Is there a reason all these European launch sites are so far up North? I guess it makes things more predictable but I would have assumed, Spain, Italy and Greece to be more desirable for launch sites than Norway, UK, Sweden or Canada.
as Europe enters satellite launch race
Sure… Europe isn’t launching satellites for decades.
This isn’t about satellite launching, Europe does this from Guiana Space Centre in Kourou for a very long time.
This is about it being the first successfull orbital launch from a European location (so without all that nice free speed you get when going for an equatorial orbit and starting close to the equator eastwards) by a private start-up less than 8 years old. On their second try in total (people following such things might remember the huge amount of
explosionsRapid Unscheduled Disassemblies starting rocket projects –privat or otherwise– tend to produce in the beginning).people following such things might remember the huge amount of
explosionsRapid Unscheduled Disassemblies starting rocket projects –privat or otherwise– tend to produce in the beginningThey generally don’t. SpaceX is pretty much the only company blowing up rockets on the regular. Everyone else actually does testing.
SpaceX is just worse but there were still a lot of explosions etc over the years. Ariane 5 for example used the tried and tested software of its predecessor… and failed rather spectacular mid-air when its higher accelaration paired with 16bit to 64bit conversion caused a buffer overflow.
Or to quote what I consider a modern classic nowadays: “They say Space is hard…” *sing*
So cool and so important for Europe! 🚀👍🎉 🇪🇺🇩🇪
Isn’t it a bit weird to do that from Norway?
AFAIK it’s best to be near the equator, because it’s easier to reach escape velocity there.
There’s a reason it’s the first time, even though we’ve had a European space program for decades.It’s best near the equator (and starting eastwards) if you want an equatorial orbit because then you get all the rotational energy from earth for free.
But if you want an polar orbit, so 90° to earth’s rotation that passes over north and south pole, you are not just missing out on the free speed but the rotation perpendicular to the direction you are going actually is a problem you need to compensate for with more energy spend. But the further north (or south) to the pole you move for your start the less influence has the earth’s rotation. The perfect scenario here would be a start exactly from the geographic north pole for no interference through earth’s rotation.
Thanks, I never considered that.
This is more about having the ability to launch any payload at all from Europe. Especially so we don’t have to be 100% reliant on launch sites controlled by the US or the one on other side of the Atlantic in French Guyana. If anything, the more the merrier, continental Europe should have the capability to launch from both the north and the south.
Launch sites away from the equator are good for some different orbits. The Molniya orbit, for example, is very useful if you’re trying to observe areas at high latitudes
…or if you are living in Russia and your location too far north makes satellites in geo-synchronous orbit sub-optimal because their angle means a much longer distance signals have to travel through that pesky stuff we breath.
A lot of sats head to polar or sun-synchronous orbits, both of which benefit from being very far north or south (less west-to-east velocity to cancel out).
Rocket Lab launches into those orbits from New Zealand all the time. The ESA goes straight north from Kourou sometimes, but that site is on the equator and so is much better suited for lower-inclination orbits.
Equatorial efficiently is so 1960s.
The founders of rocketry just said, “hold my beer”.
Wow, a space rocket? Impressive.
Blame Reuters, that was their title at time of posting.
Edit: Updated the title to reflect the title change by Reuters.
