Shetland Space Port
Discussion
Halmyre said:
sherman said:
It will be a visable from most of Shetland on a good day. Its quite a flat island really.
Incoming parrot ahoy, probably, but Lerwick is nearly 50 miles from Saxa Vord. You'd need a 1600 foot tower to see the launch point.Yes, should still be able to see it, especially at night when it’ll light up the horizon.
Launching further north is a positive advantage for polar launches since you don’t have to scrub off so much of the Earth’s rotation. Thus saving fuel and increasing the payload. Shetland is around 60 degrees north, so the rotation speed is half (~520 mph) what it is at the equator.
Launching further north is a positive advantage for polar launches since you don’t have to scrub off so much of the Earth’s rotation. Thus saving fuel and increasing the payload. Shetland is around 60 degrees north, so the rotation speed is half (~520 mph) what it is at the equator.
Simpo Two said:
They could save a bit of fuel if they started from the top of Ben Nevis 
Apparently this will be the UK's first 'vertical rocket launch'. That suggests we've launched some at an angle...
And whilst launched from Oz, let's not forget the Black Arrow programme over 50 years ago: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Black_Arrow
The UK remains the only country to have successfully launched their own satellite into space and then abandon their entire industry. As a result of the decision to abandon Black Arrow, there was a massive ‘brain drain’ with most space and rocket scientists and engineers moving to NASA or ESA. Apparently this will be the UK's first 'vertical rocket launch'. That suggests we've launched some at an angle...
And whilst launched from Oz, let's not forget the Black Arrow programme over 50 years ago: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Black_Arrow
My dad was one of the payload engineers for Prospero 1 and was present at the launch in Woomera
Simpo Two said:
They could save a bit of fuel if they started from the top of Ben Nevis
Apparently this will be the UK's first 'vertical rocket launch'. That suggests we've launched some at an angle...
And whilst launched from Oz, let's not forget the Black Arrow programme over 50 years ago: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Black_Arrow
The Virgin Orbit attempt was a horizontal launch - so I imagine that is why they have been careful to put the word "Vertical" in there, to try and avoid someone nit-picking about "first". Although they probably should have added "orbital" given that by definition there have been plenty of vertical (and horizontal) rocket launches ... just none that went to orbit.Apparently this will be the UK's first 'vertical rocket launch'. That suggests we've launched some at an angle...
And whilst launched from Oz, let's not forget the Black Arrow programme over 50 years ago: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Black_Arrow
Simpo Two said:
Ah now that makes sense - if you launch vertically and your rocket goes wrong it lands back on top of you, or goes through somebody's greenhouse. So if your rocket is crap, fire it out to sea.
Evidently no greenhouses on Shetland
I did mention that earlier. The Chinese aren't too bothered by such niceties. Their rocket stages tend to rain down on villages down-range to the various launch sites. The locals look on the events as glorified firework displays.Evidently no greenhouses on Shetland
Eric Mc said:
Simpo Two said:
Ah now that makes sense - if you launch vertically and your rocket goes wrong it lands back on top of you, or goes through somebody's greenhouse. So if your rocket is crap, fire it out to sea.
Evidently no greenhouses on Shetland
I did mention that earlier. The Chinese aren't too bothered by such niceties. Their rocket stages tend to rain down on villages down-range to the various launch sites. The locals look on the events as glorified firework displays.Evidently no greenhouses on Shetland
Eric Mc said:
Flooble said:
I think the USSR was similar - isn't there part of one of the "stans" that is poisoned by all the hypergolics?
I hadn't heard that but it sounds plausible. I would guess it's Kazahkstan as that's where the Baikonur Cosmodrome is.It looks like they are messing up the environment north of their launch site at Pletsesk as well. That would account for the Arctic pollution.
The Chinese Long March series of rockets (up to Long March 4) also use these toxic hypergolics as their main fuels.
Western launchers tend to use the less harmful mixes of liquid oxygen combined with kerosene, methane or liquid hydrogen. The last major Western rocket to use NDMH was the Titan family which are now all retired.
The Chinese Long March series of rockets (up to Long March 4) also use these toxic hypergolics as their main fuels.
Western launchers tend to use the less harmful mixes of liquid oxygen combined with kerosene, methane or liquid hydrogen. The last major Western rocket to use NDMH was the Titan family which are now all retired.
Eric Mc said:
It looks like they are messing up the environment north of their launch site at Pletsesk as well. That would account for the Arctic pollution.
The Chinese Long March series of rockets (up to Long March 4) also use these toxic hypergolics as their main fuels.
Western launchers tend to use the less harmful mixes of liquid oxygen combined with kerosene, methane or liquid hydrogen. The last major Western rocket to use NDMH was the Titan family which are now all retired.
So we have 'eco-friendly' kerosene, methane and liquid hydrogen used by the caring sharing green West, and beastly toxic hypergolics used by the selfish bThe Chinese Long March series of rockets (up to Long March 4) also use these toxic hypergolics as their main fuels.
Western launchers tend to use the less harmful mixes of liquid oxygen combined with kerosene, methane or liquid hydrogen. The last major Western rocket to use NDMH was the Titan family which are now all retired.
ds everywhere else. Which is actually better at doing the job though? Are we at risk of having second rate products due to green-ism? Or is just a cost issue?It's not a matter of performance. Hypergolics are great if you want the rocket to be able to sit there without constant attention, like an ICBM, satellite, lunar lander or capsule thrusters. But it's nasty, toxic and corrosive stuff and even Soviet rocket scientists (not known for being tree huggers) called it "devil's venom".
It's best to use something else if you can. Russia has now replaced their hypergolic powered Proton rocket with the kerosene / oxygen powered Angara system. Arianespace replaced the hypergolic powered Ariane 1 to 4 rockets with the more capable hydrogen / oxygen powered Ariane 5 in the late 90s. The Chinese still have some hypergolic rockets, but even they have now fitted grid fins to try to steer falling boosters away from more populated areas.
It's best to use something else if you can. Russia has now replaced their hypergolic powered Proton rocket with the kerosene / oxygen powered Angara system. Arianespace replaced the hypergolic powered Ariane 1 to 4 rockets with the more capable hydrogen / oxygen powered Ariane 5 in the late 90s. The Chinese still have some hypergolic rockets, but even they have now fitted grid fins to try to steer falling boosters away from more populated areas.
Simpo Two said:
So we have 'eco-friendly' kerosene, methane and liquid hydrogen used by the caring sharing green West, and beastly toxic hypergolics used by the selfish bds everywhere else. Which is actually better at doing the job though? Are we at risk of having second rate products due to green-ism? Or is just a cost issue?
Hypergolics combust on contact with each other and thus don't require ignition, only fuel pumps. So they allow for a simpler design. They are also super corrosive. which requires certain handling and storage, so it's an optimisation problem like everything else.ds everywhere else. Which is actually better at doing the job though? Are we at risk of having second rate products due to green-ism? Or is just a cost issue?The US still use hypergolics for their X37, I think, but it's not launched often and if you want to go near it you need to dress funny or you might die.
sherman said:
Tom Logan said:
Shouldn't the launch be from Carnoustie??
Fife? So you can take out Dundee or St Andrews with a failed launch?
The sketch was called Taysiders in space, and was set at Star Fleets new academy in Carnoustie. A non Scot would probably not find it funny.
Edited by J6542 on Sunday 24th December 01:55
J6542 said:
sherman said:
Tom Logan said:
Shouldn't the launch be from Carnoustie??
Fife? So you can take out Dundee or St Andrews with a failed launch?
troc said:
The UK remains the only country to have successfully launched their own satellite into space and then abandon their entire industry. As a result of the decision to abandon Black Arrow, there was a massive ‘brain drain’ with most space and rocket scientists and engineers moving to NASA or ESA.
My dad was one of the payload engineers for Prospero 1 and was present at the launch in Woomera
If you're being pedantic, technically they cancelled it before achieving orbit.My dad was one of the payload engineers for Prospero 1 and was present at the launch in Woomera
Cancelled: 29th July 1971
Launch R3 of Black Arrow: 23rd October 1971
It's just that the rocket was already at the launch site and they were given permission to complete the launch.
You may argue it was only cancelled after the launch, but the decision had been made prior to achieving orbit.
Agreed it caused a brain drain.
annodomini2 said:
troc said:
The UK remains the only country to have successfully launched their own satellite into space and then abandon their entire industry. As a result of the decision to abandon Black Arrow, there was a massive ‘brain drain’ with most space and rocket scientists and engineers moving to NASA or ESA.
My dad was one of the payload engineers for Prospero 1 and was present at the launch in Woomera
If you're being pedantic, technically they cancelled it before achieving orbit.My dad was one of the payload engineers for Prospero 1 and was present at the launch in Woomera
Cancelled: 29th July 1971
Launch R3 of Black Arrow: 23rd October 1971
It's just that the rocket was already at the launch site and they were given permission to complete the launch.
You may argue it was only cancelled after the launch, but the decision had been made prior to achieving orbit.
Agreed it caused a brain drain.
Not that it’s a serious moan anyway - dad was seconded to ESA (ESRO as was) for a limited contract whilst the UK farted about being clueless. When his contract was up, he was offered the choice of going back to Farnborough and resuming his old civil service position or a permanent contract in the Netherlands. Apparently the discussion with his UK boss was pretty much along the lines of ‘you’d be an idiot to come back to the uk as you are earning more than me and all the UK space research funds are being sent to ESA anyway’.
So I grew up in the Netherlands
Simpo Two said:
So we have 'eco-friendly' kerosene, methane and liquid hydrogen used by the caring sharing green West, and beastly toxic hypergolics used by the selfish bds everywhere else. Which is actually better at doing the job though? Are we at risk of having second rate products due to green-ism? Or is just a cost issue?
Kerosene and liquid hydrogen did quite well in the Apollo program. Hardly second-rate.ds everywhere else. Which is actually better at doing the job though? Are we at risk of having second rate products due to green-ism? Or is just a cost issue?Gassing Station | Science! | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff