Britain will add value to its thriving space sector if sites for vertical and horizontal launches from UK soil come to fruition.
The prospect of UK spaceports is far from new but last week business secretary Greg Clark gave a firm indication that plans are being converted into policy.
Clark used Farnborough International Airshow 2018 to announce a £50m UK space launch fund, some of which will be steered toward the UK’s first spaceport on the A’Mhoine peninsula in Sutherland, on Scotland’s north coast.
Farnborough was the setting four years ago for the announcement of eight sites seen as suitable for spaceport development, with six of these being north of the border.
Now that the countdown has begun to build a UK spaceport, we asked if Sutherland – described on these pages as a ‘boggy peninsula’ – is the right place for vertical launches, and whether a horizontal launch site would have been a better option given the advanced state of development of Virgin Galactic’s Launcher One system, and the possibility of the UK spaceplane Skylon. Similarly, does the current absence of a UK-made and operated vertical launch technology increase Britain’s reliance on overseas launch operators?
The subject attracted 580 votes with just over half (53 per cent) agreeing that Sutherland will provide a boost to UK space, followed by 27 per cent who said it’s a good idea to build the vertical launch site, but not in the proposed location.
Of the remaining fifth of respondents, 11 per cent thought a horizontal UK spaceport would be better, two per cent said it would increase reliance on foreign launchers, and seven per cent couldn’t find a fit, opting instead for none of the above.
The Poll has so far attracted 38 comments, with edited highlights below addressing the siting of the Sutherland spaceport
“If they need to be as far north as they can get for polar orbital satellites then Orkney or Shetland – with convenient harbours and airfields – are much easier to get to,” said Steve Boyd.
Martin Nunn added: “The whole idea for the furthest Northern point is because it will be for small spacecraft only on polar orbits. Where the UK is makes it very difficult for any other kind of orbit – not near enough to the equator for help with the slingshot effect and far too close to all the other European countries to launch in any direction… Except North, where it is mostly deep water.”
Looking west, Peter Bessey noted: “The number of times that launches have been postponed at Cape Canaveral…would suggest that the North of Scotland’s often atrocious weather systems could well cause frequent problems for such a spaceport location. Surely that might create an unreliable and thus, unprofitable environment?”
“The site is a ‘pristine’ part of one of the last remaining wilderness areas in Europe, let alone Scotland,” said Nick Cole. “There is complete lack of infrastructure, no sea access, no major road access, no power infrastructure. The only thing going for it is that there is a clear uninhabited area of sea for failed rockets to fall in.”
What do you think? Keep the conversation flowing using comments below.
Scotland is an insane choice given that it could – and probably will – become a foreign country at a moment’s notice.
Theresa May’s government seems to actually aim to get things wrong, I don’t think I’ve ever seen anything like it.
Well, who really is insane? Stay with the EU and the European Space Agency, – hard to beat it.
ESA has very little (apart from geography) to do with the EU. Roughly 20% of ESA funding comes from the EU. Yes, they do work with the EU on common aims but are not owned by them.
We can stay with the EU or the ESA but we don’t have to do both! Now, who’s insane?
What happens if the Scots declare independence. Will we have to pay to use the facilities we paid for?
So no investment to take place in Scotland just in case we vote to leave the UK. Maybe being viewed as a partner in this union would help us stay. Its good for the UK . please do not make this an independence issue its engineering.
Douglas you are a partner in this union but your current leadership seem to forget that and it has an impact on views throughout the country.
A space port will require a large amount of open land, which Scotland has, It should also have good transport links, Scotland not doing quite as well here. It requires people to operate the facility and they will require housing.
Then there is the independence issue, as Tony Ingham states ‘What happens if the Scots declare independence. Will we have to pay to use the facilities we paid for?’
Port should have been in England. But if this and all previous governments are anything to go by it will be massively over budget and very late, reckon I wont see it in my life time.
nice to see our government has a few billion left over from cutting the budgets on public services and schools to afford this luxury.
silly idea putting it in Scotland when they are still trying to declare independence.
Baykonur Cosmodrome is in Kazakhstan but that doesn’t stop Russia from using it. The prolem is just the logisitics of getting to the location in Sutherland. It’s a 5 hour drive from Glasgow and even the ‘A’ roads are single track in some places. If they need to be as far north as they can get for polar orbital sattelites then Orkney or Shetland with convenient harbours and airfields are much easier to get to.
An Interesting concept. My only comment is that northern Scotland is just that – very northern, nearly 60 degrees! unless polar orbits are desired. Here in Australia we are thinking of a space port but this would probably go as close to the equator as possible at around 12 degrees on Cape York, not half way between Macquarie Island 54 deg S and the mainland of Antarctica which would be the equivalent.
My initial thoughts too … https://www.theengineer.co.uk/lockheed-martin-spaceport-scotland/ goes into fuller detail – they are indeed planning for polar orbits
Congratulations TonySprent- yours is the truly first comment that takes Physics into account. Surprising to see so many “political” comments in an Engineering website. something must be wrong with today’s engineering education (or lack of). Amclaussen, 39+ years performing as an engineer and still counting.
The whole idea for the furthest Northern point is because it will be for small spacecraft only on polar orbits. Where the UK is makes it very difficult for any other kind of orbit – not near enough to the equator for help with the slingshot effect and far too close to all the other European countries to launch in any direction… Except North, where it is mostly deep water.
No problem with a vertical take off space port in Scotland but how about sighting a horizontal take off one at Teesside airport; nice long runway, good communication links, westward take offs pass over mainly unpopulated areas eastward ones are soon over the sea.
If a rocket ever exploded and dropped a hail of fiery debris onto Darlington, I’m sure it would be a great consolation to the survivors that the launch trajectory passed over ‘mainly’ unpopulated areas …
You’d be doing well to hit Darlington but if headed west you could take out Stockton, not sure if that’s a bad thing or not 😉
??? https://bit.ly/2mwM4iR
If Spacex BFR works it might be useful to have closer to population centres?
Build it in Scotland – its only a glorified milk-bottle anyway. And while we are at it, lets review the Barnett formula that allows English taxpayers to fund free University places and free prescriptions for the Scots. In the end I suspect it won’t happen, any more than the European Space Agency would build a launch site here with the money we pay them.
I’m very surprised (dissapointed would be probably more appropriate) to see so many politically oriented comments IN SPITE OF having a strong clue in the questionnaire (“Good idea, WRONG LOCATION), instead of more scientific/technical ones at what is a supposedly engineering website. Perhaps the lack of more STEM education in young people is showing.
While you are correct, this is a political decision so it’s hardly surprising that there are political comments.
Why not a 4th runway at Heathrow?
Getting the politics out of the way first – a clear majority of the population who voted in the 2014 independence referendum do not support independence, despite the impression put about by the leader of the SNP minority government and her activists. It’s unlikely there will be a split anytime soon.
Turning to horizontal-launch facilities, Scotland has alternatives available for those as well: Machrihanish, close to Campbeltown at the South end of the Kintyre peninsula, and Prestwick, on the Ayrshire coast SW of Glasgow. Both of these have 3 km runways and room for expansion of facilities.
Wrong it was a small majority, and that was in 2014! And what has this to do with locating a space launch facility?
2014 Scottish referendum margin was 10.6%: compare this with the 11.5% margin of Labour over Conservative in the 1945 general election, generally regarded as a ‘landslide’ victory. Categorising 10.6% as a ‘clear’ majority is fair comment IMHO
£50mill? peanuts for a space launch facility. We’ll get monkeys
How about locations in England, like Manchester/London/Newcastle fantasic access = M25/M6/A1M you could also use the sea ports and cannals. yes I’m an Ex-Pat+Jock and your brexit vote will hurt me. On a space side look at the other Gov investments in the south of England.
the simple fact that a choice has been made is good for the UK, we now need a few rockets to use it
The number of times that launches have been postponed at Cape Canaveral and elsewhere, would suggest that the North of Scotland’s often atrocious weather systems could well cause frequent problems for such a space port location. Surely that might create an unreliable and thus, unprofitable environment?
AT LAST! a second ENGINEERING / TECHNICAL aspect being discussed instead of purely political arguments. Bravo!
Gives a “booster” more like. Also gives a whole new meaning to ”
Beam me up Scottie!” I swear if he replies back, “I am givin’ her all I’ve got, Captain”, I will puke internally.
A northerly location is good for a whole range of satellites – as polar orbits can be made to overfly more territory than (equatorial) geostationary (or a location in Antarctica would be good for this too…) {The more polar the location the less the velocity of the Earth’s rotation is – which has to be cancelled out…}
I am not sure why this is a vertical launch only – as there would be plenty of room for a horizontal or assisted launch type facility (cf Orkney or Shetland); would be good to know if politicians have done any thing – sorry thinking on this.
It will be a great boost to industry and the UK, BUT.. it is in completely the wring location. The number of jobs it will provide will be relatively small and generally specialist so not a lot of scope for local employment. The site is a ‘pristine’ part of one of the last remaining wilderness areas in Europe, let alone Scotland. There is complete lack of infrastructure, no sea access, no major road access, no power infrastructure. The only thing going for it is that there is a clear uninhabited area of sea for failed rockets to fall in, though this is across a major fishing area and sea route. Why industrialise another area when others are available? Why can it not be on one of the islands a little further north, where there used to be cold war communications sites, now all but unused and already despoiled?
I have been surprised at the number of calls for this to be located in population centres. AIRCRAFT that get into trouble may have a few minutes to dump most of the fuel in the tanks before attempting an emergency landing. State of the art rocketry is much less reliable and when things go wrong, they go spectacularly wrong, in a matter of seconds and involving far more fuel (hundreds of tonnes) …
It makes no difference, the Government will pour billions into it then a change of government will pull the plug and that will be another white elephant in the history books.
BHF beat me to it – the fundamental issue is long term, sustained support by the government, sadly past history does not provide good exemplars, and I am suspicious that the government may be using this issue as a distraction from its Brexit woes ( hope I am wrong on that !) . i have not read any technical justification papers but I hope as Mr A. Claussen says, its based on sound physics and good economic grounds. I am concerned over the environmental impact but I am not personally concerned over the political ramifications as whatever happens in the future, we are a union now and we should respect and assist our Scottish (& Welsh and Irish, Cornish etc) brethren – I understand England benefited greatly from the oil fields found in Scottish waters in years past and its seems only fair we proceed together and not cause unnecessary divisions where none yet exist. Otherwise gut reaction is that it could be a positive thing, and hope at some stage that a HOTOL/SKYLON airport would come about.
I believe almost all the oil came ashore in Scotland – though not all the fields would be regarded as being in Scottish waters… (the dividing line is perpendicular to the cost at the border NOT a line East-West through the oil fields.
Though I think that there is much opportunity at the Scotland site – but that might be something to follow on after the small and tardy investment
Compared to the estimated 7 or 8 billion for a new runway at Gatwick, 50 million is a silly little gesture from a technically illiterate government.
No further consideration required.
I recall a lecturer telling us (1961? ) that the first Soviet rockets were launched from a massive train -the system involved a vast railway boggie/carriage running upon an even bigger track which first travelled down a substantial valley with gravity as its ‘power’, thence up the other side to the optimum point where the ‘kit’ was ignited : what this offered was a component of vertical velocity (and hence substantial reduction in initial fuel needed and burn… which could be corrected for orbital path. Did anything ever come of this?
Shades of Fireball XL% !
I have heard of launch assists being used for aircraft (EM & steam catapult) and the wiki https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Non-rocket_spacelaunch makes the good point that combining launch could, though increasing complexity, reduces the requirements (& complexity) of each sub-system.
However I am certain that the proponents of each system are so tied in that they do not perceive that collaborating technologies could help them…