Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

New Soyuz Launch Facility Near the Equator

Posted by Soulskill on from the wish-we-could-do-that-space-thing dept.

tcd004 writes "Russian and French teams are currently hard at work in French Guiana on the northern coast of South America, building the first Soyuz launch facility in the Western Hemisphere. Soyuz rockets normally carry 3,500 pound payloads into orbit, but from the French Guiana spaceport, the rocket will have an added benefit of being near the equator where the Earth's spin makes launching slightly easier. This extra boost allows Soyuz to deliver a 6,600 pound payload into orbit. The first launches are scheduled for October."

22 of 127 comments (clear)

  1. Building? by Leuf · · Score: 4, Informative

    Considering according to TFA they had a launch dry run back in May and launching in two months I don't think there's too much building going on at this point.

  2. Whoa. That's a lot more payload! by WoTG · · Score: 2

    If a space shuttle was launched from French Guiana, would the payload also have gone up 86%? Or does it not quite scale that way?

    1. Re:Whoa. That's a lot more payload! by Isaac-1 · · Score: 4, Interesting

      Now can we change the orbital inclination of the ISS to something more sane?

    2. Re:Whoa. That's a lot more payload! by Vecanti · · Score: 2

      Exactly, and does that mean it would be impossible to launch a Soyuz rocket from the south pole?

    3. Re:Whoa. That's a lot more payload! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Informative

      Well, Cape Canaveral is about 28 degrees latitude, while the Baikonur Cosmodrome in Kazahkstan is 46 degrees. We'd gain something by going to the French Guiana facility's 5 degrees, but nowhere near as much. (The extra velocity kick from Earth's rotation is proportional to the cosine of latitude.)

    4. Re:Whoa. That's a lot more payload! by AlphaFreak · · Score: 2

      The Guyana Soyuz launch facility is not prepared to launch Soyuz spacecrafts. It's prepared to launch Soyuz ROCKETS. The manned spacecraft and the rocket share the Soyuz name (and, of course, the Soyuz capsule is launched atop of a Soyuz rocket). Right now, there will be no manned launches from Guyana. So the ISS must keep its current orbit by now.

    5. Re:Whoa. That's a lot more payload! by daem0n1x · · Score: 3, Funny

      Soyuz rockets normally carry 3,500 pound payloads into orbit.

      This extra boost allows Soyuz to deliver a 6,600 pound payload into orbit.

      What's puzzling me is, why would someone want to send all that money into orbit? And, if it's in French Guiana, why do they send British Pounds instead of Euros?

    6. Re:Whoa. That's a lot more payload! by Teancum · · Score: 2

      Not quite. The reason why trips to the ISS are going to continue to be launched from the Baikonur Cosmodrome is because the orbital inclination of the ISS was designed explicitly for vehicles launched from Kazakhstan. For crewed flights leaving from French Guyana, it would actually require even more fuel for the launch than if they left from Baikonur. This is called orbital mechanics, so not all things are equal.

      The reason why the Space Shuttle can make it to the ISS is because it has extra fuel that can make the trip, and a whole lot of reserve capacity, not to mention that KSC isn't quite on the equator either. It takes a little extra fuel, but it isn't too bad. BTW, changing the orbital inclination of the ISS at this point would need an act of God or some other divine miracle. The mass of that station alone would preclude any sort of substantial changes of its orbital characteristics. About the only change that I've heard about is to try and boost the ISS to a slightly higher orbit so it can avoid more atmosphere... something that is routinely done anyway at the moment and the Soyuz spacecraft can make it to a slightly higher orbit.

      For GEO or equatorial flights, there is a huge benefit for launching from near the equator, not to mention that this move is being done explicitly to allow RKK Energia (the company who makes the Soyuz rockets) the opportunity to go after the international satellite market.... worth several billion per year at the moment.

      Adding the extra facilities for crewed launches is comparatively trivial and certainly could be done, and I haven't heard that the idea is being ruled out completely either. The problem would be, where would the ultimate destination be if you launched from there? Perhaps if Robert Bigelow gets his space stations going or there is some increased demand for flights to the Moon (Soyuz spacecraft was originally designed for the Soviet lunar program) you might see some crewed flights from that location. At the moment, you are correct that flights from there will only be unmanned flights.

  3. A bit ironic ... by MacTO · · Score: 3, Interesting

    I know that it is far too early to tell what's going to happen with the U.S. space program, but I find it quite ironic that Russia managed to rebuild their manned and civilian space program within years of the political and economic collapse of the U.S.S.R. and that the U.S.A. is depending upon them even though the American economic collapse is minor in comparison.

    Now I've been out of the space exploration loop for a few years, but it strikes me that the U.S.A. does not have civilian or manned launch capabilities at the moment. That leaves the civilian program contracting out launches to the Russians, E.S.A., and their military. And quite frankly I don't see that changing in the near future since I don't think that they have the political will to change it.

    1. Re:A bit ironic ... by icebike · · Score: 2

      I know that it is far too early to tell what's going to happen with the U.S. space program, but I find it quite ironic that Russia managed to rebuild their manned and civilian space program within years of the political and economic collapse of the U.S.S.R. and that the U.S.A. is depending upon them even though the American economic collapse is minor in comparison.

      The difference is that the US has chosen not to pursue the Shuttle program, so that the money can be spent on never ending social programs.
      Its purely a political choice, not a technical one. There is nothing preventing the US fro building additional shuttles with upgraded components, other than those that see it as a waste of money.

      Saturn V payload to low earth orbit was 262,000 lbs. Energia payload to LEO 220,462 lb, Shuttle payload to LEO is 53,600 lbs. Compared to Soyuz's 6,600 lbs, (even on the equator). The trend is smaller and cheaper.

      There is a great deal of heavy lifting that simply has no platform these days.

      --
      Sig Battery depleted. Reverting to safe mode.
    2. Re:A bit ironic ... by Frangible · · Score: 4, Funny

      This is because Russia has a superior and far more efficient form of government than we do.

      Head of space appropriations committee... Vladimir Putin
      Head of Federal Space Agency... Vladimir Putin
      Head of Department of Revenue... Vladimir Putin
      Space Agency Oversight Committee... Vladimir Putin
      Director of Cosmodrone Development... Vladimir Putin
      Soyuz Launch Officer... Vladimir Putin
      Cosmonauts No. 1 - 6... Vladimir Putin
      Women's Tennis Quality Oversight... Vladimir Putin

      And that, comrade, is why Russia won the space race.

    3. Re:A bit ironic ... by 0123456 · · Score: 2

      There is nothing preventing the US fro building additional shuttles with upgraded components, other than those that see it as a waste of money.

      That and because it would be insane as anything other than a jobs program.

    4. Re:A bit ironic ... by bluemonq · · Score: 2

      The modern Soyuz-2 rocket has a payload of roughly 16,000 pounds from its current facilities. No idea where the 3,500 pounds is coming from.

    5. Re:A bit ironic ... by tp1024 · · Score: 2

      Still wrong. It's all about commercial payloads, which usually go to the GTO - Geostationary Transition Orbit. The satellite will then use its own fuel to reach the geostationary orbit.

      The increase in payload is all down to not needing an additional plane-change maneuver - which very taxing in terms of fuel - and some slight gains through additional rotational velocity of the earth at the equator.

      The Soyuz payload to low earth orbit (LEO) is roughly 9t vs. 25t for the Shuttle.However, on average the Shuttle had a payload of less than 12t on board. It could carry a third stage in its cargo bay to lift satellites into GTO, but in this case the satellites were limited to something on the order of 3t - not much more than Soyuz.

      Also, for comparison: An Ariane 5 can carry about 10t into GTO or 20t into LEO and costs about $200mio per launch. If Falcon Heavy works out as planned, it will carry up to 19t into GTO or 53t into LEO for $100mio (+/- 20%) per launch. Even if they miss the projected cost by a factor of two, it's still very competitive. (It helps a lot to build a rocket in one facility, instead of half a dozen or so in as many countries spread all over Europe and using standardized parts everywhere instead of differing technologies for each stage.)

    6. Re:A bit ironic ... by hackertourist · · Score: 2

      The difference is that the US has chosen not to pursue the Shuttle program, so that the money can be spent on never ending social programs.

      Yes, social programs like 2 simultaneous wars halfway across the globe, and paying interest on the national debt.

      There ware good technical reasons to end the Shuttle program. The Shuttle configuration is flawed, and no amount of updated components is going to change that. It was time for a clean sheet.

      The US is on its way to being able to provide Saturn V-class launches again. Only this time it's a private company instead of NASA. That's not a bad thing.

    7. Re:A bit ironic ... by IrquiM · · Score: 2

      No, the difference is that Russia scrapped their shuttle programme, and continued with something cheaper they knew did the job required.

      --
      This is blinging
    8. Re:A bit ironic ... by Teancum · · Score: 2

      I don't know the current budget, but some estimates of the NRO (National Reconnaissance Office) may be as high as $40 billion, with more realistic numbers being perhaps closer to $15-$20 billion. Keep in mind that nearly everything that the NRO does is for stuff that goes into space, and that the USAF has other vehicles which goes into space too that is beyond the NRO programs as well. This is "the other space agency" which is seldom talked about. Other federal departments also have their own independent projects in space, like NOAA and their weather satellites.

      Also keep in mind that not everything that NASA does goes into space, as there is the aviation research arm and some other activities they perform as well.

  4. Retard system by andresambrois · · Score: 5, Insightful

    I find it baffling that, in this day and age, one can still read news articles using the imperial system. About space travel, of all things.

    1. Re:Retard system by oobayly · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Why, both systems work. In school we only used SI units, at home we used both (my Dad is a farmer and even though the Department of Agriculture used imperial, he used SI as he had a lot of German equipment). In uni (Aero engineering) I was taught both. Sure it can be an arse-ache to convert mass to volume in imperial, but you get a feel for the numbers.
      Besides, as long as you state what units you use, you can use any mixture safely* - I've described something as a metre by a yard (it wasn't quite square), and got some strange looks, but it was the most accurate description. I also calculate my fuel consumption in miles per litre.(about 8 is good for me). I describe my mass & height in kilos & centimetres, but if I measure something short I'll use my thumb and estimate it in inches.

      * Safely, but maybe not conveniently.

    2. Re:Retard system by Laser+Dan · · Score: 4, Insightful

      I find it baffling that, in this day and age, one can still read news articles using the imperial system. About space travel, of all things.

      Well 6,600 pounds is 2,994 kg, so I suspect that the actual value is 3,000 kg and it has been converted to pounds for for certain poor backwards readers.

    3. Re:Retard system by alex67500 · · Score: 2

      1) It's called the moderation system, and
      2) "Like" is deprecated. It's "+1" you're looking for.

  5. Clarkes 3rd law by rossdee · · Score: 2

    "BTW, changing the orbital inclination of the ISS at this point would need an act of God or some other divine miracle. "

    Or significantly advanced technology. - the original NCC1701 Enterprise could do it probably, and certainly the Next Generation Starfleet ships would have no problems