Slashdot Mirror
Rocket Labs Picks New Zealand For Its Launch Site
schwit1 writes: The small sat rocket company Rocket Labs has chosen a location in New Zealand as its future launch site. Bloomberg reports: "The company didn't specify how much it was investing in the site, which is due to be completed in the fourth quarter. New Zealand, which has been used in the past by the National Aeronautical and Space Administration, is considered a prime location because rockets launched from that deep in the Southern hemisphere can reach a wide range of Earth orbits. Rocket Lab's remote site on the Kaitorete Spit in the Canterbury region also means it has less air and sea traffic, which translates into more frequent launches and economies of scale, the company said. It also will no longer compete for airspace with the U.S. government." Rocket Labs will have to actually launch something to really make the competition heat up. This announcement, however, illustrates that in the long run, the United States has some significant disadvantages as a spaceport location.
New Zealand over USA? Isn't USA closer to the top of the earth, which would mean less propulsion needed to reach the atmosphere?
Maybe the sheep will have more luck launching rockets that don't explode than anyone else. Going on recent trends, everyone's rockets seem to be failing at being rockets so a bunch of sheep farmers probably have as good a chance as anyone else.
They were founded and incorporated in NZ and it only because a US company when they took VC money last year. Peter Beck is a kiwi and most of the work is still done there.
illustrates that in the long run, the United States has some significant disadvantages as a spaceport location.
We can fix that. Just make NZ a territory of the US and that is not an issue any more. Clears up the Kim Dotcom issue too.
It isn't surprising they have chosen NZ. It is a fairly small-time Kiwi company.
I live in NZ, and wouldn't trust anything designed or built here - hopeless attention to detail.
If one really has to choose a place to launch their rocket the one closest to the Equator is the best
Furthermore, because of the direction of earth spin, rocket travelling from West to East makes much more sense than the one going the opposite direction
Finally, the location must have ample of empty space, such as an ocean, to the East of it, in case something happens to the during the rocket launch the rocket fragments can drop safely back to earth without hitting landmass
For the 3 reasons above, the Micronesian islands provide the best location
... the 'space traffic' isn't as busy as the ones in the United States of America
... and
which has been used in the past by the National Aeronautical and Space Administration,
I'm pretty sure we can all say NASA.
gonna be as high as a kite by then
rocket labs burning out its fuse up here alone
dadede dadeda
A launch site at latitude L can launch into an orbit of inclination L *or higher*. You can launch into a polar orbit from anywhere on the planet. You can only launch into an equatorial orbit from the equator. Equatorial sites have the advantage, not high latitude sites. (Also, the hemisphere doesn't matter. Something launched into low Earth orbit from 45 degrees south will be at 45 degrees north in about 45 minutes time.)
Some technicalities:
Yes, you can launch into one orbit then change plane to a lower inclination later - but doing so in LEO is very expensive. (I think the cheapest way to do it is to put yourself into a high eccentricity orbit, do the plane change at max distance from Earth, then recircularize your orbit into LEO.) ('expense' = delta-v.)
Launching from latitude L also can't launch into retrograde orbits closer than L to 180 degrees. E.g. from latitude +/- 30 degrees, you can launch directly into orbits with inclination between 30 and 150 degrees.
If you specifically want a 45 degree inclination orbit, I don't know whether launching due east from a 45 degree latitude is cheaper or more expensive than launching either NE or SE from an equatorial site. I suspect there is no difference.
Quattuor res in hoc mundo sanctae sunt: libri, liberi, libertas et liberalitas.
So now I can do a LoTR/Hobbit tour and maybe go watch a rocket launch. Cool!
New Zealand, which has been used in the past by the National Aeronautical and Space Administration, is considered a prime location because rockets launched from that deep in the Southern hemisphere can reach a wide range of Earth orbits
OK New Zealand is 35 to 45 degrees south of the equator, while the USA (contiguous states) range from 25 to 47 degrees north.
Equitorial orbits are certainly best attained from launching near the equator. I'm not sure but I think that even non-equatorial orbits are best attained from a near equator launch to take advantage of the earth's rotational velocity then change the orbital plane. Even if some orbits are easier to attain when launched away from the equator, don't non-equitorial orbits swing as far North and as far South, meaning that New Zealand has no advantage over the USA?
Altogether it loooks like New Zealand is a particularly bad place to launch from, easily bettered by the southern USA or Northern Australia
I haven't seen any mention of Rocket Lab co-founder, Mark Stevens (who legally changed his name to Mark Rocket), is he still involved? Many years ago he was a neighbour of ours in Christchurch.
It costs far less in delta-v to lauinch from a site closer to the equator for an equatorial orbit (ie LEO, GSO). Point: Canaveral, being at 28N. NZ is at 42S.
There's a bit of a physics cheat being closer to the equator and launching prograde to rotation. At the equator, this amounts to 1,000mph, the advantage diminishing as you go toward either pole. Winner: Canaveral.
This advantage negates any advantage launching from closer to the pole for a polar orbit. Winner: Canaveral.
someone want to tell me how launching from NZ, apart from political issues, is in any way advantageous over launching from the US?
(BTW, to keep it in perspective, Baikonur Cosmodrome is at 45N. It suffers from the same DV overhead over Canaveral that a NZ site would, which is one reason the Russian launchers are bloody humungous).
Political debates have me rolling my eyes so much I think I got optical whiplash. I should sue. - Foamy The Squirrel
Mods, [mine expired yesterday dammit!], please mode parent INSIGHTFUL or INFORMATIVE.
Here's why.
1. He's 100% right.
2. He addresses the topic in the OP head on.
3. There's no trolling or flamebait and he didn't even address the anti-US sentiments of the OP.
As a fellow mod, except not right now, I ask, please mod parent up :)
E
Your complete guess that they will run out of money quickly aside, please take my question seriously, since the question was about why they chose it and not how viable the company is.
Given some other launch company you have no such feelings about, would Canterbury be a likely choice for rockets aimed at the ISS which is not in an equatorial? The class I took in orbital mechanics was well over twenty years ago and I've never seriously applied what I learned in it, but you sound so certain here that perhaps you've got more of a handle on it. Apart from the obvious advantage of failed launches not having to go over much land before going over a lot of sea/ocean, is that lattitude (~43 degrees south) useful for inclined orbits such as the one the ISS is in (resupply launched from ~46 degrees north)?
Should be "not in an equatorial orbit" (left off the "orbit") and I should point out that only a narrow strip on the east coast of N.Z. in that region has much of a population, so anything coming down on the mountains or west coast is very unlikely to hit anyone or even end up on private property. Due to all that ocean, sea and unpopulated mountains it's like having a launch site in the middle of a desert but with the advantage that you can ship stuff to it easily and local infrastructure can feed everyone.
I know I'd like my rocket to be safe from trolls.
Don't waste your vote! Vote for whoever you want, unless you live in a swing state it won't matter anyways
Did you even read my post?
Emotional rantings about the company aside, which I do not care about one way or another, does the location make any sense assuming the rest of the project is viable? Is the location far from the equator an aim for the ISS or do you not know enough about the topic to answer either way and are trying to avoid answering?
Let's assume somebody else was doing this to avoid the baggage you've been using to avoid answering the question.
Does the location make sense to get to the ISS? If not is there enough stuff going into low inclined orbits for the location to make any sense at all?
I'm just trying to work out why N.Z. and not a Pacific island on the equator.
Let's have a reality based answer as to why "The claimed advantages of launching "deep in the Southern Hemisphere" are bunk."
As I repeatedly have been asking, since you've made a broad technical assertion lets have a broad technical answer without hiding behind likes, dislikes, nationalities or restricting to specific types of rockets a company (which I haven't even heard of before) has used in the past when neither of us have a clue what they are going to be using in the future. They may be completely and utterly fucking useless but the site choice may have been recommended by someone who is not - so why not such a site?
If you can't do anything more than emotional waffling and a one-dimensional model with nothing but equatorial orbits, that's fine, we'll know where we stand and I'll know I should stop being lazy and dig out the old course notes and look up half remembered stuff about Baykonur instead of listening to you.
If you can't answer it will explain why you got so fucking aggressive and evasive when I asked a simple question expecting a simple answer or an admission that you didn't know either. What's it to be? More stupid bullying bullshit I'm not going to fall for or some reality? I don't "win" if you don't know because I don't know either so there is nothing to lose by being truthful, I'm not playing some childish game here. Can you please try to act in a way so you can say the same?
As should be obvious by now I'm only on this thread to get some clarification of this statement:
You've given me nothing to support that. I didn't mention the RL's Electron - you did as an avoidance tactic.
Are you someone who is prepared to back up their statements or are you just a fool shouting into the darkness attacking anyone who asks the meaning of what you are shouting about?
Since I'm the one that asked the question what is wrong with that? I'm not dragging you away from some sort of prepared script, I'm asking you what you meant by the quoted words above.
The aummary is wrong. Only an equitorial launch can reach any orbital inclination effectivly. Equitorial launches are also the most efficent. Launching from the southern hemesphere has no advantage.
In terms of getting into those orbitals, yes.
It appears your statement of "The claimed advantages of launching deep in the Southern Hemisphere are bunk" is dependant on Russia giving up on space entirely leaving no options for other players to get stuff to the ISS or descendants. That's a very idiotic assumption in my opinion and explains why you've been growling and flailing about like a dying beast.
http://science.slashdot.org/st...