Russian technicians visit European space launch base in French Guiana

The Russians have had a problem ever since the breakup of the USSR because their launch site is in Kazakhstan, not Russia. Perhaps this is a solution.

__________________
Everything I need to know I learned through Googling.

It's official: Europe to pay Russia to build Soyuz pad at Kourou

If this goes through, it means that we don't need to have spacecraft at a 51 degree inclination orbit any more in order to cooperate with the Russians.

__________________
Everything I need to know I learned through Googling.

So will this make Baikonur the first spaceport to be retired?

__________________
Anyone who believes in the warning of the bible (prophecies concerning the end time which is now) shall be benefited from my invention. Because they won't be stupid enough to pass this! -Alex Chiu

That's would be a shame, because it's a cool name.

Yea, the most irritating things happen when your launches have to dodge a whole 'nother country...
How much extra will it cost to launch down there though? Anyone have any ideas?

__________________
Yes, I have a life. It's quite different from yours.

Smithsonian magazine (or possibly Air & Space/Smithsonian) had an article about the Kazakhstan locals scavenging rocket parts from crashed lower stages and selling them.

__________________
Everything I need to know I learned through Googling.

Doesn't it cost less to launch from a lower latitude?

__________________
Anyone who believes in the warning of the bible (prophecies concerning the end time which is now) shall be benefited from my invention. Because they won't be stupid enough to pass this! -Alex Chiu

It's probably a trade-off between the extra payload you can carry due to the equator effect, versus the cost of transporting all the equipment from Russia to French Guiana.

__________________
A person's name, or a mark representing it, as signed personally or by deputy, as in subscribing a letter or other document.

Well, the launchpad's already there. The rockets will have to get shipped in though, right? Could any of the Araines possibly be adapted to launch a Soyuz? (If so why doesn't the ESA ever try this?)

Oh and also, think the cosmonauts are happy to be moving to the tropics?

__________________
Anyone who believes in the warning of the bible (prophecies concerning the end time which is now) shall be benefited from my invention. Because they won't be stupid enough to pass this! -Alex Chiu

I'm trying to figure out why any right-minded cosmonaut would have a problem with leaving the Russian winter for the beach...

__________________
Yes, I have a life. It's quite different from yours.

The article indicates that they will be building a pad tailored to launch Soyuz rockets.

__________________
Everything I need to know I learned through Googling.

There has been much written on this one, an article asserts that cargo can be increased by 2 to 3 times over Soyuz or Progress launched from Baikanur. Kourou's proximity to the equator will allow carriers to take two or three times more freight than their counterparts lifting off from the Baikonur space center in Kazakhstan and a single Soyuz launch will enable Russia to save up to $60 million. Europe is also looking at the Russia Klipper space craft.
http://en.rian.ru/science/20050614/40522014.html
http://www.spaceref.com/news/viewpr.html?pid=17113
http://en.rian.ru/russia/20050614/40518570.html

http://en.rian.ru/russia/20050705/40848713.html
http://www.physorg.com/news4929.html

Have you ever been to French Guiana? I understand that the expression armpit is both too kind, and too high and offcentre.

Would you count the nearly completed but never used shuttle launch complex at Vandenburg?

One of my friends was launching a payload from there. They were playing tennis on an off day. An anaconda came onto the court. They quit the game.

I think that the first orbital launch site to be definitely retired would have to be Hammaguir in Algeria, from which France launched most of their Diamant orbital missions. Ironically, the successor was, of course, Kourou.

Other candidates for retired sites - though it is not definite that they will never be used again - would be the San Marco platform off Kenya; Woomera (though Kistler and others have so-far unrealised plans to use that site); and Kapustin Yar in Russia.

Wallops Island in Virginia, which was the site of many Scout launches, is also a candidate, though I believe there are still proposals to launch Pegasus from there (of course Pegasus only requires a large runway, so you could launch it from New York or London if you felt like it.)

__________________
Fin
Skep-ti-cult® member #488-28303-790

There is some confusion possible - "Soyuz" is the name both of a booster series and of a spacecraft. So far, the public statements seem to all pertain to the booster, with no clear funding yet for the additional support facilities needed for launching cosmonauts from Kourou.

I have a hard time picturing Baikonur being retired, if only for the same reason Mike Griffin seemed uncomfortable with the US being forced to rely on other countries for crew launched until the CEV (or whatever it morphs into) is ready.

Australia have a few abandoned places, the Woomera site has not launched anything since 1971. The Aussies have Darwin as a projected launch site and in this area there was already an Emergency landing strip for shuttle, they also had plans for rocket launches from Cape York. From Australia I have not heard Liberal Party, Labor Party or any members of Howard's government mention Australia's Space plans.

Europe's launch site Hammaguir in Algeria was left out, the CNES French went away from it and decided to build at Kourou South America after Algeria became independant and the Algerian people won their war for independence from France back in 1964 even in the 1990s the radical islamic Algerian-based GIA is suspected of involvement in all of the terrorist bombings in France


For the USA I've heard that Kodiak in Alaska is giving some economic trouble, aside from the cost of building such a complex weather is expected to be nasty at times and causes launch delay. Alaska Aerospace have done a good job at building another launch site but because of the large costs some folks refer to it as "Space Pork Kodiak". The Wallops site hasn't been very active for some time, launches from Aircraft and rockets from the SLC platform seem to be moving along fine, I think the l;ast Wallops launch was 1985, Kodiak space port may have cost much but the site is very good for polar and high inclination satellites.

Baikonur won't be an Abandoned site, it is far too good plus the Russians have sent up Energia, Soyuz and Dnepr from here. They may scale back Baikonur Kazakhstan a little bit but it is a very much used launch facility, and does great work. Like helping on the ISS, doing joint missions with the ESA, and sending Americans into Astronauts Space from their Russian manned spacecraft. The Russian space site Plesetsk also has a very high level of activity, with Start-1, Molniya, Soyuz and Kosmos launches. There are three possible Russian launches that might be left behind, Kapustin Yar site is not very active, the Svobodny facility isn't doing much but perhaps its just growing and might expand in future, Launches from Submarines started off good but have started to fail like the Cosmos Solar Sail failure. Start-1 is a study into ballistic missile conversion, they have been negotiating with Canada's spaceport people, Australia and the Brazilian base of Alcantara for launches. A new Eurockot has been developed from the joint venture between German company DSA and Kurunichev which became DaimlerChrysler Aerospace, after the break up of USSR the Ukraine has retained some knowledge on space and offers the Zenit and Ukrainians had ideas to launch Zenit3 from Australia's Cape York.

Chinese are expanding in Space, they may look at cutting cost and getting better science by doing joint missions with the Europeans or NASA. China launch sites are growing at getting very active, the Xichang launch facility, the Jiuquan site and the Taiyuan. China government officals said before they were considering a Heavy Long March Rocket for a 20-40 tonne to low orbit and might think of moving to the Biak islands at Indonesia for the launch of a CZ3 rocket, but I'm not sure how things are moving on this and the project might be abandoned. The Chinese have already launched many foreign satellites for Sweden, Pakistan, the USA, Philippines and Australia.


Europe's other site San Marco station was not used since 1988, but the platforms were certified until 2014 and the ASI plans to use the Russian launcher Start-1, Italy are studying plan for upgrading Europe's Vega Rocket and the Spanish looked at the Capricornio for small launches, (INTA) announced plans to develop a small orbital launch vehicle with a small payload capacity, Swedish will have rockets from at Esrange outside Kiruna, but any of these projects could fall down easily. The French Guiana site in South America is still one of the best, Ariane has done very well in the Kourou launch facility. The Kourou area doesn't see Hirricane winds and is a very low risk for Quake unlike other launch sites around the world, storms and earthquakes can cause huge problems. French Guiana is ideal for geostationary orbits and is well located for polar orbits. The Russians have moved for the ESA South America site because of the various benefits, the Russian Klipper reusable ship they have still been able to progress even with little to no funding they are looking to get Europe into the Russian Shuttle idea. Visitors to the Paris Air Show were being treated to a full-scale mockup of Russia’s proposed Kliper spaceliner.

The Kliper could be in service in the 2010-2011 timeframe. Novosti has also quoted Perminov as saying that the Kliper can be launched from European as well as Russian spaceports. ESA had plans for the Hermes space plane but it fell through because of problems but ESA's Future Launchers Programme is important if they want to do space station work and go to Mars with Aurora. The European Mars mission was launched with Soyuz/Fregat launcher at Baikonur, Kazakhstan while the Cluster satellites each were 2 Russian Soyuz rockets. Kliper was proposed in 2004 by the Russian Energia Corp, money that ESA could provide to the Russian space effort could easily pay for development of the Kliper and it would give the ESA a manned craft that may well be capable of being launched by Arianne or by a generation of Russian boosters from the ESA facility in french guyanna. Russian space officials forecast that the Kliper can carry six people: two pilots with the other four seats for astronauts or space tourists. In addition, the spaceship can haul up to 1,540 pounds (700 kilograms) of cargo. Some key factors for the Ariane-Kourou site in South America, it has very little reduction in kilometres per hour, it is a low risk Earthquake and storm area unlike other space sites. It is not a densely populated area and people are not affected by falling debris, and there is great assistance from the Earth's rotation near the equator and it is great for geostationary launches and well located for polar orbits. Europe can also ask for joined help from NASA and the USA's tracking stations can be used at Wallops, they can also get tracking help from the English archipelago of Bermuda as well as all the other ESA facility at French Guiana and the European area.

Funny you should say that, this article is on the CNN website under travel today.

__________________
At night the stars put on a show for free (Carole King)

One Earth, One Sky - IYA 2009
All moderation in purple

"Fishermen whisking piranhas out of rivers" does not sound like good advertising copy to me...

Come to French Guiana, swim with piranhas, hike with jaguars! And don't forget the rain of monkey feces!

I'm going to miss saying "Baikonur Cosmodrome" in a deep pseudo-Russian accent.

Excellent summary, MT...

Still reckon Hammaguir has it over Woomera as being earliest abandoned, last orbital shot was in 1967:

http://www.astronautix.com/sites/hamguira.htm

Apart from 'Son of Star Wars' and one Athena orbital mission, I've been wondering what the point of Kodiak was. Think your explanation is as good as any

If we're doing spaceports that never happened, don't forget APSC, who planned to launch 'Aurora', another new R-7 variant, from Christmas Island; Beal Aerospace's plans for Sombrero Island in the Caribbean, scotched by 'market forces' - and NASA - plus environmental objections.

But my favourite has to be the two possible British launch sites for Black Arrow, one in Norfolk, one in the Hebrides:

http://www.spaceuk.org/ba/northsea.htm

I love the sudden discovery, duh, we're going to be running oil platforms out there.

But perhaps when the oil runs out we could convert an old platform and do San Marco style launches from offshore East Anglia. :wink:

There are lots of other proposals, but most of them have never even come as close to fruition as this.

Well, Vega is by far the most likely to come off:

http://www.astronautix.com/lvs/vega.htm

But Capricornio is listed everywhere as cancelled:

http://www.astronautix.com/lvs/capcorno.htm

Indeed it is hard to see how two European small launchers would be sustainable, given that ESA has clearly expressed doubts about running even one.

The future of San Marco seems very doubtful, great location, though, because it was largely being kept alive due to the Italian Scout 2 project, which would have revived that good old launcher. That project is dead due to Vega, but everything seems to indicate that this would fly from Kourou.

http://www.astronautix.com/sites/sanmarco.htm

Esrange do indeed keep expressing their intent to provide orbital capability, but this always reads to me like a pious hope.

__________________
Fin
Skep-ti-cult® member #488-28303-790

Vega is moving forward now, they had been doing testing going through definition and developments, a contract signed and small ESA ceremony took place in Italy
http://www.esa.int/SPECIALS/Launcher...AY2IU7E_0.html

http://www.esa.int/SPECIALS/Launcher...EZ2PGQD_0.html

The Russian Soyuz launcher looks like its is going to Europe’s Spaceport in French Guiana - South America.
http://www.esa.int/SPECIALS/ESA_Perm...BDYEM4E_0.html
http://www.esa.int/SPECIALS/ESA_Perm...PF6DIAE_0.html
http://www.esa.int/SPECIALS/Launcher...5P57ESD_0.html
http://www.esa.int/SPECIALS/ESA_Perm...YU5DIAE_0.html

Kliper to use Buran seats

http://www.spacedaily.com/news/kliper-05a.html

The Kliper program is being pursued by a consortia of interested Russian, European, Japanese partners. It aims to develop a new manned taxi that builds on the legacy of the Soyuz rather than Buran or the US space shuttle.

If they go with the winged variant they may use more of Buran's many innovations. I am really excited about this. Chelomei was the big advocate for spaceplanes--and that had fallen out of party favor--as it were.

Cool links by the way. I wish I could interest more people in actual rocketry instead of the mindless focus on payloads.

Chelomei wasn't the only one. Rocketry in the fUSSR grew out of rocket planes more than elsewhere (it was as if von Braun had been the brains behind the Me 163 Komet). Not just Chelomei, but Korolev and some others spent the war years (when not under arrest, and sometimes while still under arrest...) working on rocket interceptors. They finally got some into test flights, but by the time it mattered, the front had moved west and it was no longer the Red Army, but the Luftwaffe, which was interested in high-acceleration point-defense interceptors. The idea hung around, maybe there more strongly than elsewhere. Soviet space designers haven't seen a large airplane built since 1950 that didn't have a sign saying "AIR LAUNCH VEHICLE" on it (not that US designers have been far behind), and spaceplane designs have also been floated as long as people have been shot into space. (You almost certainly know this - it's just an aside for onlookers).

I have an article coming up in Griffith Observer on this - winged rockets do seem to come and go in fads, but there are serious tradeoffs that make this happen, so that, as cool as they are and as logical as the idea seems, I'm not sure that this is the best technical way to go...

You are certainly correct. I think Chelomei just held on to the concept longer--Korolov resigned himself to capsules and gave up on winged designs--even if it was his glider that got him noticed. Chelomei had worked longer on winged rocket designs what with his extensive cruise missile background.

Winged Soviet efforts only reached fruition with Buran--and small lifting body prototypes for Spiril. Chelomei just pushed a bit harder for the concept.

The Soyuz was meant to survive a trip from the moon. Bulk the heat shield back up--and the R-7 launched Soyuz could return from the moon. The problem is that R-7 was to weak to send it to the moon. Only UR-500 could do that with a rump Soyuz/ZOND.

The Chinese look to be able to put a whole Shenzhou up there with future Long March designs. That also puts the kibosh on some of their winged ambitions, sadly.

Some remarks:

if soyuz is launched from Kourou, that doesn't necessarily mean Baikonour will be abandoned, right? Other craft are launnched from Baikonour as well, and Soyuz could be launched from 2 places if they wanted to.

Furthermore the Soyuz launcher (not the spacecraft) has its own name, but I'd have to look that one up. That name is rarely used though.

__________________
To the regular visitor of internet bulletin boards it is clear that it's an excellent idea your parents get to choose your real name.

It is called the Soyuz launch vehicle. Alternate names are Semyorka (little-seven) Molniya (the version that blew up recently), etc. Each one is a bit different--but all are based on the R-7 ICBM--not only the worlds first ICBM--but the largest EVER actually fitted with a nuke. UR-500 was to be a super-ICBM--but was never fitted with the 100-150 megaton super H Bomb/Warhead..

They will keep Baikonur--or so a recent agreement states. But they have to pay Kazakhs to use their own facilities which is a huge drain. I think there are better relations now.

Russia also has new leadership in space--and the primer Minister of India is a rocket man himself--thus the great advocacy for the GSLV and its proposed 200 ton solid first stage.

The rest of the world is passing us standing still--and we still have the Delta II and ISS anchors weighing us down.

"Semyorka" is the one I was looking for indeed.

__________________
To the regular visitor of internet bulletin boards it is clear that it's an excellent idea your parents get to choose your real name.

I agree about ISS, but why pick on Delta 2? It's almost the US equivalent of Soyuz (except for not being man-rated), an old workhorse you can always fall back on. Further to that, I have seen no analysis anywhere that suggests that Delta 2 is holding the US back in space. Shuttle/ISS, yes - everyone except NASA seems to agree with that being a boondoggle and a white elephant.

Delta 2 does a real job and it does it reliably.

__________________
Fin
Skep-ti-cult® member #488-28303-790