In article ,
Alex Terrell wrote:
If the US has decided that the moon is the right place to go, would an
equatorial launch base make sense?

Not, alas, very much sense. Other things being equal, it would be quite
helpful... but other things are *not* equal. Issues of transport costs,
local labor pool, and (not least) security argue strongly against a remote
launch base.

Christmas Island was, briefly, in the running as the location of what
eventually became KSC. It was quickly eliminated, as were several other
such remote locations.

How much would this improve the mass to Lunar Orbit?

There's the usual improvement in mass to LEO with a low-latitude launch
site. Otherwise it doesn't make much difference in mass.

There are other advantages. If you're doing substantial orbital assembly,
it is *really* helpful that your assembly facility passes over your launch
site once per orbit, rather than once a day. And the radiation dose in
that orbit is lower, too.

Could this base be shared with the russians? I think the russian space
program has been handicapped by operating out of such high latitudes.

Indeed it has been, but the Russians have already cut a deal to operate
the Soyuz booster out of Kourou.
--
MOST launched 30 June; science observations running | Henry Spencer
since Oct; first surprises seen; papers pending. |