Slashdot Mirror
Brazil Successfully Launches Its First Rocket To Space
thatshortkid writes "The Washington Times is reporting on Brazil's first successful space launch. Since it is closer to the equator, the task of getting up to space is easier, meaning much more cargo room over fuel. Hello commercial launch market! With this development, along with China's expanding space program, India making moves to space, and our own homegrown (ok, still growing) private space industry, where does this put NASA? Does it take a load off of them to pursue bigger endeavors, or will NASA slowly decline in relevance?"
You get a bigger boost from the rotation of the earth near the equater. Sort of a slingshot effect.
- The race is not [always] to the swift, nor the battle to the strong. -
You mean like all the Apollo and Mercury and Gemini gear that was built by NASA didn't...wait, that all was private enterprise at work there too.
P -4009/ v1p3a.htm
0 4/ ch9-1.html
Do people really think all that stuff was built by NASA? Well, if you do, it wasn't. Boeing, Lockheed,North American, and the list goes on. IIRC the LEM had over 4000 subcontractors sending things into Lockheed for the assembly of it.
Look here
http://www.hq.nasa.gov/office/pao/History/S
"In addition, the Apollo Project Office, which had been part of the MSC Flight Systems Division, would now report directly to the MSC Director and would be responsible for planning and directing all activities associated with the completion of the Apollo spacecraft project. Primary functions to be performed by the Office would include:
Monitor the work of the Apollo Principal Contractor NAA and Associate Contractors."
Principal contractor NAA, well that means North American Aircraft, because they were building it and developing the technology.
Sorry to snap, but wow it's annoying when people accuse NASA of falling behind because they've not outsourced, when in fact, that's what NASA does to get stuff built.
http://www.hq.nasa.gov/office/pao/History/SP-42
List of big contractors and agencies.
Now, the escape velocity is the same everywhere, but you get a headstart.
It is also true that launching nearer the equator helps with orbits- it's only possible to launch to an orbit that passes over the launch site (without doing a 'dogleg' which wastes lots of fuel.) All orbits cross the equator, so it's the best place to launch from that point of view. However, the equatorial orbits don't pass over, say, Kazakhstan or New York, so you can't as efficiently launch from there to Geosynchronous orbits or other near-equatorial orbits.
-WolfWithoutAClause
"Gravity is only a theory, not a fact!"In fact Werner von Braun took some interest in the Indian space programme, in the 60s.
India's first satellite was launched 30 years ago, called Aryabhata-I named after the 6th century Indian mathematician, Aryabhata.
Also, the launching station at Thumba is right on the Magnetic Equator. A story covering this can be seen here. Also,
A map of the world's space centers is available.
Actually, the advantages are there, but not huge... In order to achieve a typical LEO, you need (ideally) a delta-v of not quite 8000 m/s. Launching from the equator provides ~470 m/s of that delta-v, if you're shooting for an equatorial orbit, rather than pole-to-pole. Launching from Florida means you only get ~400 m/s plus the sinusoidal trajectory relative to the surface (the orbit is circular, but the axis is not the same as the Earth's). The dry-mass (empty) to wet-mass (fully fueled) ratio is a logarithmic function, so that 70 m/s translates to a percent or two of additional payload mass, but that's all.
Caveat: the actual delta-v needed is closer to 10000 m/s because of various factors. Atmospheric drag and other stuff contribute, but mostly launching straight up then kicking over means a highly eccentric orbit and the extra delta-v means not hitting the atmosphere at perigee.
Hey, I finally got some use out of my graduate level orbital mechanics class!
"I'm a scientist! I don't think, I observe!" - Dr. Clayton Forrester