,376 lb:

Spaceway 1 - April 26, 2005 Sea Launch delivered DIRECTV's 6,080 kg (13,376 lb) Spaceway 1 satellite into geosynchronous transfer orbit, on its way to a final orbital position of 102.8 degrees West Longitude, completing the successful launch of the heaviest commercial satellite to date. The 702 model spacecraft, with a design life of 12 years, is one of four Boeing-built Ka-band satellites that DIRECTV has scheduled for launch over the next three years as part of an historic expansion of programming capacity for delivery of more than 1,500 local and national High Definition channels and other advanced programming services.

You could consider it, but you would then need more fuel or lighter payloads. Launches get more efficient the closer you get to the equator since the Earth is spinning (which is why the shuttle always goes east). AZ, NM, and NV are all farther north.

This is also why Boeing built SeaLaunch for satellite launches: they can drag the launch vehicle out to the equator to get as much momentum as possible out of the Earth's rotation.

Screw the beaurocrats! Launch it yourself. it takes about 7 minutes to reach the ionosphere. Even if the US air force could scrample jets in that time to take you out, you're out of the range of their missiles. Or if you don't believe that, then the GIANT PLUME OF FIRE thats behind your rocket will confuse any heat-seeker and you'll most likely not get hit.

What about the friggin lasers?

But seriously, governments will not look kindly upon your return. Best to launch in international waters flagged under a small island nation's flag. And if you don't want to coordinate with US/Chinese/Russians, then launch in the South Pacific (east of US military bases) or South Atlantic, Maybe eastern Caribbean. At the expense of a ship of adequate size at least you could avoid some of the politics of launching in some "national" airspace.

That is what Sea Launch does. And though they don't say so on their web site, I bet they can cut through a lot of red tape for the launches themselves, being in international waters.

DirecTV disagrees with you.

Yes, it is nearly impossible to get large things onto a floating platform.

Exactly what newer methods?

This platform.

Get your facts straight.

Which facts?

The launch can be seen at the Sea Launch website www.sea-launch.com This was the heaviest launch for Sea Launch to date.

NASA would need to develop a launch facility for Delta IV of the type and in the location that they can maximize their dollars income and minimize dollars per Kilogram cost.

NASA needs to do nothing of the sort; Boeing et. al. already have.

Can they launch a IV heavy? Not yet, I don't think, but I'm sure they've got a few people on top of that ;~)

And NASA's job is not to earn money. However it does not follow that they should be throwing it away. In that sense, your point stands well enough; at the costs we are seeing from our program we could easily buy payload space on the Ariane and launch a small, 'people only' shuttle (had we one).
However, no matter what we have to say, some of the components for the ISS were designed to fit in the shuttle. To stop using the shuttle would be to throw those peices away (or send them back for re-design, which would be just as expensive as making new ones). Not stating my opinion on that, just say'n...

Sea Launch is a limited liability corporation with Headquarters and Home Port facilities in Long Beach, Calif. The company is owned by Boeing of Seattle, Wash. (40%); RSC-Energia of Moscow, Russia (25%); Kvaerner ASA of Oslo, Norway (20%); and SDO Yuzhnoye/PO Yuzhmash of Dnepropetrovsk, Ukraine (15%). Financing for the venture is provided by these companies and through debt financing arranged by Chase Manhattan Bank in New York.

Boeing DOES do commercial launches for whoever wants to hire them and does it with their own facility launching from the middle of the ocean. Is this something like that what you had in mind?

Oh really? I wonder what these guys think of that...
http://www.sea-launch.com/
http://www.arianespace.com/

Ever heard of Sea Launch?

A not so well known company actually makes a floating platform that can launch rockets. It's heavily funded by Boeing, and advertises equatorial launches:

http://www.sea-launch.com/

Another interesting note is that there are a lot of complaints on the net about how the US government, according to some at the behest of NASA to keep the shuttle viable, has stiffled commercial launches. Here is an interesting site discussing the affect of the laws:

http://www.spacefuture.com/archive/barriers_to_spa ce_enterprise.shtml

Actually, at this point even NASA launches are handled by private enterprise. You may want to read up about United Space Alliance. Commercial launches tend to be managed by the launch vehicle contractor, although the actual pad management and launch operations may be run by the Air Force in some cases (launches from the Cape or Vandenberg. However, companies like Sea Launch do the whole launch themselves without NASA or Air Force involvement.

The military launches really should be handled by the military.

The military does handle military launches. And everything else. The US Air Force' 45th Space Wing runs Cape Canaveral Air Force Station (CCAFS), which handles all (military, civil, and commercial) of the launches out of the Cape, aside from NASA manned launches (see here for more). The USAF also operates Vandenberg Air Force Base on the California coast, which handles launches into polar orbits.

Or you could do what Sea Launch does.

re: Boeing and "privatized space"
What's this about Boeing contracted to build and launch 3 more private satellites for a return private customer? Or this about creating a private space port aka Sea Launch?
Disclaimer: I work for Boeing, but not on satellites.

You can't but like Paul Allen sometimes just because of how insane he is. Watching an old Windows 1.0 "commercial" he did, it almost seems like a parody of a computer commercial. It might be, but I cannot tell ;)

They talk a lot about space tourism in the article, but I believe that is a long, long way off still. The first thing that would happen is private launch of payloads, but that already happens..
Even so, even something like $20,000 is cheap for a ticket and right now you'd only get a 10 second ride in space, and back down ya go.

There are plenty of people developing new space transports. Most notably spacex. But there are many more such as the mysterious Blue Origin by Jeff Bezos and of course Burt Rutans followup to the SpaceShipOne.

And even if these efforts all fail, there are plenty of relatively cheap launchers available today, most notably the russian proton and the zenit sea launch.

And we most definitely do not need a new shuttle. We need cheap access to space, and the shuttle was a total failure in this regard.

Right. If Bill Gates woke up tomorrow and decided he wanted to retire in a mansion on Mars, and was willing to commit his $50B to this goal, I bet there would be a LOT more serious interest in space travel.

Privately owned launch alternatives like Sea Launch are going to help a bit, but we still need someone with a lot of money who wants to do more than launch TV satellites.

But then the US Shuttle is only 'semi-real' too, needing an expendable tank and SFB's to be fished out of the drink and majorly refurbished every launch.

But the Soviets scored a cost advantage there. The most expensive parts of the US Shuttle are the main engines which were designed to be fired repeatedly. They need maintenance every few firings. The Soviets had engines that only needed to be used once then thrown away.

And they had a second advantage. Because the Shuttle's engines are attached to the orbiter, the vehicle has to haul them into orbit, reducing the payload. Energia threw away the main engines, Buran only needed small, light thrusters to achieve orbital velocity - so it could carry more.

IIRC, the four relatively small boosters attached to Energia were designed to be reusable. They would parachute back to Earth and be refurbished. They were liquid oxygen/kerosene engines and much simpler to refurbish than the Shuttle's main engines.

In the event, they were the only successful part of the Energia programme. Energia itself was only launched twice, Buran only the once. The boosters were redesigned into the Zenit launcher which now powers Sealaunch. (It gives you some idea of how big Energia must have been when each of its four boosters can put a sizeable payload into geostationary orbit!)

Best wishes,
Mike.

It would be easiest to launch from the equator, right?
Obviously, I'm not the first person to have thought of this.
In fact, there's a company set up to do this:
http://www.sea-launch.com

This is the closest launch pad to the equator, not Brazil's:

http://www.sea-launch.com/

Brasil's pad could undoubtably be made to support heavier launch vehicles/payloads than Sea Launch, though.

In fact, Hughes / Boeing got into big trouble with the State Department for "exporting" too much technical information to the Chinese the last time they helped them launch a satellite using Sea Launch. Imagine that...

Actually, they've had one failure so far out of eight with another launch to occur on June 10. Still while only a few launches, this is pretty good start considering their competition and their costs are way less. Both XM Radio and Direct TV have used them to launch satellites.

Here is a link to past launches

This private venture is 40% owned by Boeing

Methinks there might be opportunities for British Aerospace and Concorde to start launching space missions...

The sad part of it is that all that Boeing are doing is building the payload module and the interstage stuff. The rocket is to all intents and purposes an import.

I wish you the best of luck with your career. Maybe NASA will slacken up on their control of commercial launches. Otherwise, maybe you should learn French and move (pay is still a problem in Russia/Ukraine).

Arianne have nothing on these guys when it comes to launch locations close to the equator.

they've converted an old oil rig into a launch platform and tow it out to the launch site...

First, launching from the sea has been and IS being done now. In fact if you bother to read the Highlift website summary, you'll note that Sea Launch is the basis for the tether platform. I'm not aware of any extraordinary security taken for Sea Launch that wouldn't otherwise be taken for high value items.

As for defending it from attacks, well... This is a 1 METER wide ribbon, that's going to be about as thick as a sheet of paper.
In the middle of the ocean.
Design to withstand meteor impacts.
Do you think someone is just going to walk over and cut it down with a hacksaw? Or shoot it? Crash into it? And the worst thing you could POSSIBLY do to the ribbon is knock off a few miles of it. The rest is still in space, probably with many miles of reserve ribbon for repairs etc. ready to be lowered and have it fixed in a few months...

Losing a few miles probably won't even be that big of a deal considiering the minor percentage amount of mass that would be lost. I'm sure they'll have some mobile counter weights on the end that can just be reeled in to compensate, until the new ribbon is deployed.

Russian subs are actually really good at navigating up around the arctic circle, good for putting stuff in polar orbits.

If you want to launch from the equator, this is the ship to use:

SeaLaunch does that. Works fine.

There are places isolated enough for nuclear rocket launch. In 1979, Israel and South Africa tested an atomic bomb in the isolated area between Africa and Antarctica. The only reason anybody found out was that one of the old Vela nuclear test ban treaty satellites picked it up.

For the most part. Where you want to launch from depends on what type of orbit you would like to wind up in. If, for example, you would like to launch a communications or weather satellite into geosynch (parks it over some place on the earth), then by launching close to the equator, you don't have to use up fuel getting from some N/S lat to the equatorial plane (letting you use more of the payload for insturments rather than fuel). This is the motivation behind sea-launch, where a big platform is lugged into the middle of the ocean and a rocket is launched from it. Since a geosynchronous orbit is one of the most popular and valuable, this is why there is so much of an interest in launch areas close to the equator. (However for other types of orbits, Siberia would work quite nicely).

But get how they plan to launch it: on a Russian submarine ICBM

Seems a damn sensible use of surplus (? ;-) ) submarines to me. Kind of a DIY version of SeaLaunch. You could sail a whole fleet of these to the equator to get that optimal launch postion benefit. Surely a cheap way for emerging space nations to get their packages orbital.

(my rant) Seems like a far better use of submarines to me than giving them to the military... mind you reckon that's precisely the reason the big boys will be paranoid about this idea being talked about by the emerging nations...(end rant) :-)

Why is that particular point made? Because its Russian, or because it's an ICBM?

Might be because it's being launched from a submarine? Apart from SeaLaunch, how common are satellite launches from sea? I don't know, but I would assume they're not that common (and particularly from a submarine).

-dair

Sea Launch?

It's working quite well. There was a show on The Discovery Channell or TLC about it. They took an old oil rig and converted it into a self propelled launch platform.

http://www.sea-launch.com/

SeaLaunch is currently operational, even if they've had a hiccup or two.

The article says nothing as to the cause of failure for this launch. I don't think everyone should be jumping to conclusions about the SeaLaunch's effectiveness. But.. of course they are : "The international Sea Launch program suffered a major setback Sunday"
I'm by no means a rocket expert, but just from a troubleshooting point of view, I would think that if the rocket got off the ground/SeaLaunch and flew for a little while before having problems, it would seem to point to the Rocket as a more likely point of failure than the Launch Pad. The SeaLaunch seems to be some pretty sweet tech, from the safety factor of launching things in the middle of the ocean to the ability of it to carry larger loads due the physical advantages of being at the equator. I hope it doesn't get abandoned/given a bad name because of bad press.

//Phizzy