That’s one reason. Another is that, in case of a failure, it’s considered somewhat more desirable for the rocket to crash into the ocean than, say, downtown Orlando. Although I don’t think many people would object if it took out the It’s a Small World ride at Disney World.
lostcawz
4614
Ya, my understanding was these things go west to east. But something the guy said in the steam made me wonder if this one was going back over the US. He mentioned something about being able to see the launch from outside Florida. But I think he meant seeing it from further up the east coast not further west like I first interpreted it.
But but but that is slowing the Earth’s rotation! We are going to grind to a halt eventually!
Matt_W
4616
People would cheer.
The causality there is kind of backwards: they were always going to launch east, so they launch from the east coast so that it’s not over land. KSC’s location is interesting. You can’t reach orbits with inclination less than the latitude of your launch site. The ESA’s major launch facility is at Kourou in French Guiana, for instance, which has a latitude of about 5°, meaning it has access to nearly any orbital inclination. KSC’s latitude, on the other hand is 28.5°. This is for a couple of reasons: 1) the earth’s axial tilt is 23.5°, so from KSC you can do launches close to the plane of the ecliptic for interplanetary or lunar launches. (The moon’s orbit is actually tilted about 5° relative to the Earth’s, so twice a month you can launch directly from KSC to the moon’s orbital plane.) 2) It’s part of the continental U.S. so easier to ship huge rocket components from manufacturing facilities by truck or rail.
Most of our destinations in low Earth orbit (i.e. space stations and Hubble) are in orbits with inclination higher than 28.5°. (Hubble is at exactly 28.5° and the ISS is at 51.6° because you have to be able to reach it from Roscomos’s Baikonur launch facility in Kazakhstan, which is at latitude 45°.) If we want to launch to equatorial geosynchronous orbits, it’s relatively cheap (in fuel) to correct the inclination at the apogee of the transfer orbit.
When the United States wants to do high inclination or polar launches (i.e. for mapping and spy satellites), it uses Vandenburg AFB on the west coast, which has nothing but clear blue water to its south.
Skipper
4617
It should be noted, was a slightly different setup since they aren’t docking. From wiki:
Resilience launched on 16 September 2021[24] at 00:02:56 UTC (15 September 2021 at 20:02:56 EDT), atop Falcon 9 Block 5 booster B1062 from Kennedy Space Center’s Launch Complex 39A. The spacecraft was launched into a low Earth orbit with an apogee of 585 km (364 mi) making it the 5th highest apogee Earth orbit achieved by a crewed spacecraft,[c] not including the Apollo program. It has an inclination of 51.6°. Following three days in orbit, the spacecraft will splashdown in the Atlantic Ocean.
The spacecraft’s docking adapter, normally used to dock with the International Space Station, was replaced for this mission by a single monolithic domed glass window inspired by the Cupola module, allowing 360° views outside Resilience 's nose.[22] The cupola is protected during launch and reentry by the spacecraft’s retractable nosecone, which also houses a custom camera enabling photography of the vehicle’s interior and exterior during flight.[23] The cupola is removable, so that Resilience can easily be reconfigured for missions in the future that require docking, following the conclusion of Inspiration4.[23] Four Draco thrusters located on the spacecraft’s nose necessitated the installation of four heat shield tiles on the cupola’s exterior, which protect the glass dome from engine exhaust during reaction control maneuvers.
jpinard
4618
Elon Musk just made the Virgin Atlantic and Blue Origin rides appear stupidly lame by comparison.
Skipper
4619
Now THAT is space tourism.
CraigM
4620
Oh hell yes.
If I had that kind of money, I would no doubt part with it for that. Take that Bezos and your flying penis that can only go up and down.
Menzo
4623
Do we really need to make this some sort of battle? Why can’t every one of these companies succeed? Do we have to pick sides?
Strollen
4624
It’s a fair point. i think what is pissing a lot of people off is the Blue Origins lawsuits. They do nothing but delay the moon landing.
Tortilla
4625
Yep, exactly this. SpaceX is doing fantastic engineering work. Their competitors less so, and some of them are trying to make up the competitive difference by gaming NASA contract awards and tying them up in lawsuits.
CraigM
4626
100% this. Its one thing to have multiple companies competing, its another to have some of them only getting contracts because of contacts and friendly legislatures because on merits they are getting clowned on the regular.
There is SpaceX, and nobody else is even close right now.
Even so I would ‘t care if it weren’t for the legal shenanigans they pull to kneecap their superiors competitors.
I AM LOOKING AT YOU BOEING AND BLUE ORIGIN
Strollen
4627
Both Bezo’s and Branson have tweeted their congratulations and Musk thanked them.
Still this is guy that everybody wants to get a tweet from.
lostcawz
4628
Not quite Shoemaker-Levy, but still cool.
Blink and you’ll miss it.
jpinard
4629
I caught that too. My scale could be off, but isn’t the blast plume from that larger than the diameter of Earth?
Matt_W
4630
It’s huge, but probably not Earth size
