Author Topic: Was having a near-equatorial launch site worth it?  (Read 4554 times)

Offline Khadgars

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 968
  • Long Beach, California
  • Liked: 177
  • Likes Given: 543
Re: Was having a near-equatorial launch site worth it?
« Reply #20 on: 01/05/2018 09:03 PM »
SpaceX's cost advantage is mainly due to low wages and overworked enthusiastic young engineers. Road transport is a very minor contributor to the cost difference.

SpaceX's advantage is pushing the technology to reusable rockets (via record-setting thrust to weight).
Vertical integration as a company allowed them to side-step high cost sub-contracting and outdated technology.

Completely agree.  The advantage of reusable rockets wasn't even taken seriously by everyone else until SpaceX began attempting landings.  That, and being vertically integrated and not outsourcing nearly as much has proven very valuable. 

If SpaceX relied solely on overworking and underpaying its staff, they would have folded long ago.

Offline Jester

  • Administrator
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 6928
  • SpaceShip Earth
  • Liked: 3083
  • Likes Given: 112
Re: Was having a near-equatorial launch site worth it?
« Reply #21 on: 01/06/2018 12:01 AM »
/jim mode on
yes it was worth it or they wouldn't have selected it out of 14 other sites in the first place back in 1964....
/jim mode off


I think the thread has been answered, move along ;)

Online octavo

  • Full Member
  • *
  • Posts: 104
  • Liked: 48
  • Likes Given: 93
Re: Was having a near-equatorial launch site worth it?
« Reply #22 on: 01/06/2018 06:35 AM »


I think the thread has been answered, move along ;)

These aren't the launch pads we're looking for. They can go about their business.

Offline Lar

  • Fan boy at large
  • Global Moderator
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 9935
  • Saw Gemini live on TV
  • A large LEGO storage facility ... in Michigan
  • Liked: 6746
  • Likes Given: 4531
Re: Was having a near-equatorial launch site worth it?
« Reply #23 on: 01/06/2018 06:55 AM »
Yes, done.
"I think it would be great to be born on Earth and to die on Mars. Just hopefully not at the point of impact." -Elon Musk
"We're a little bit like the dog who caught the bus" - Musk after CRS-8 S1 successfully landed on ASDS OCISLY

Online Lars-J

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3847
  • California
  • Liked: 3097
  • Likes Given: 1965
Re: Was having a near-equatorial launch site worth it?
« Reply #24 on: 01/08/2018 03:36 AM »
/jim mode on
yes it was worth it or they wouldn't have selected it out of 14 other sites in the first place back in 1964....
/jim mode off


I think the thread has been answered, move along ;)

Out of curiosity, is there a link that lists the 14 candidate sites?

Offline SgtPoivre

  • Member
  • Posts: 59
  • Paris - France
  • Liked: 12
  • Likes Given: 0
Re: Was having a near-equatorial launch site worth it?
« Reply #25 on: 01/08/2018 04:47 AM »
/jim mode on
yes it was worth it or they wouldn't have selected it out of 14 other sites in the first place back in 1964....
/jim mode off


I think the thread has been answered, move along ;)

Out of curiosity, is there a link that lists the 14 candidate sites?

http://www.cnes-csg.fr/web/CNES-CSG-fr/9777-implantation.php

It's in French, for some reason I couldn't switch to English but you should be able to do so.

Google translation:
• 14 sites studied
The Seychelles archipelago, Trinity island (Trinidad), Nuku-Hiva Hiva island (Marquesas Islands, French Polynesia), Touamotu archipelago (Rairoa island, French Polynesia), the island of Désirade (French West Indies), Marie-Galante Island (French West Indies), Cayenne (French Guiana), Djibouti (French Somali Coast), Darwin (Australia), Trincomale (Ceylon), Fort Dauphin (Madagascan Republic), Mogadishu (Republic of Somalia), Port-Etienne (Islamic Republic of Mauritania), and Belem (Brazil)
« Last Edit: 01/08/2018 04:50 AM by SgtPoivre »

Tags: