资源描述
SPACEPORTS o f t h e w o r l d MARCH 2019 Author THOMAS G. ROBERTS A Report of the CSIS AEROSPACE SECURITY PROJECTSPACEPORTS o f t h e w o r l d MARCH 2019 Author THOMAS G. ROBERTS A Report of the CSIS AEROSPACE SECURITY PROJECTIV SPACEPORTS OF THE WORLD ABOUT CSIS Established in Washington, D.C., over 50 years ago, the Center for Strategic and International Studies (CSIS) is a bipartisan, nonprofit policy research organiza- tion dedicated to providing strategic in sights and policy solutions to help deci- sionmakers chart a course toward a better world. In late 2015, Thomas J. Pritzker was named chairman of the CSIS Board of Trus- tees. Mr. Pritzker succeeded former U.S. senator Sam Nunn (D-GA), who chaired the CSIS Board of Trustees from 1999 to 2015. CSIS is led by John J. Hamre, who has served as president and chief executive officer since 2000. Founded in 1962 by David M. Abshire and Admiral Arleigh Burke, CSIS is one of the worlds preeminent international policy in stitutions focused on defense and security; regional study; and transnational challenges ranging from energy and trade to global development and economic integration. For eight consecutive years, CSIS has been named the worlds number one think tank for defense and national security by the University of Pennsylvanias “Go To Think Tank Index. ” The Centers over 220 full-time staff and large network of affiliated schol ars con- duct research and analysis and develop policy initiatives that look to the future and anticipate change. CSIS is regularly called upon by Congress, the executive branch, the media, and others to explain the days events and offer bipartisan recommendations to improve U.S. strategy. CSIS does not take specific policy positions; accordingly, all views expressed herein should be understood to be solely those of the author(s). ACKNOWLEDGMENTS This report is made possible by general support to CSIS. No direct sponsorship contributed to this work. The author would like to thank Jacque Schrag, Emily Tiemeyer, Todd Harrison, and Kaitlyn Johnson from CSIS, Brian Weeden and Vic- toria Samson from the Secure World Foundation, and James Dean from Florida Today for their support on this project. 2019 by the Center for Strategic and International Studies. All rights reserved. Center for Strategic & International Studies 1616 Rhode Island Avenue, NW Washington, DC 20036 202-887-0200 | csis V TABLE OF CONTENTS INTRODUCTION 1 Geographic Considerations 2 Lower Latitudes 3 Azimuth Limitations 4 Natural Factors 5 Political Considerations 7 Accessibility 7 Neighboring Airspace 7 Political Stability 8 Public Awareness 8 Comparing Spaceports 8 ACTIVE SPACEPORTS 12 Plesetsk Cosmodrome 13 Baikonur Cosmodrome 15 Cape Canaveral / Kennedy Space Center 17 Vandenberg Air Force Base 19 Guiana Space Centre 21 Xichang Satellite Launch Center 22 Jiuquan Satellite Launch Center 24 Tanegashima Space Center 25 Taiyuan Satellite Launch Center 26 Satish Dhawan Space Centre 27 Wallops Flight Facility 29 Uchinoura Space Center 30 Yasny Launch Base 31 Palmachim Airbase 32 Imam Khomeini Space Center 33 Vostochny Cosmodrome 34 Rocket Lab Launch Complex 35 Pacific Spaceport Complex - Alaska 36 Sohae Satellite Launching Station 37 Wenchang Satellite Launch Center 38VI SPACEPORTS OF THE WORLD Ronald Reagan Ballistic Missile Defense Test Site 39 Naro Space Center 41 INACTIVE SPACEPORTS 42 Kapustin Yar Cosmodrome 43 Luigi Broglio Space Centre 43 Svobodny Cosmodrome 45 Hammaguir Test Centre 46 Woomera Test Range 47 FUTURE SPACEPORTS 48 FAA-Licensed Launch Sites 49 Cecil Spaceport 49 Colorado Air and Space Port 49 Houston Spaceport 50 Midland Air and Space Port 50 Mojave Air and Space Port 51 Oklahoma Spaceport 51 Spaceport America 52 Sub-Orbital Test Sites 52 Alcntara Launch Center 52 Esrange Space Center 53 Spaceport Camden 54 Tonghae Satellite Launching Ground 54 West Texas Launch Site 55 Proposed Spaceports 55 Antonio B. Won Pat International Airport 55 Christmas Island, Australia 56 Hawaii Air and Space Port 56 Pacific Spaceport Complex - Hawaii 56 Pacific Spaceport Complex - Saipan 57 Santa Maria Island, Portugal 57 Southerland County, Scotland 58 SpaceX South Texas Launch Site 58 CONCLUSION 59 The Modern Spaceport 601 INTRODUCTION OVER 60 YEARS AGO, the Soviet Union used a derivative of its R-7 rocketof- ten called the worlds first intercontinental ballistic missile (ICBM)to launch an artificial satellite into orbit, marking the first orbital space launch from the spaceport now known as the Baikonur Cosmodrome. 1Since then, launch ve- hicles have reached orbit from 27 spaceports around the world. With the rate of space launches projected to grow exponentially in the coming years, space- ports will become an increasingly important and potentially limiting factor in the global space industry. This report analyzes ground-based space launches from 1957 to 2018, including brief histories of all active and inactive orbital spaceports, 10-year launch records for the 22 spaceports still in use today, and the current status of several proposals to create new facilities capable of supporting orbital space launches.2 SPACEPORTS OF THE WORLD This report is accompanied by an interactive data repository available at online at cs.is/spaceports , which houses the launch data referenced in the following chapters. In both the online data reposi- tory and this report, only successful orbital launches from ground-based platforms are considered. Therefore, all launches from air- or mobile sea-based platformsincluding those using all variants of the air-launched Pegasus vehicle, those from the mobile sea-platform provided by Sea Launch, and those from Russian submarines in the Barents Seaare excluded. Ground-based platforms account for approximately 99 percent of all orbital space launches to date. 2 Ground-based spaceports are typically built in geopolitically favorable locations. Many spaceports are located in the most physically optimal regions available to operators, with geographic character- istics that include close proximity to the equator, opportunities for eastward or near-eastward launch, and favorable environmental factors. Historically, orbital space launch operations have been closely tied with ballistic missile research, leading several ICBM development and testing centers to later become spaceports. Due to the political risk associated with both missile development and orbit- al space launch testing, several spaceports were originally created such that their precise positions could remain ambiguous. In at least one case, a spaceport was created with the intention of being entirely secretwith its operator denying its existence for more than 15 years. GEOGRAPHIC CONSIDERATIONS To place a satellite into orbit, it must be delivered to a high altitude (at least 125 km for a circular or- bit) 3with sufficient horizontal velocity 4(approximately 7 km/s for low Earth orbit). 5Payloads launched to lower altitudesdepicted in Trajectory A in Figure 1face too much drag from the atmosphere to maintain the velocity required for orbit without expending more fuel. Those launched to a sufficient altitude but too little horizontal velocitylike Trajectory B in Figure 1also fail to reach orbit, instead falling back towards the Earth on a ballistic, sub-orbital trajectory. Figure 1: Comparing Sub-Orbital and Orbital Trajectories. Reach- ing orbit requires both a sufficient altitude and horizontal velocity. Launches that follow a flight path similar to Trajectory A have suffi- cient horizontal velocity but insufficient altitude. Those that resemble Trajectory B have sufficient altitude but insufficient horizontal veloci- ty. Both Trajectory A and B represent sub-orbital trajectories. A launch that resembles Trajectory C has both sufficient altitude and horizontal velocity and, therefore, reaches orbit.3 Due to one of the requirements for reaching orbitsuffi- cient horizontal velocitysome positions on the Earths surface are more optimal than others for launching pay- loads to certain orbits. Lower Latitudes Because the Earth is rotating around its center axisthe imaginary line that passes through the north and south polesall points on the planets surface naturally have some horizontal velocity. 6Therefore, some space mis- sions can leverage this rotation to reduce the total ener- gy required for launch. Due to the Earths shape, the magnitude of its natural horizontal surface velocity is dependent on latitude. Points at lower latitudes have higher velocities (with a maximum of 465 m/s or 1,040 mph at the equator), and those at higher latitudes have lower velocities (about 232 m/s or 520 mph at 60 both north and south of the equator and 0 m/s at the north and south poles). Since the Earth rotates west to east, the horizontal velocity at the planets surfaceno matter its magnitudeis always eastward. For some space missions, a velocity of a few hundred meters per second eastward can serve as a head start, lowering the energy required to accelerate an object to orbital speeds. This velocity is most helpful for missions that require a direct launch into prograde orbita category of orbits where satellites move around the Earth in the same direction the planet rotates. 7For other mis- sions, horizontal surface velocity is less helpful. Launching directly to polar or near-polar orbits where satellites travel over both the north and south polesrequires a southward or northward launch. Since the Earths horizontal velocity is entirely eastward, launches to polar orbits do not benefit from low latitude spaceports. Launching directly into retrograde orbits (where satellites move in the opposite direction of Earths rotation), however, requires a westward launch, where the launch vehicle must both overcome the spaceports natural eastward velocity and reach the horizontal velocity necessary to stay in orbit. Therefore, to take full advantage of the Earths rotation for space launch, an object must be launched due eastward from a spaceport located precisely on the equator. Since lower-latitude launches often require less energy (and therefore less propellant) than those from higher latitudes, the same launch vehicle could be used to launch more mass from the Guiana Space Centre in French Guiana than from the Plesetsk Cosmodrome in Russia. Similarly, a satellite launched from northern Scotland would require more propellant to reach some orbits than the same satellite launched to the same orbit from northern Brazil. Figure 2 shows the Earths surface velocity at the five most utilized spaceports in the world. “To take full advantage of the Earths rotation for space launch, an object must be launched due eastward from a spaceport located precisely on the equator.” 4 SPACEPORTS OF THE WORLD Figure 2: Velocity at Earths Surface by Latitude. The five most utilized spaceports are located between 5N and 63N. *Note: Although these five spaceports are all in the northern hemisphere, southern spaceports also benefit from the Earths rotation with the same rela- tionship between latitude and surface velocity. Lower latitudes are also helpful when trying to reach low-inclination orbits, like the geostationary belt (GEO), which has 0-inclination. Without orbital maneuvers after launch, a spaceport can only directly launch to orbits with inclinations greater than or equal to its latitude on the Earths surface. Thus, all payloads launches to GEO from the Baikonur Cosmodromethe worlds highest-latitude spaceport that has placed an object into that orbital regimemust perform costly plane change maneuvers (and burn more propellant) than the same object launched to GEO from a lower latitude spaceport. In the past 10 years, two thirds of all global GEO launches have been supported by spaceports at latitudes 30 and lower. 8 Azimuth Limitations All spaceports are associated with corresponding drop zones, or regions where rocket stages fall back to the Earths surface during a successful launch and where aborted missions are likely to crash land. The toxicity of some rocket propellants and the inherent threat of falling debris lead most launch operators to avoid creating drop zones that include populated areas or include foreign territory or airspace. The Cape Canaveral spaceport in Florida is restricted by the populated east coast of the United States to its north and southern Florida and several Caribbean island nations to its south. To prevent these regions from falling within the spaceports drop zones, all launches out of Cape Canaveral face azimuth limitations. A rockets launch azimuth is the direction it travels in the horizontal plane after leaving the launch pad, measured in degrees clockwise from due north. Historically, Cape Canaverals allowable azimuths lie between 35 and 120as depicted in Figure 3meaning orbital space launches from this spaceport are to the east. 95 Some spaceports, however, face azimuth limitations that prevent them from launching eastward, meaning they cannot take advantage of the Earths rotation as de- scribed in the previous subsection. For example, Vanden- berg Air Force Basethe United States main spaceport on its continental West Coastis restricted to its north and east by the densely populated Bay Area and Los An- geles County regions respectively. When the spaceport was planning to host Space Shuttle launches in the mid- 1980s, Vandenberg was allowed to use launch azimuths between 158 and 201. 10 As shown in Figure 3, this restriction only allows for southward launches, making the spaceport suitable for supporting direct launches to polar and near-polar orbits, which require satellites to travel north and south when viewed from the ground. 11“Most launch operators avoid creating drop zones that include populated areas foreign territory.” Figure 3: Azimuth Limitations at Cape Canaveral and Vandenberg. Launches from Cape Canaveral and the Kenn
展开阅读全文