F9/D2 from Kourou

[sdsds]

The Guiana Space Centre is Europe's spaceport, located to the northwest of Kourou in French Guiana. Soyuz-ST launch vehicles have launched 27 times from the ELS (Ensemble de Lancement Soyouz) launch complex there.

Like Soyuz, F9 uses RP-1 and LOX as propellants.

What's the scope of work that would be needed to launch F9 from ELS? With Dragon as the spacecraft payload, would anything prevent humans launched from there reaching the equatorial low-Earth orbits that benefit from reduced space radiation (due to avoidance of the South Atlantic Anomaly)?

[Alvian@IDN]

Current launch pads covered all needs. And with Starship on the horizon, this seems as likely as seeing the ESA having their own crewed spacecrafts

[daedalus1]

It's much easier and much cheaper to send the crew to Florida.

[sdsds]

It's much easier and much cheaper to send the crew to Florida.

But from Florida F9/D2 can't reach equatorial LEO.

[kevinof]

 But where would a crew launched from there go to?

It's much easier and much cheaper to send the crew to Florida.

But from Florida F9/D2 can't reach equatorial LEO.

[su27k]

But where would a crew launched from there go to?

It's much easier and much cheaper to send the crew to Florida.

But from Florida F9/D2 can't reach equatorial LEO.

There're proposals to build space settlement at Equatorial Low Earth Orbit (ELEO), see Al Globus' paper for an example.

[su27k]

A more realistic question is whether it would be worth it to launch Starship from Kourou. Could be useful if Europe ever wants to build SBSP at GEO.

[daedalus1]

It's much easier and much cheaper to send the crew to Florida.

But from Florida F9/D2 can't reach equatorial LEO.

I don't think that is correct. Yes there will be a small mass penalty, but not enough to effect a Dragon launch.

[AmigaClone]

As others have mentioned, with the current flight cadence there is no need for another F9/D2 launch pad. Even if there was an agreement about adding a F9/D2 launch pad in Kourou, it likely might be easier to convert ELA-2 to support a Falcon 9 than to convert the ELS to use the same rocket.

On the other hand, I don't see SpaceX being interested in launching a F9/D2 from Kourou, especially since there are no customers that can only be served by that pad.

I can see the possibility of SpaceX being open to the idea of an agreement with ESA to add a 'Starbase Kourou' with a second mass production site for Starships/boosters along with another launch pad or two.

[Orbiter]

It's much easier and much cheaper to send the crew to Florida.

But from Florida F9/D2 can't reach equatorial LEO.

I don't think that is correct. Yes there will be a small mass penalty, but not enough to effect a Dragon launch.

The amount of fuel left onboard F9 during a Dragon launch is insufficient to conduct a ~28.6 degree plane change.

[daedalus1]

It's much easier and much cheaper to send the crew to Florida.

But from Florida F9/D2 can't reach equatorial LEO.

I don't think that is correct. Yes there will be a small mass penalty, but not enough to effect a Dragon launch.

The amount of fuel left onboard F9 during a Dragon launch is insufficient to conduct a ~28.6 degree plane change.

Then how come it does it in the other direction, the ISS is at 51.6°.

[DanClemmensen]

Why would they build F9 infrastructure in Kourou (or anywhere else)? If Starship succeeds, SpaceX will quit using F9 except to fulfill existing contracts for CCP and CRS, and then terminate the F9 program, possibly within three years and almostt certainly within six years. Also recall that F9 support includes a recovery fleet and a refurbishing facility. Starship from Kourou might make sense.

[edkyle99]

Who actually owns the ELS launch hardware?  Is it owned by Arianespace or by Russian entities? 

Either way, seems to me an opportunity for Europe to develop its own RP/LOX recoverable launch system that some have talked about.

 - Ed Kyle

[DanClemmensen]

It's much easier and much cheaper to send the crew to Florida.

But from Florida F9/D2 can't reach equatorial LEO.

I don't think that is correct. Yes there will be a small mass penalty, but not enough to effect a Dragon launch.

The amount of fuel left onboard F9 during a Dragon launch is insufficient to conduct a ~28.6 degree plane change.

Then how come it does it in the other direction, the ISS is at 51.6°.

From a site at a given latitude, all orbital planes with inclinations higher than that latitude cross overhead twice a day. Lower inclination planes do not cross overhead and therefore would require a dogleg or other mechanism to change planes.

[sdsds]

I don't see SpaceX being interested in launching a F9/D2 from Kourou, especially since there are no customers that can only be served by that pad.

It's a niche market, certainly.

We know almost nothing about mammals reproducing and raising offspring anyplace other than the surface of the Earth (i.e. on land, or for whales, near-surface waters). It would be good to know more!

One approach is just to "wing it," and allow or encourage humans to reproduce at orbiting stations like ISS. If that works out okay, equatorial low-Earth orbits lose most or all of their attractiveness.

F9 support includes a recovery fleet and a refurbishing facility.

Operating the marine assets is indeed costly. For a crewed Dragon mission, booster RTLS probably can't be made to work, though that's based on some assumptions which might be interesting to re-examine. That said, every booster has a final flight. Conceivably some boosters might end with disposal in equatorial Atlantic waters.

[Comga]

It's much easier and much cheaper to send the crew to Florida.

But from Florida F9/D2 can't reach equatorial LEO.

I don't think that is correct. Yes there will be a small mass penalty, but not enough to effect a Dragon launch.

The amount of fuel left onboard F9 during a Dragon launch is insufficient to conduct a ~28.6 degree plane change.

Then how come it does it in the other direction, the ISS is at 51.6°.

From a site at a given latitude, all orbital planes with inclinations higher than that latitude cross overhead twice a day. Lower inclination planes do not cross overhead and therefore would require a dogleg or other mechanism to change planes.

With all due respect, this could be the worst NSF thread in a long time.

Trivially, IXPE launched on Falcon 9 to an equatorial (0 degree inclination). The (mother of all, 28 degree) plane change was mostly performed by the second stage. There was a SUBSTANTIAL reduction in capacity for the Falcon, but IXPE is small.

IXPE needed an equatorial orbit to avoid going thru the South Atlantic Anomaly to minimize radiation impacting its X-ray detectors.

What do you think needs to go to or maximize payload to a low inclination orbit?

Even if you had a good answer, building a new launch pad, out of the country no less, is NOT “the SpaceX way”. Squeezing out the last bit of performance at great expense goes against the grain.

“Why put legs and that other stuff on a booster when you could get an extra ton to orbit without them?”

And it’s not on the path to Mars

Edit: SpaceX just announced that they are ending the production of Dragons. They have enough for their plans. 
There will be no Dragons for a hypothetical South American launch site.

[sdsds]

With all due respect, this could be the worst NSF thread in a long time.

[...] IXPE launched on Falcon 9 to an equatorial (0 degree inclination).

[...]What do you think [...]
Even if you had a good answer,

You provide information for which I am grateful regarding IXPE. Thank you.

I'll limit my response to your other phrasing, which you characterize as duly respectful, by saying that even if you had a good question, your tone would preclude me from engaging in discussion with you.

[woods170]

Who actually owns the ELS launch hardware?  Is it owned by Arianespace or by Russian entities? 

The ELS launch hardware is owned by Starsem.

[hektor]

Kourou would be a perfect place to launch Starships. No neighbours, a lot of space, etc.

Unfortunately the Guianese would probably have to ask their independence from France and then vote to become the 51st state of the US to do that.

[lykos]

....Unfortunately the Guianese would probably have to ask their independence from France and then vote to become the 51st state of the US to do that.

I don't think so!
Otherwise P2P would never work!

[edkyle99]

Who actually owns the ELS launch hardware?  Is it owned by Arianespace or by Russian entities? 

The ELS launch hardware is owned by Starsem.

So a lot of stuff will be stripped from the site unless Soyuz returns.  Perhaps it could, in that instance, serve as a site for ESA's proposed reusable Themis.

 - Ed Kyle

[baldusi]

Who actually owns the ELS launch hardware?  Is it owned by Arianespace or by Russian entities? 

The ELS launch hardware is owned by Starsem.

Soyuz style flame deflectors are completely different from Falcon's. Having to adapt it would probably be more expensive than razing some unused (or even develop a new one from scratch). In any case, there's simply no point for this thread. No need to happen, no will to happen, not gonna happen.

[sdsds]

Thanks for the info about flame deflectors. I was thinking more about propellant storage.

there's simply no point for this thread. No need to happen, no will to happen, not gonna happen.

It would take a customer stepping up and asking for it. Currently there are none publicly doing so. The use case is there, though, under some circumstances.

[Nomadd]

In any case, there's simply no point for this thread. No need to happen, no will to happen, not gonna happen.

I'll put you down as a "Maybe"

[woods170]

....Unfortunately the Guianese would probably have to ask their independence from France and then vote to become the 51st state of the US to do that.

I don't think so!
Otherwise P2P would never work!

P2P will actually be Offshore2Offshore.

[Jim]

It would take a customer stepping up and asking for it. Currently there are none publicly doing so. The use case is there, though, under some circumstances.

not really. 

[Hobbes-22]

Who actually owns the ELS launch hardware?  Is it owned by Arianespace or by Russian entities? 

The ELS launch hardware is owned by Starsem.

So a lot of stuff will be stripped from the site unless Soyuz returns.  Perhaps it could, in that instance, serve as a site for ESA's proposed reusable Themis.

 - Ed Kyle

The plan so far is that Themis will use the old Diamant launch pad.

[wannamoonbase]

....Unfortunately the Guianese would probably have to ask their independence from France and then vote to become the 51st state of the US to do that.

I don't think so!
Otherwise P2P would never work!

P2P will actually be Offshore2Offshore.

P2P is like F9 from Kourou, never gonna happen.  Nice power points and videos, but not going to be a thing.

[Robotbeat]

....Unfortunately the Guianese would probably have to ask their independence from France and then vote to become the 51st state of the US to do that.

I don't think so!
Otherwise P2P would never work!

P2P will actually be Offshore2Offshore.

P2P is like F9 from Kourou, never gonna happen.  Nice power points and videos, but not going to be a thing.

I think it may be a thing for cargo. The DoD is giving serious money to SpaceX to study it and perhaps demonstrate it. Don’t count it out yet…

[Luc]

Once SpaceX has moved on from Falcon 9 and Dragon, perhaps they would consider licensing the technology to the EU.

[alugobi]

Lol.  The French and Italians would throw a fit.

[sdsds]

The Themis progress is encouraging. But is there any plan to ever put a human rated spacecraft on that launcher?

[woods170]

The Themis progress is encouraging. But is there any plan to ever put a human rated spacecraft on that launcher?

No.

Themis is a protype, a technology demonstrator. Whatever will be learned from it, will be applied to Ariane 7.

[Lars-J]

It's much easier and much cheaper to send the crew to Florida.

But from Florida F9/D2 can't reach equatorial LEO.

Two points:
- Equatorial LEO is an exceedingly rare orbit. While a near-equatorial launch site does provide a small boost for launching into higher orbits, that benefit is more than compensated by easier launch site access in FL/CA.
- F9 has actually already launched to equatorial LEO - See the recent IXPE launch

[Welsh Dragon]

- F9 has actually already launched to equatorial LEO - See the recent IXPE launch

With a payload one twentieth the mass of a Dragon 2. I agree there is zero need to get Dragon to an equatorial orbit, but you can't use IXPE to suggest it could be done from Florida. Plane changes eat ludicrous amounts of delta-v. There is no way it can be done. (On a single stick Falcon at least).

[sdsds]

I want to thank each forum participant who has mentioned IXPE. That mission, launched on F9, puts discussion of Falcon Heavy from Florida within the intended scope of this thread. Generally that scope is, "Using SpaceX vehicles for missions which put animals — including humans — into orbits that present lower space radiation risk than the ISS orbit."

(1) Starship will have the capability to launch these missions, but I fear Starship would not be offered.
(2) I'm not suggesting a customer currently exists for these missions.

If a customer magically materialized, and if SpaceX wanted to serve that customer launching F9/D2 from Kourou, would CNES tolerate it? Because it looks less risky than FH/D2 from Florida.

[Jim]

No, not worth the effort.  And then there is ITAR.

[Ludus]

....Unfortunately the Guianese would probably have to ask their independence from France and then vote to become the 51st state of the US to do that.

I don't think so!
Otherwise P2P would never work!

P2P will actually be Offshore2Offshore.

P2P is like F9 from Kourou, never gonna happen.  Nice power points and videos, but not going to be a thing.

I think it may be a thing for cargo. The DoD is giving serious money to SpaceX to study it and perhaps demonstrate it. Don’t count it out yet…

Cargo aircraft are now a thing for weapons delivery https://www.wpafb.af.mil/News/Article-Display/Article/2198566/afrl-afsoc-launch-palletized-weapons-from-cargo-plane/ Point to Point Starship has more potential. I think it will be a thing very soon for multiple reasons.

[baldusi]

Once SpaceX has moved on from Falcon 9 and Dragon, perhaps they would consider licensing the technology to the EU.

ITAR restriction would still apply. So they can't. And you have to use the whole process. From QA to management. You simply can't do that in a way that EU would accept it.

[Jim]

Cargo aircraft are now a thing for weapons delivery https://www.wpafb.af.mil/News/Article-Display/Article/2198566/afrl-afsoc-launch-palletized-weapons-from-cargo-plane/ Point to Point Starship has more potential. I think it will be a thing very soon for multiple reasons.

Not relevant and there is no logic to your statement.  Still cheaper to use an ICBM.

[Zed_Noir]

Cargo aircraft are now a thing for weapons delivery https://www.wpafb.af.mil/News/Article-Display/Article/2198566/afrl-afsoc-launch-palletized-weapons-from-cargo-plane/ Point to Point Starship has more potential. I think it will be a thing very soon for multiple reasons.

Not relevant and there is no logic to your statement.  Still cheaper to use an ICBM.

The ICBMs don't delivered non-nuke payloads. And only usable for the big event.

Converting an area to moonscape by "conventional munitions" don't have the same political gravitas as a nuke strike. Even if the results are similar.

[alugobi]

Looks like this discussion is now confused between using a launch vehicle to blow up a place and using a launch vehicle to deliver hardware to a place. 

The original topic of launching from Kourou appears to have dropped off the scope. 

Must be a slow news day that makes this happen...


Edit:  sp

[woods170]

It is also because most sensible stuff about F9/D2 from Kourou has been said.

Summarizing: it is a non-starter of an idea. Period.

Time to lock this thread IMO.

[Jim]

Cargo aircraft are now a thing for weapons delivery https://www.wpafb.af.mil/News/Article-Display/Article/2198566/afrl-afsoc-launch-palletized-weapons-from-cargo-plane/ Point to Point Starship has more potential. I think it will be a thing very soon for multiple reasons.

Not relevant and there is no logic to your statement.  Still cheaper to use an ICBM.

The ICBMs don't delivered non-nuke payloads. And only usable for the big event.

Converting an area to moonscape by "conventional munitions" don't have the same political gravitas as a nuke strike. Even if the results are similar.

Whether using a reusable launch vehicle or an expendable ICBM, the results and response are the same because the targeted country isn’t going to know if the warheads are nuke or conventional.

[Luc]

Once SpaceX has moved on from Falcon 9 and Dragon, perhaps they would consider licensing the technology to the EU.

ITAR restriction would still apply. So they can't. And you have to use the whole process. From QA to management. You simply can't do that in a way that EU would accept it.

I wondered about ITAR. How does the EU fit? Are they not an ally? Could a NATO country license it? Also, I understand that there’s an entire process, infrastructure, and team involved, but that can obviously be replicated if not sold as is. I don’t want to beat a dead horse, because it does seem obvious that it’d never happen; it was more a flight of fancy.

[Asteroza]

Once SpaceX has moved on from Falcon 9 and Dragon, perhaps they would consider licensing the technology to the EU.

ITAR restriction would still apply. So they can't. And you have to use the whole process. From QA to management. You simply can't do that in a way that EU would accept it.

I wondered about ITAR. How does the EU fit? Are they not an ally? Could a NATO country license it? Also, I understand that there’s an entire process, infrastructure, and team involved, but that can obviously be replicated if not sold as is. I don’t want to beat a dead horse, because it does seem obvious that it’d never happen; it was more a flight of fancy.

From an ITAR perspective, it might not be significantly different from launching from Alcântara in Brazil (which signed a a technology safeguard agreement with the US)

[baldusi]

Once SpaceX has moved on from Falcon 9 and Dragon, perhaps they would consider licensing the technology to the EU.

ITAR restriction would still apply. So they can't. And you have to use the whole process. From QA to management. You simply can't do that in a way that EU would accept it.

I wondered about ITAR. How does the EU fit? Are they not an ally? Could a NATO country license it? Also, I understand that there’s an entire process, infrastructure, and team involved, but that can obviously be replicated if not sold as is. I don’t want to beat a dead horse, because it does seem obvious that it’d never happen; it was more a flight of fancy.

From an ITAR perspective, it might not be significantly different from launching from Alcântara in Brazil (which signed a a technology safeguard agreement with the US)

Launching from, is one thing, licensing the design, process and technology is a completely different one. For launching from another country with an ITAR safeguard agreement, you basically have something like the Russians had on Kourou. There, it was like a diplomatic zone, where only Russians handled the equipment. Even the trucks that pulled the rockets and its drivers were Russian.
So for launching it would have to be a purely SpaceX operation, with DoD personnel guarding access and checking passports and IDs.
But for licensing the whole thing, you have to license not only the blueprints and specifications of the parts, but also the critical materials, software, all design documentation including finite elements analysis, formulas, design criteria, etc. You basically not only license the part but all the know how. This is all critical knowledge that is extremely sensitive and strategic. This is why you can't really license the whole thing.
Completely different issue is selling a thing like an engine, where they give you direct telemetry access and you build it and ship it with somebody trained on integration. Still an ITAR headache, but within the realm of feasibility.