Re: Optimal location of world capital

"Derek Lyons" <fairwater@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote in message 
news:47ca3856.480059609@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Bryan Derksen <bryan.derksen@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote:
>>We seem to be going over and over the same argument here, perhaps
>>there's simply some differing underlying philosophy you have that I'm
>>not getting.
>
> There is.  Too many people are stuck on the false meme they learned
> back in grammar school or from dozens of edutainment programs - that
> one must launch to the east and that the advantages thereof are
> overwhelming.
>
>>Do you have some specific reason for preferring westward
>>launch that boosts their value to match that of eastward launch?
>
> No, as I said, I'm merely trying to educate people to the simple fact
> that there is no reason today to prefer one over the other.


There is a good reason.  It's called "economics".  Launching to the west 
increases cost per kilogram by around 20% or more, regardless of 
performance.   Also, if you are using aerobraking for the return journey, 
going west increases the relative airspeed and  increases the hazards 
involved (higher temperatures).  If you are a taxpayer or a commercial 
satellite launcher, you'll want the launch to be towards the east for 
economic reasons.  Each launch today costs many $10millions, so 20% better

is well worth having.  Otherwise it is like throwing money away.

If you are an Israeli rocketeer, you launch westwards for political and 
military reasons, not because you want to boast about your rocketry.  Or,
if 
you are launching an anti-satellite system, for physics reasons making the

bang big enough from a "smart rock" when it intercepts.

And you launch to polar orbit only for scientific or military reasons, and

accept that you have a smaller payload.

-- 
Mike Dworetsky

(Remove pants sp*mbl*ck to reply)