Chinese Rocket Launch Site

There may not be any speed/time advantange to launching near the equator for them. Their targets may be more easily reached by brute strength and physically closer distances.

Polar orbits are easier to achieve when launched from northerly sites, since there is less eastward velocity to have to counteract. Many weather satellites (and spy satellites) are placed in polar orbits. Polar orbits are also better for ICBMs!

At one time NASA and the Air Force had planned to use Vandenberg AFB for launching the space shuttle into polar or high-inclination orbits.

I was thinking more along the ICBM line...it's the military in me

Launch from a remote area has the advantage that failure is more easily kept secret. Additionally, it offers less risk of collateral damage upon failure, due to low population and industry density. Further, Western observation satellite orbits are patchy up there.

Mark Bingham
Relativity PL

Dear Worrier: --In a word, "DON'T!" lol? Beyond that, I think you're correct, the higher as to altitude, the launch is, the less fuel will be needed to reach escape velocity and beyond. Supposedly, USA launches were supposed to be moved to the rockies in Colorado, but it hasn't happened yet. I'll go out on a limb and posit that it doesn't matter whether the launch is equatorial or not, anywhere can be reached from anywhere, because we have better control of payloads. Of course, it takes less fuel to NOT have to move very much, to be able to use enertia et al, but we have satilites covering every inch of enemy countries to be able to "read" their newspapers, lol. In some cases it doesn't work. We had to use other methods than photos during the cold war, as a certain Russian tank factory was always under clouds, and so output couldn't be counted. Maybe the plant produced...its own "clouds?" The Ariane...WHY wasn't it bigger, and if not bigger, why weren't boosters stuck on its sides like many of the US & Soviet rocketal-"LIFTING ENGINES." Note even the Red Chinese rocket has side boosters, but I can't remember those on the Ariane. It's almost, to me, like the French were whispering, " moi aussi", with the Ariane, rather than a larger than C-5 Saturn/Vostok, saying "Et LA!"

Come on. There is very little fuel used to lift a spacecraft 5,000 to 20,000 feet when you compare it to a target altitude of 1,000,000 feet up.

Then there is the cost of logistics to build a spaceport at such a location and operate it under the adverse conditions that rule the site. One large issue is wind.

To put things in perspective, it take the Shuttle 44 seconds to ascend to 20,000 feet. The total burn time for the Shuttle is 8.5 minutes.

Here is the ascent profile for STS-124.

Why did the Space Shuttle always do that roll?

Mainly to relieve stress on the space craft, but it also gives it a slight edge in climb performance.