
SpaceX considering a new 'Commercial Cape Canaveral' in Texas - evo_9
http://arstechnica.com/science/news/2012/04/spacex-decides-to-build-a-lil-old-commercial-spaceport-in-texas.ars
======
dalke
Makes good sense to me. 2 degrees closer to the equator than the Kennedy Space
Center, and as the article points out, it's closer to their headquarters,
there's the option of being able to abort to Florida, and they don't have to
contend with other launch schedules.

~~~
excuse-me
Where politics meets orbital mechanics.

Texas hates government, so Texas hates Nasa, so Texas will be willing to throw
grants/tax-breaks/permit waivers at anyone that looks like a non-government
alternative to Nasa

~~~
aaronbrethorst
> Texas hates Nasa

Funny, I could've sworn that was an space shuttle on the Texas license
plate...

Also, this article suggests that Houston-area lawmakers lobbied hard to save
the boondoggle Constellation program.

[http://www.chron.com/news/houston-texas/article/Texas-
fights...](http://www.chron.com/news/houston-texas/article/Texas-fights-for-
NASA-despite-fading-clout-1591346.php)

~~~
excuse-me
I think you are getting confused between damn federal goverment money-wasting
pork barrel projects in other states and vital local jobs brought to that
state by it's brilliant and astute senator.

Sometimes it's very difficult for mere amateurs to spot the difference.

------
ChuckMcM
Interesting, Spaceport America [1] is at 33 degrees N Lat, so 5 degrees north
of Kennedy and 8 degrees north of this proposed spot. Now what delta-v
difference you get per degree of latitude I do not know.

I've often wondered why we didn't keep part of Panama for the purposes of
space launch. Not forward thinking I guess.

[1] <http://www.spaceportamerica.com/about-us/faqs.html>

~~~
Avshalom
I can't find the number right now but I'm pretty sure I've seen it somewhere
that Baikonur at 45N has a 9% penalty (cargo mass_Baik = .91*mass_Canav for
the same propelent). So 2 degrees south is probably fairly trivial.

~~~
excuse-me
It's also dependent on what orbit you want.

Equatorial is easiest launch to achieve and you gain the biggest advantage
from launching east and near the equator so it's what was tried first. It's
also rather useful if you wish to go to the moon - which is one of the reasons
KSC is where it is.

Today fibre cables means geostationary is a declining satellite market and a
lot of the new business needs to go into much higher inclination orbits to
cover a larger part of the earth's surface (think Iridium, GPS etc). For this
an equatorial launch still helps but latitude is less of a consideration than
the angle you can launch from without hitting any major cities.

This is the reason for Edwards AFB, if you want a polar (eg orbit for
surveillance satellites) you really don't want to launch due N from KSC -
there is a lot of expensive real estate on the eastern seaboard!

