US Equatorial Launch Base

If the US has decided that the moon is the right place to go, would an
equatorial launch base make sense?

How much would this improve the mass to Lunar Orbit?

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

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?

How much would this improve the mass to Lunar Orbit?

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

I can just imagine the fun and games if the US cut a deal to share the
Russian near-equatorial facility... at Kourou...

Heh. For sheer impracticality, the closest US territory I can find to
the equator is... Baker Island. Population, um, bird****. It was briefly
colonised, but somewhat adversely affected by the War, it being about
half a square mile in area, and most importantly there being almost
exactly nothing interesting there.

http://www.cia.gov/cia/publications/...k/geos/fq.html
http://www.janeresture.com/baker/

--
-Andrew Gray

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. |

"Alex Terrell" wrote in message
m...
If the US has decided that the moon is the right place to go, would an
equatorial launch base make sense?

How much would this improve the mass to Lunar Orbit?

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

The logical place to do it would be in Brazil, because that's reasonably
close to Florida and Texas. We would want a 50 year agreement that would
provide us with land and give us the right to send hundreds of workers
there. Sending US workers would increase costs, but politicians may object
to a space program that doesn't provide jobs for US citizens.

I don't know the difference in the fuel to mass ratio. Increasing the size
of the booster may not cost much.