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.

Comments

Not really a US company?

[Harlequin80]

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.

Re:Not really a US company?

[phayes]

The claimed advantages of launching "deep in the Southern Hemisphere" are bunk. Unless you're launching into retrograde orbits there are no advantages to launching far from the equator. It's more likely that someone is running out of money and has to move back in with his parents.

Re:Not really a US company?

[TheTurtlesMoves]

You can reach *any* orbit from *anywhere*. But it uses more fuel form some places. For a polar orbit shedding the rotational speed you already have is wasted deltaV.

National A something S something A something

[yo303]

which has been used in the past by the National Aeronautical and Space Administration,

I'm pretty sure we can all say NASA.

Re: National A something S something A something

[jrumney]

I'm pretty sure we can all say %@#%

Whoah there. I hope you spelt out that acronym in your head as you wrote it and didn't actually say THE WORD out loud.

I don't see the logic here

[Michael Woodhams]

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.

Re:Annex NZ as Territory

[jordanjay29]

It has cultural value. In fact, we'll rename it Hollywood South Lot just to be clear about what we expect from the state of New Zealand.

Re:The Micronesian islands

[K. S. Kyosuke]

There may be more salty air in Micronesia, though. That killed the first Falcon 1 flight. You'd have to be more stringent with your on-site facilites.