Cape Canaveral was briefly renamed Cape Kennedy from 1963 (after Kennedy's assassination) to 1973. From Wikipedia:
-
Want to remove ads? Register an account and login to see fewer ads, and become a Supporting Member to remove almost all ads.
Thanks ggr. Yeah, being an older dude, it was seeing the Apollo launches happening from Cape Kennedy that stuck in my head. Thanks for sharing the history. You also have the Cape Canaveral Air Force Station and the Kennedy Space Center on Merritt Island which breaks up the launch pads into those controlled by NASA and those controlled by the Air Force. SpaceX has one of each with LC-39A (KSC) and SLC-40 (CCAFS). LZ-1 is located at the old LC-13 launch site which was used to launch Atlas rockets from 1958 to 1978.
Boca Chica gains a small advantage in terms of being slightly nearer to the equator over Florida. It would someone with a lot more aerospace knowledge than I to understand what is gained.
Found a math blog site that calculated the bonus from the equator to Cape Canaveral:
Equatorial Rocket Launch Advantage
The difference is only 126 mph. Since orbital speed is 17,000 mph then it is less than a 1% gain.
Boca Chica gains a small advantage in terms of being slightly nearer to the equator over Florida. It would someone with a lot more aerospace knowledge than I to understand what is gained.
Found a math blog site that calculated the bonus from the equator to Cape Canaveral:
Equatorial Rocket Launch Advantage
The difference is only 126 mph. Since orbital speed is 17,000 mph then it is less than a 1% gain.
Last edited:
That's a good question. I looked for higher altitude launch sites and couldn't find any major ones. Most major launch sites are on the East or West coasts of the countries supporting them. Most very high altitude mountains are far inland and, up until SpaceX, you wanted your expended booster to fall into the ocean. The exception to that is Russia and China. The two of them don't seem to mind dropping expended and sometimes even toxic used boosters onto land in their country and occasionally onto their people. Both have had instances where it has happened. So I suppose there isn't a big enough advantage gained to push for a high altitude launch site. The other major factor would be simple logistics. You'd prefer your launch site to be near where you build your gigantic rocket. Otherwise you need to move your gigantic rocket to where you launch it. SpaceX has made their rockets a lot less expensive by making them small enough to truck from one side of the country to the other.
Maybe I was unclear with my question. I was referring to the rotational boost from launching from nearer the equator, especially during the early minutes of the launch. It is a small percentage of 17000 mph but more significant at 1200 mph. Of course I could be all wet to as I do live in western WA.
Did you mean latitude instead of altitude? Yes, lower latitudes give more initial velocity.
F9:
Cargo to LEO 22 800 kg
propellant 518 500 kg
1% less propellant would be very useful.
126 mph does not change air resistance, but reduces gravitational losses slightly. Even you are slightly less heavy on Boca Chica.
Note: that is a near equatorial 5.21 N to Canaveral speed difference, not Boca Chica.
BC is 25.9969N Canveral is 28.44667N.
Rough speed diff
CC: 914.1 MPH 409 m/s
BC: 937 MPH 419 m/s
Mass: 549,054 kg
Free delta-v: 10 m/s
Free kinetic energy difference: 1/2*m*(v1^2-v2^2): 2.27x10^9 J. Or 631 KWh. (And here is where my rocket math runs out)
There is also another gain for GTO/ GSO in that less fuel is needed to correct the orbit to equitorial.
It’s still not clear what you’re getting at...but...if you’re trying to consider the differing negative effect on a rocket’s drag relative to its launch latitude, it’s kinda six or a half dozen. The atmosphere does get thicker in density in colder areas, but it gets correspondingly thinner in km too.
Compared to the rotational assist it’s going to be a very small factor that doesn’t come into play when choosing a site for a large launch facility.
Last edited:
Has anyone considered where in Kenya the "other" KSC is?
À la Artemis, of course. Despite my best efforts, TWO of Andy Weir's latest appeared under our Christmas tree.
So, what with Kenya's high mountains (Mt. Kenya is 5200m)...but I'm not certain if they have anything plateau-ish like...could that equatorial country provide the best of both latitude and altitude?
Of course, with the safety factor those that aren't China and Russia ascribe to, Kenya also has east-facing coastline on the Indian Ocean.
À la Artemis, of course. Despite my best efforts, TWO of Andy Weir's latest appeared under our Christmas tree.
So, what with Kenya's high mountains (Mt. Kenya is 5200m)...but I'm not certain if they have anything plateau-ish like...could that equatorial country provide the best of both latitude and altitude?
Of course, with the safety factor those that aren't China and Russia ascribe to, Kenya also has east-facing coastline on the Indian Ocean.
Broglio Space Centre - Wikipedia
Used as a satellite ground station, but not currently used for launches.
My last hijack of this thread:
Broglio, I learned, is an old oil platform. Quite an imbroglio were one to try to surmount it with a BFR...
But - there is a goodly amount of land at between 3000 and 4500 m in Kenya, directly on the equator. Nice!
Broglio, I learned, is an old oil platform. Quite an imbroglio were one to try to surmount it with a BFR...
But - there is a goodly amount of land at between 3000 and 4500 m in Kenya, directly on the equator. Nice!
I mean, it’s been done before on a large scale. I can’t imagine Elon’s minions would have much trouble...
Could the intra-planetary barge from the BFR space presentation also be a launch platform for other missions?
If it can be launched from then, as far as the launch is concerned, going to orbit is not any different from going point to point on Earth. The BFR just needs to be fully fueled.
From a practical perspective, I think you need to get to the point where the vehicles are more like aircraft—there’s no daily refurbishment, commonized servicing equipment, etc. Then the barge is really just a place to land an refuel. Of course, given the proportions of BFR that ends up being a BFB. There's also a pretty slim benefit to launching off a barge unless you're going to the equator (like Sea Launch, which is a super complicated logistics mess, though I'm sure Spacex could do better) so it will be interesting to see if the visualized concept actually plays out.
And now we have a very entertaining trio of initialisms: BFR, BFS, and BFB (or acronyms in common parlance).On an unrelated note, this year my wife and I are buying a small camper trailer. At the front there is a large window, which owners call the Big Front Window, or BFW. Of course every time I see that I mentally substitute a different word for the second letter.
Math is not difficult (I did not do it, because I was too lazy to look up those latitude numbers
cos(28.44667 degree)*40745 km / (23 hour + 56 minute) = 415.80 m / s
cos(25.9969 degree)*40745 km / (23 hour + 56 minute) = 425.05 m / s
difference 9.25 m/s
Tsiolkovsky rocket equation - Wikipedia delta-v = v_e*ln(m_0/m_f)
m_0/m_f = exp(delta-v / v_e) = exp(9.25/3414) = 1.0027131
2. stage needs to burn 0.27% of its mass to increase speed by 9.25 m/s.
If satellite is not launched from equator, it has to make a turn above it.
Speed at GSO is about 3 km/s. Much less at transfer orbit apogee.
That makes task easier for 1. stage, so it can be smaller. Landing to launch site would require more fuel, because of less air resistance. This cancels part of advantage. I don't think we seen launches from Kenya soon.
Math is not difficult (I did not do it, because I was too lazy to look up those latitude numbers
cos(28.44667 degree)*40745 km / (23 hour + 56 minute) = 415.80 m / s
cos(25.9969 degree)*40745 km / (23 hour + 56 minute) = 425.05 m / s
difference 9.25 m/s
Tsiolkovsky rocket equation - Wikipedia delta-v = v_e*ln(m_0/m_f)
m_0/m_f = exp(delta-v / v_e) = exp(9.25/3414) = 1.0027131
2. stage needs to burn 0.27% of its mass to increase speed by 9.25 m/s.
If satellite is not launched from equator, it has to make a turn above it.
Speed at GSO is about 3 km/s. Much less at transfer orbit apogee.
Yeah, it would not have taken much longer to do the rocket eq (for those interested, the 3,414 v_e number is g*Isp (9.80665 * 348 (MVAC FT)). Good point that there is much less impact when looking at the second stage burn requirements.
I calculated the velocity using the WGS84 ellipsoid (6,378,137.0 m for semi-major axis, 6,356,752 m for semi-minor, 40,075 km circumference at equator, why the 40,745? Not that it matters much in delta v)
Similar threads
