Rockets Galore!

[Guy Profumo]

Seen it!

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotla...tland-55704869

[EIM]

Is this a good thing? I strongly suspect not.

[Hot Pepsi]

It’s probably good.

But I thought being on the equator was best for space launches since that part of the earth is moving the fastest. Or maybe that’s just for moon voyages.

[delicatemoth]

A hide for watching wildlife? There won't be any fucking wildlife around if rockets keep taking off.

[lambers]

It’s probably good.

But I thought being on the equator was best for space launches since that part of the earth is moving the fastest. Or maybe that’s just for moon voyages.

Equator is best, but I thought that it was because the vertical journey to space is shorter, as the earth bulges at the equator.

[Toby Gymshorts]

Is this a good thing? I strongly suspect not.

I'd have said absolutely not.

[hobbes]

Equator is best, but I thought that it was because the vertical journey to space is shorter, as the earth bulges at the equator.

It's rotational speed. The equator spins at 1600kph-ish And around 960kph in London. That 600kph is a big chunk of the delta you need to achieve orbit (about 27,600kph at ISS orbit) so saves a load of fuel and thus mass, which means less fuel again.
The bulge makes no difference. Even if the atmosphere was shorter (I think you'll find it probably bulges too) it's gravity you need to beat, not distance.

[Walt Flanagans Dog]

I don't know the exact meteorological term, but I believe it is windy as fuck up there, which you would expect would be a drawback.

[Rogin the Armchair fan]

This has more than a whiff of the Stoneybridge Olympic bid about it.

[Southport Zeb]

If you are going for a polar orbit (often used for observation and mapping satellites) then there is no great advantage to being closer to the equator, as the direction you want the satellite to travel in is perpendicular to the rotation of the earth. The main thing you want is a big empty area to the north (or south pending which way you're sending the rockets off) in which it doesn't matter if a failed launcher crash lands.

I went to Unst about ten years ago. I misread the bus time table and ended up having to walk the length of the island to reach my hotel (about where the spaceport is planned for).

[Hot Pepsi]

I would be worried about the wildlife, however.

[Evariste Euler Gauss]

It's rotational speed. The equator spins at 1600kph-ish And around 960kph in London. That 600kph is a big chunk of the delta you need to achieve orbit (about 27,600kph at ISS orbit) so saves a load of fuel and thus mass, which means less fuel again.
The bulge makes no difference. Even if the atmosphere was shorter (I think you'll find it probably bulges too) it's gravity you need to beat, not distance.

I've no doubt you're entirely right that rotational speed is the main advantage of launching from the equator, but it's not true to say that the bulge makes no difference. The gravitational pull of earth at any point outside the earth is, to a fine approximation, equivalent to that of a point-sized body of earth mass located at the centre of the earth, and gravity of course obeys the inverse square law. So the effect of earth's gravity on a body located on the earth's surface is less at the equator than it is at the poles, due to the greater distance from the centre.

Edit: oh, and I agree with the general consensus that this idea is appalling, environment-wise. Hope it doesn't get anywhere.

[hobbes]

You're correct in principle, but given the difference is around 20km in nearly 7000 the difference is so small as to be negligible. I think it's like 0.5% or something difference between the Poles and the equator.
Even out to LEO (up to @1000km) it's a negligence difference. It's the extra rotational velocity that makes the big difference.

[hobbes]

Just to add, the noise and traffic and infrastructure etc. Would be horrible but rockets don't really pollute outside of manufacture.
They fly on liquid hydrogen and liquid oxygen, so the only exhaust is water.

[Hot Pepsi]

I don’t think the noise would add up to much because they won’t launch rockets very often.

It’s not like an airport.

There will be more traffic, but it’s probably worth it for few hundred fairly well-paying jobs given that, as Hobbes said, it won’t create much pollution. But all of that could be wrong if there are other kinds of environmental impact that I’m not aware of.

[EIM]

Funking spaceport. What are they, eight? They want to grow the fuck up. It'll be building a dinosaur zoo next. Or dressing the whole island up as Batman.

[The Awesome Berbaslug!!!]

There will be more traffic, but it’s probably worth it for few hundred fairly well-paying jobs given that, as Hobbes said, it won’t create much pollution. But all of that could be wrong if there are other kinds of environmental impact that I’m not aware of.

There are spaceports all over the US. They don't really employ that many people. The only way that you'd get any employment up there is if someone set up their factory beside the facility and that's not going to happen in the shetlands

[Hot Pepsi]

Think of all the people they’ll need for the gift shop!

I was imagining they would do all kinds of R&D there. Not sure why I had that idea.

It seems they could just as easily build it on an oil platform in the middle of the ocean.

[Tactical Genius]

Just to add, the noise and traffic and infrastructure etc. Would be horrible but rockets don't really pollute outside of manufacture.
They fly on liquid hydrogen and liquid oxygen, so the only exhaust is water.

The heat and fire caused by combustion would incinerate anything in a close proximity.

[lambers]

It's rotational speed. The equator spins at 1600kph-ish And around 960kph in London. That 600kph is a big chunk of the delta you need to achieve orbit (about 27,600kph at ISS orbit) so saves a load of fuel and thus mass, which means less fuel again.
The bulge makes no difference. Even if the atmosphere was shorter (I think you'll find it probably bulges too) it's gravity you need to beat, not distance.

Apologies to Hot Pepsi for correcting him. That's a very good explanation Hobbes.

[hobbes]

The heat and fire caused by combustion would incinerate anything in a close proximity.

They have water jets pouring water into the pad at launch to damp down noise and cool the superheated steam.
Nothing off the pad apron gets incinerated because the rockets are very focused all that "smoke" is water vapour.

[The Awesome Berbaslug!!!]

Just to add, the noise and traffic and infrastructure etc. Would be horrible but rockets don't really pollute outside of manufacture.
They fly on liquid hydrogen and liquid oxygen, so the only exhaust is water.

Any rocket that primarily uses hydrogen, needs to use solid rocket motors to get off the ground. They are fucking super dirty, particularly in the upper atmosphere. The sort of small satellite launcher that would be using somewhere like this would likely be using a relatively clean fuel. If only because the handling of dirtier fuels is extremely expensive and awkward.

[Toby Gymshorts]

Funking spaceport

...playing tonight at the Dublin Castle.