Want to read Slashdot from your mobile device? Point it at m.slashdot.org and keep reading!

 


Forgot your password?
Close
typodupeerror
×
Space

Australians to Build Spaceport on Christmas Island 122

Posted by michael from the they-say-that-santa's-on-his-way dept.
Saint Aardvark the Carpeted writes: "CNN reports here that they're jumping into the satellite launching business by building a spaceport on Christmas Island. At only 10 degrees from the equator, the location offers cheaper launches for the launch vehicles, which the government has already agreed to buy from Russia in May."
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

Australians to Build Spaceport on Christmas Island More

Australians to Build Spaceport on Christmas Island

Comments Filter:

  • Re:Environmental issues (Score:1)

    by Anonymous Coward
    So you say we should not go to space because we might kill some crabs. Then please go back to your cave, and *please* leave that computer here. Have you any clue how much environmental impact the production of a personal computer has? And we buy a new one every 4 years!

  • Re:Payback (Score:1)

    by Anonymous Coward
    The debris falls to the east. Have you never seen a launch from the cape? And there will be no country downrange. Thats the whole point of putting the spaceport on an island!
  • Doesn't Kolibri mean "Hummingbird?"
    Learned that from the old Genesis game. Possibly the best hummingbird-based shooter ever. =)
  • If I recall (probably wrongly) didn't the UK test a few nukes there in the 60s? If they can survive that I don't think a space port is going to bother them too much.
  • goatse.cx
    So it is true that there is no bad publicity.

    I wonder where the Australian officials got the idea from. I guess Christmas is not a very popular place. Maybe they read too much Slashdot at -1 level.

    So if you want to develop space industry in your small country, now you know how to promote it.
    __
  • It used to be back in the 50's n such Australia was one of the major competitors in the space arena. I can't remember where it is now, but they had a complete launch complex, and one day completely gave it up. I always wondered why they gave it up, but it's good to see another country getting into it... and I'm sure the US gov is somewhat happy that it's a country which is an ally.

    Also what of Christmas Island being a Russian Terrotory?? I thought it has always been an Australian Territory.
  • Ya that's probably what i'm thinking of... I seem to remember it also being tied into the nuclear tests the British carried out in the outback.

    I remember when I lived in Perth there was a report about it on like ABC or ch9 about the rocket range... The reporter mused about how the australians had a highly advanced rocket facility at the time and could very easily have become a leader in the space race, but chose to not do anything with it.
  • Free meal for everybody!

    today's menu in restaurant "au spaceport"

    - fresh crabs, baken/cooked!


    Freaker / TuC
  • So the Aussies are trying to make it easier for Santa to deliver gifts to extra-terrarestials?
  • $52 million US is not going to buy you a spaceport

    Well... the Oz military developed a gadget called a HoveRoc, a missile which you fire from a destroyer to fly off nearby and hover, making destroyerish noises (radio, sonar etc) to attract missiles. This cost them (including the first three operational missiles) something less than a fiftieth of the price for the US military to get asingle prototype hovering (no countermeasures yet, just hovering). Conservatively scaling the $US52M by that factor means you've really got a $2.5G spaceport... (-:

    Also, a lot depends on what you mean by ``spaceport.'' $Oz100M can buy a lot of bulldozer time for pushing industrial wastes into pristine lagoons, plus a concrete jetty and a tin shed for the bloke who pushes the button.

    To all the ecologists who just stood up, red-faced, to abuse the living daylights out of me, they'll probably really be building the launch pad in a closed bird-poo (phosphate) mine, and lagoons would be most unsuitable targets for landing and recovering inbound gear.

    On the subject of the crabs, the gobbledok who proposed little tunnels under the road is invited to stand on one of said roads during the crab season. At this point, I'd like to remind you that these little blighters are so hard and sharp that they puncture modern car tyres.

    Crab season only happens for a couple of days each year, but during those days you get many millions of crabs across the road. You'd basically have to build a very low elevated roadway (say, 50cm clear of the ground) to replace practically all of the roads, in order to help noticeably. The $Oz100M for the spaceport probably wouldn't cover that.

    Many more crabs would be eaten by gulls or whatever than crushed by cars. Has your sense of proportion kicked in yet?

  • ... the 1,200 Christamas Island inhabitants who will now need to put up with the noise and pollution generated by throwing large amounts of metal skywards.

    I think it's unlikely that "large amounts of metal" will be thrown skyward through this proposed facility, for three reasons:

    1. The funding provided by the Australian government is only A$100 million (about US$52 million), roughly one-eighth of the estimated cost of the spaceport (or launch facility, if you will.) APSC will have to raise the rest privately, or go back to the government, hat in hand.
    2. The commercial launch market is in pretty bad shape right now: supply of available launch vehicles exceeds demand by about 30-40%, according to recent studies. This has pushed down launch prices somewhat, but not enough to spur additional demand. Investors will not look favorably on a proposal to spend hundreds of millions to simply add to the launch capacity glut.
    3. Despite its favorable launch site, the Aurora launch vehicle will only be able to place about 2.1-2.3 tonnes into geosynchronous orbit. Given the growing size of communications satellites -- the largest part of the commercial space market -- this is awfully small: maybe just enough to launch a Boeing 601 (a popular, but somewhat older, model of communications satellites). The trend has been for larger communications satellites, and thus larger vehicles.

    Put those factors together, and it looks like it will be very difficult for APSC to raise the money needed to build the spaceport, let alone win many launch contracts.

    This is a similar situation to a launch pad based in (Venezuala? Forgot link...) where the introduction of the Space Industry was meant to make life so much better for the locals, but in reality they all want rid of it because it brought none of the expected benefits.

    I'm not sure what you're talking about here. The only involvement Venezuela has had in launch site development in recent years is when it tried to block a proposed launch site in neighboring Guyana that now-defunct Beal Aerospace planned to build, and that was primarily because the launch site was to be in disputed territory that Venezuela claimed as its own.

  • Re:Payback (Score:1)

    by PD ( 9577 )
    Think about it: at the north pole, you're just spinning in place. At the equator, you move 1000 miles east every hour. You can take advantage of that movement to save fuel.

  • Re:Exhaust safe? (Score:3)

    by PD ( 9577 ) <slashdotlinux@pdrap.org> on Wednesday June 27, 2001 @04:00AM (#126055) Homepage Journal
    Check out the hypergolic propellants that the proton uses. This is not your typical kerosine or H2 and LOX rocket. The propellants ignite on contact, and produce lots of nitrogen oxides. The exhaust is orange.

    BTW, the U.S. Titan ICBM's used this same type of propellant.
  • How is this different from the one that was announced a month ago [slashdot.org] on Slashdot?
  • I wonder how this will effect the resident crab population.

    In an older National Geographic I remember seeing Millions of red crabs overrun the island - this happens once a year. There is a picture of these crabs with the story link.

    I would guess that Christmas Island has quite a unique ecosystem. I hope the installation of a launching pad et al. does not mess things up too much.

    Still on the bright side, after a rocket launch... there would be lotsa cooked crab up for grabs...
  • ....now we will get links to http://www.spaceport.cx/ hidden all over the place.

    Yeah, and when people load up the page they'll be greeted by a picture of a gaping rocket motor nozzle...

    C-X C-S

  • Now if only some hunters would take out those @#$!# Canada geese that crap all over the place at my apartment complex. Apparently they're federally protected, so golf courses around here have taken to hiring dogs to scare the geese away rather than hunting them. Where I live, they've even eaten the grass all the way down to the dirt, and every year they pop out another crop of goslings.

    I've heard that geese like wide-open lawns, so maybe my landlord could get rid of them with some hedges. Hopefully I'm moving soon; my landlord hasn't tried anything useful in the last few years.

    Caution: contents may be quarrelsome and meticulous!

  • Ah, that's the funny part. I live in suburban Cook County, IL, which probably has some of the largest preserved tracts of forest land of any similar urban/suburban area. We have plenty of forests, fields, and ponds for them to live in; they prefer the pond behind the main office or corporate office parks instead.

    I agree, they were here first, and we have screwed up their ecosystem pretty well. First they were hunted almost to extinction, and now there's essentially no hunting of them (protected under the Endangered Species Act IIRC), and really no natural predators left in the area. And apparently they like well-mowed lawns and suburban living as much as anyone - it's practically a plague of geese whenever you go outside.

    Oh well, at least I would have eaten OK if Y2K had happened after all. They're mean, but they're fat and dumb too :)

    Caution: contents may be quarrelsome and meticulous!

  • FYI Australia launched their first satellite from Woomera in South Australia in November '67. So Australia isn't that knew to the space business.

    It's just that they decided to specialise in areas more vital to national interests.

    There is an interesting non-commercial, non-government Australian space program here:
    http://www.asri.org.au/ASRI/index.xml

  • My guess is about 20 launches a year, becuase that's roughly the capacity of most launch sites.

    I don't think that restrictions wil be budgetary, since they'll be marketing their services internationally, and charging a fee.

    Most space launches have a launch window every day of the year, so that's not a factor. Generally, only spacecraft going outside the Earth's gravitational sphere of influence (e.g. to Mars) have a window that is closed over most of a year (or more).

  • It'll mostly fall to the East, but they'll be capable of polar launches, so it could go North or South - probably north. They'll probably never launch to the west, since that's against the Earth's rotation; although the popular sun synchronous orbits are slightly retrograde (inclination of about 98 degrees).

  • Yes! I can't get mail for my .cx domain. What can you do when your TLD goes down? grrr....
  • We have that exact problem here. Our herds were so large at one point they had to add an extra season in there just to cull out more of the herd. I'd rather have a deer shot and dead quickly than have it face a slow, agonizing death of starvation.

    On another note, I hear that the crabs cost the locals thousands in tire repairs every year, as well. :)

  • But, unless we change our way of thinking about space travel, its either going to be 5 years, or 5 million years before an Earthling sets foot on an another planet.

    Except that 12 people have already set foot on another planet.
  • Russia is well-known for highly poisonous rocket exhaust, especially from the PROTON rocket.

    The exhaust from the shuttle SRBs is rather nasty too (though the main engines should be fine as they just produce steam.) Ariane 5 also uses SRBs
  • Space travel is not exotic. It shouldnt have to be so expensive that only multinationals and major governments can afford it. Rocket fuel costs about as much as milk.

    But you need rather a lot of it to get something in to orbit. IIRC there are also issues with ordinary people producing rockets with avionics and control systems on board.
  • And why is this? Plenty of folks build complicated items in their spare time on a daily basis. Many of these items are, in fact, highly complicated aircraft.

    Governments get upset about the idea of "guided missiles" in the hands of civilians. It's rather hard to convert a kit aircraft into a serviciable cruise missile. If you can make a rocket capable of reaching orbit you can bomb just about anywhere on the planet.
  • Space travel is not exotic. It shouldnt have to be so expensive that only multinationals and major governments can afford it. Rocket fuel costs about as much as milk. The suborbital V2-rocket produced by the Germans during WW2 only cost about 2000$ each.
    2000$ You sources for that must have missed a couple of digits there, even when considering that the SS provided cheap slave labour to assemble the V-2 (A-4) rockets in the underground kz-camps.
    In fact, western scientist made a postwar estimate, that the german rocket project was more expensive than the "Manhatten" project (US-GB effort to develop the a-bomb), a project which by all standards was an expensive one.
    The german "rocket" project (V-1, V-2, Wasserfall, ME-163 etc) was a massive and spectacular faillure, but it probably helped shortening the war by some months, since its huge, ressource draining efforts, sucked valuable ressources from the Wehrmacht and Luftwaffe.
  • Only one digit actually.. I screwed up with the $2000. According to the paper which I originally got the figure from, it was $13,000. Thats still not too bad.
    13.000$ for a single V-2, even in 1944 currency wouldn't cut it. The V-2 (A-4) rocket program, was by far the largest project of all german rocket projects. There is no way that 13.000 US 1944 dollars per V-2 could pay the actual costs, of the V-2 rocket project.

    [snip] its also interesting to note that the V2 weighted 13,000 Kg at launch time. Given a 1000 Kg warhead, The V2 could put a package up 40 miles, at 1/10th orbital velocity (16,500 mph i believe) So basically, the Nazis spent about $13 for each Kg of explosives they lobbed over the English Channel.
    The monetary figures are wrong, but cost was not the only thing wrong with the german rocket project, since it drew valuable ressources (materials, manpower and research) away from war production. Consider this; the german army had been loosing more trucks than it got since 1939. The result was, that the Wehrmacht demodernized its army in 1941, to walking and horsedrawn army (only 10% was mechanized).
    I am not saying that the rocket project was to blame for all of that, but..
    And consider how little the rocket projects gained: VT-fuses, Tempest fighters, and radar did that, perhaps only 2-4% of all V-1's ever reached England at the end of the campaign.

    The V-2 had a puny payload of 1 ton; B-17's and B-24's would routinely carry 6x as much, and the Lancaster could carry up till 12x as much. And allied bombers at least had a chance to hit anything of importance, unlike the unguided V-2's, who was fired in the general direction of southern England, hoping to hit something else than a wheat field. A "strategy" that accomplished nothing.

    The german rocket project got way out of control, which was a fairly typical thing for projects for the Third Reichs disorganized, corrupt, confused, ineffecient, lack-of-foresight way of handling things.

    To make a point here, economies of scale apply to rocket launches too. The volume of launches is what drives down costs.

    Yes, of course. Sattelite launches has become cheaper thereof. But first one needs huge investments and lots of expensive research. And chemical orbital rockets will never be _very_ cheap, just cheaper than outrageously expensive.
  • I'm left wondering what their plans are for the natural inhabbitants on the island. Christmas Island is 63% national park and 100% beautiful. IIRC, it's the peak of a large underwater mountain. It has a great tourist business as well. The red crab population is a big boomer there as well (it's on Discovery regularly). Simply walking through the forests on the island is difficult due to the large number of crabs on the forest floor. The island isn't that big either. It's only like 52^2 miles. I wonder if they've addressed these issues yet.

    --

  • They should put the spaceport on Easter Island. The islanders would allow it so long as in exchange they were able to borrow the spaceships on weekends to half bury some stone statues.
  • As far as I can find the island's major industry is phosphate mining. Is launching an occasional spacecraft going to be much worse?
  • From http://www.christmas.net.au/ :

    [...] it was not until 1888 that Christmas Island was settled [...]

    [...]As there was no indigenous population, a work force had to be imported[to work in the phosphate mines]

    The island has [...] been chosen as a suitable site for a space satellite launching station. A decision for the Asia Pacific Space Centre project will be determined by an Environmental Impact Study which is nearly complete.

  • According to this Time.com [time.com] article [time.com], the Red Crabs have more to worry about from an accidently introduced species of ant. In all probability the admired crabs will be accomodated as well as they can be in their fairly brief migrations. Having a source of income tends to let the people living in remote areas pay more attention to the survival of the wildlife they share an environment with, compared to humans who have to scrape to survive.

    And BTW, that environmental study has been done, evidently finding that the damages you propose are unlikely.

    i would also suggest taking a look at how great a boon to wildlife, endangered and otherwise, that NASA's Cape Canaveral space facilities (USA, Florida) has turned out to be, to see how this has turned out before in the Real World.

  • Seriously. You can't build anything for miles around a space port, so the wildlife tends to thrive.

    That's what they found in Florida, anyway.

  • > who are you to say? Can I see your sources please?

    I hate to be the one to point this out to you, but in any ... debate ..., where party A asserts that "X is currently doable", and another replies "no it isn't yet", the burden of proof is on party A, since it is far simpler to provide proof of the existence of a technology than it is to conclusively prove it's absence.

    This is often seen in crank circles, for eg.
    A: "UFO's abduct people every day!"
    B: "no they don't"
    A: "O yeah? prove it doesn't happen!"

    While not wishing to tar you with the same brush as cranks, it is plain to see that the burden of proof is on A not B.

    In short, let's see your sources on zero-g smelting, self-sustaining orbital ecologies, human bone weakness problem (or the feasablity of the alternative, rotating space staions) and radiation shielding. If they are good, I'll enjoy reading them and changing my mind.

    >There is a lot we have yet to research in order to undertake a _real_ colonization effort That sort of knowledge wont just materialize from nothing.

    Agreed. So don't shoot the messenger. I'm all for space migration for the Earth & for our species's sake, I'm just more realistic - I see it as a long-term project in need of basic research.
  • Space can be had by the common public. We don't need to wait on new technological developments, and we dont need the support of a government agency. We just need pioneers.

    You haven't thought this through very far, have you? Getting to space is the least of our problems. With our current level of technology, a human population cannot survive indefinitely in space, and can only stay there temporarily at massive cost.

    Living conditions, even in the brand new IIS, are cramped, noisy, smelly and life support takes lots of highly skilled maintainence.

    We are nowhere close to making a safe, self-sustaining, self-feeding zero-g ecology.

    We have no techniques yet for exploiting natural resources (e.g mining iron for construction) in a vacuum yet - construction work is exeedingly laborius and involves components manufactured entirely on earth.

    There is no solution yet for the detrimental changes that long-term weightlessness has on human physiology - calcium loss in the bones etc.

    Besides that, radiation shielding would be needed or they would die out within a generation from cancer and other detrimental mutations. That atmosphere thing protects us from most nasty solar radiation.

    We don't need pioneers ... yet.

  • To briefly state my opinions..

    I believe that large scale public involvement will ultimatly be the greatest force behind the drive for space colonization.

    As well, I believe the most important thing to focus on in the near-term would be the establishment of space-based industrial infrastructure. That is, mining the Moon and near-earth asteroids, and manufacturing space station components, lunar habitats, and space vehicles. If we can produce everything we need from space, then we can eliminate most of the launches that currently take place. After that, all we need to send up are people.

    Space travel is not exotic. It shouldnt have to be so expensive that only multinationals and major governments can afford it. Rocket fuel costs about as much as milk. The suborbital V2-rocket produced by the Germans during WW2 only cost about 2000$ each. Space will not always be so expensive to reach. The sooner we can collectively realize this, the faster we can make inroads into space access. Thanks to economies of scale, we can either send 4 people to mars, or 40,000 people within the same timeframe. And most importantly, you could be one of those 40,000. Space can be had by the common public. We don't need to wait on new technological developments, and we dont need the support of a government agency. We just need pioneers.

  • Well, its not a matter of needing it or not. One could ponder if we need to read comic books or get ice cream every time we feel like it.

    There are however, a lot of people who would want to go into space, for a variety of reasons. Yet, I feel that the public at large is paralyzed by their notion of the cost and complexity of space travel. I personally think that the perception of space access being unattainable by 'us mortals' is a myth which needs to be rectified.

    Yes, it is expensive. No, we wont be flying to Mars tomorrow. But, unless we change our way of thinking about space travel, its either going to be 5 years, or 5 million years before an Earthling sets foot on an another planet. And im getting tired of waiting.


  • A large project like this will likely have a big impact on the infrastructure of the island. There will be more people on the island (employees) to maintain the port. More people means more people per square kilometer, more garbage, more power needs, more food needs, more cars, more roads, etc etc etc.
    This project will undoubtely have big impact on the island in many ways. That's why I think it cannot be that such a port is just being build without a good deep study to what the influence on the environment will be.


    *nod* I agree with that, and I hope the planners on .cx will develop without causing too much impact on the local environment. Any activity can affect the locality, but its incorrect to equate all activity with 'environmental destruction'

  • You haven't thought this through very far, have you? Getting to space is the least of our problems. With our current level of technology, a human population cannot survive indefinitely in space, and can only stay there temporarily at massive cost.

    We are nowhere close to making a safe, self-sustaining, self-feeding zero-g ecology.


    Well, I believe that the establishment of space-based manufacturing capabilites are a vital step in the eventual creation of self-sufficient offworld colonies. However, I didnt feel it necessary to explain all of my ideas on colonzation during my initial post.

    With our current level of technology,


    who are you to say? Can I see your sources please? There is a good deal of information about the possiblities for living and working in space, although its somewhat difficult to find them all from one source.

    There is a lot we have yet to research in order to undertake a _real_ colonization effort (4 astronauts in a space-tent doesnt count). That sort of knowledge wont just materialize from nothing. If there was a way, I would help promote a drive for public space access. It doesnt do any good to cheer on, while sitting on the couch.
  • Re: Burden of proof

    Astute of you to catch that. Even though your reply had little relevance to my original topic, which was along the lines of 'public involvement will be a key factor in driving space development'

    As for information, you may find http://www.permanent.com to have a lot of interesting ideas. Specifically on the matters of a lunar colonization expidition.

    Unfortunatly, due to my pithy organic brain, I cannot recall _every_ source ive read on the subject of physiological aspects of space travel. The information is, however, readily accessible by a quick websearch.

    zero-g smelting, orbiting ecologies, and asteroidal mining tools however, only exist as ideas on paper at this point. I cant say with any guarantee that space colonization will be practical within the next few years, but other people may be able to answer that. Thus, I feel an urge to interest people in space travel - which will drive the development of the anwsers to the questions which you recently asked.

    Ill follow up more info by email.
  • Only one digit actually.. I screwed up with the $2000. According to the paper which I originally got the figure from, it was $13,000. Thats still not too bad. Although, bear in mind that the V2 rocket has little to do with an orbit-capable space vehicle, but it is worthy to note that they mass-produced these for only 13K each, and produced nearly 800 rockets per month. While costing $13,000 per rocket, its also interesting to note that the V2 weighted 13,000 Kg at launch time. Given a 1000 Kg warhead, The V2 could put a package up 40 miles, at 1/10th orbital velocity (16,500 mph i believe) So basically, the Nazis spent about $13 for each Kg of explosives they lobbed over the English Channel.

    To make a point here, economies of scale apply to rocket launches too. The volume of launches is what drives down costs.

    the article as at http://www.fourmilab.ch/documents/rocketaday.html

    http://www.dera.gov.uk/html/whoweare/history/ven ge ance_weapons_v1_v2.htm
    Theres a good picture here showing the relative size of the V2
  • Christmas Island used to be where the British and Australlians allowed the Americans do detonate Hydrogeon Bombs. If the crabs survived 10 megaton explosions, I think they'll survive the space port.

  • Exhaust safe? (Score:5)

    by mattr ( 78516 ) <{mattr} {at} {telebody.com}> on Wednesday June 27, 2001 @12:00AM (#126087) Homepage Journal
    Russia is well-known for highly poisonous rocket exhaust, especially from the PROTON rocket. I seem to remember this being used recently. Does anyone know if this is true and whether the launch vehicles Australia purchased might be using something similar?
  • If my drive-in science education is to be believed, all the hot babes are on MARS, not the moon. The moon is good on crackers though...
  • A few years xmas islands casino went broke, aparently it was a big earner for the island, lots of people lost jogbs, left the island etc etc.

    Also xmas islands had problems getting supplies from the mainland, like fresh fruit and vegtables, they all got shiped by boat, which couldnt make the trip in rough wether.

    The all weather port and bigger airport will be a good long term infrastructure for locals.

    Its probably the best thing that ever happened to them.

    oh, and im sure the crabs will be fine, i dont think the locals go hooning around trying to find crabs to drive over... when they are on the move its quite literally hard to avoid them unless you turn around and drive all the way around the island.

    My sister used to live there, the above opinions are based on what she told me.

  • Last time Christmas Island dealt with big Western hardware, the British were nuking them [fas.org]. USA did it to Bikini and Eniwetok, UK chose Christmas.

    Nowadays there's a casino on Christmas, which means foreign tourists, prostitution and wiping out the local population with HIV.

    Being a launch site isn't such a bad option.

  • So when do I get to redeem my tickets to Mos Eisley?

    The joke being intended, of course, to convey that "Spaceport" is a rather strong term for a mere satellite launch pad. Really.

    When I think of "spaceport", I think of ships from space, coming and going. Ya know, like an airport, but for space.

    *shrug* oh well.
    ========================
    63,000 bugs in the code, 63,000 bugs,
    ya get 1 whacked with a service pack,
  • Just think, now the Aussies can make sure that some of the junk falling back to Earth doesn't land on them : )

    But could someone please tell me which way any debris like wasted booster rockets will go - East or West? I figure one of the directions has got to be a better one to launch in due to the rotation of the Earth, but I can't figure out which. Which countries will be under the path of any launches?

  • Whoosh!

    That's the sound of your joke going straight over the heads of a lot (most?) of the Slashdot crowd : )

    And don't be so down on Harold - he's great comic relief from the more depressing stories in Neighbours - Lance and Toady are fighting? Well, never mind cos Harold's getting frustrated by the washing machine or something. Fantastic (and so much less depressing than Eastenders). Now if only they'd bring Mrs Mangle back....

  • Never seen a launch from the Cape cos I'm from the UK (never really paid much attention to that stuff on the news broadcasts). Once went out to Cocoa Beach while on holiday to watch one a few years back, but it was cancelled at about T-2 mins.

    And I wasn't sure how far away from the launch site (East or West, not up) any debris would be dropped (though I figured it'd probably be a fair way from land). I guess the Pacific is big enough for this to not be much of a concern though : )

    BTW, the mod down of your reply was uncalled for; you were answering my question after all. Anyone got any mod points burning a hole in their pocket?

  • Basically what happened was that at some point in our space program our half-witted technologically illiterate politicians of the time, not to say they are any better now, asked the Americans and British what Australia should do about all this high technology space rocket business and were told that we should leave it to them and just concentrate on sheep and wheat. The same goes for our computer industry in which Australia was a major player.

    So we did! The remains of our space program was sold to India for scrap value. A large part of the reason India now has a well established space industry. The scientists who were studying computer science and technology at the government CSIRO labs were, I think, told to work on "useful" things like new strains of grain and cloud seeding.

    And yes, Christmas Island is an Australian territory since about 1958 when the British handed it over. Though past and even present Aussie governments, not wanting the responsibility of looking after it, have tried to give it away to both Singapore and Indonesia. Neither wants it for fear of disturbing the delicate strategic balance in the area.

    Those brilliant political decisions put this country behind by decades and condemned Australia to being little more than a backwater consumer of technology instead of a leading developer.
  • Not quite, we Australians allowed the British to test nukes there. I don't think the Americans ever tested bombs here, why would they need to? They had Nevada and lots of small Pacific islands.
    --
  • Well, it's not the first time, actually - rockets were launched from the Woomera test range way back when, and Australia even designed, built and launched a satellite (WRESAT 1) back in 1967. Of course, this makes your comment even more ironic, since Woomera has more recently become infamous as a refugee detention centre!
    --
  • I think they did the nuclear tests to the other Christmas Island, the one in the Pacific, not the one in the Indian ocean.

    --

  • I'm an Alien, I'm an illegal alien... (Score:4)

    by smallstepforman ( 121366 ) on Tuesday June 26, 2001 @11:24PM (#126099)
    The term "illegal alien" contrieves a whole new meaning... Now other than Iraqi and Indonesian boat people, we have to deal with International Space Station refugees and political assylum seekers. Oh well, for the first time in Australian history we will be the ones shooting garbage into space rather than having it fall down into our backyards.
  • What kind of funky definition of "planet" are you using that includes the Moon?

    Some highly trained astronauts have been to the moon. A lot of us would still love to go to the moon. And for a more interesting trip, there are other, larger, and more distant clestial bodies.

    --
  • Why yes she did! She went out with Mike, who left to star in Priscilla, LA Confidential and Memento; all brilliant films. Who would have thought it at the time?
  • Well they used to be in the shit shovelling (guano) business if I remember correctly. Dunno what they are doing now, but this just might be an improvement.
    --
  • $52 million US is not going to buy you a spaceport, so presumably the private sector is providing the the remaining funding. Anyone like to speculate on the total cost?
  • Also, a lot depends on what you mean by ``spaceport.'' $Oz100M can buy a lot of bulldozer time for pushing industrial wastes into pristine lagoons, plus a concrete jetty and a tin shed for the bloke who pushes the button.
    When I went and read the website for the island, they said their reefs were some of the steepest in the world. Basically, the island is the pinacle of a submarine mountain. All the way around the island is a sheer drop-off. The moral to that story, I think, is that there will be no "enlarging" of the island.
  • ... the 1,200 Christamas Island inhabitants who will now need to put up with the noise and pollution generated by throwing large amounts of metal skywards.

    This is a similar situation to a launch pad based in (Venezuala? Forgot link...) where the introduction of the Space Industry was meant to make life so much better for the locals, but in reality they all want rid of it because it brought none of the expected benefits.

    To the residents of Christmas Island: RIP your way of life.

    *sigh*

  • Space can be had by the common public

    But you don't actually clarify why the Common Public needs space.

    I'm as keen as the next man, but I think most people have enough earth-bound problems to contend with at the moment before they feel like starting a new life on Mars.

  • what?? (Score:4)

    by emok ( 162266 ) on Tuesday June 26, 2001 @11:19PM (#126107)
    CNN is building a spaceport?!
  • So which planet would that be then?

    Last time I checked, the only thing we've landed anyone on was a satellite.
  • You'd be lucky to get a satellite every two years for the australian domestic market.

    the point about this is we have political stability, a legal system with strong property rights thats compatible with the rest of the western world, and a location that's very close to the equator (which saves a big heap of fuel).

    Given how hard it is to find that combination (singapore could do it but they don't have the room) it's worth taking a shot at getting into commercial satellite launch. The asian market is looking to heat up in a big way.

    Also worth noting that Christmas Island has long been viewed by the Austraslian Defence Force as "an unsinkable aircraft carrier" with which to scare Indonesia... I'm not sure how this is going to affect that.

  • When I read about this in the paper [smh.com.au] the other day, I checked around to find out some stuff about Christmas Island [christmas.net.au]. One thing I found out is that there is currently no real estate for sale [mercatorproperty.com.au] on the island. I guess speculators found out about the space port early and bought it all up. Too bad if you live there.
  • the satelite is expected to land in Quasi, an uninhabited area of the Australian outback
    (or something)

    The slashdot 2 minute between postings limit:
    Pissing off coffee drinking /.'ers since Spring 2001.

  • I belive boiled would be more appropriate - I believe NASA "injects" several (hundred) thousand gallons of water beneath the shuttle during the launch.

    The slashdot 2 minute between postings limit:
    Pissing off coffee drinking /.'ers since Spring 2001.

  • You make good points about the technical difficluties of some sort of post-earthbound existance (note, I'm not limiting the discussion to sattelites, lunar, or martian settlements). However there is a chicken and egg problem that you are ignoring. No one is going to completely design, build and test to fine-nines perfection the chicken until their is a reason. That reason is the pioneers that will need that those technologies. Get a couple of people on the Moon with a weekly show ("Survivor IXX: Moon Base Alpha") and if something goes wrong us earth-bound people are going to come up with a solution.

    I'm sure there are people reading that can pick apart the technical difficulties of some sort of settlement option, but my point is more heroic. Imagine the following historical drama:

    Queen Isabelle: Chris, my sweetie, you can't go the New World, there's no lighthouses on the shores to guide your ship through potential reefs!!!

    Christopher Columbus: Babe, I'm willing to risk it. I want to be remembered forever as the discoverer of the New World. I'm, of course, not denigrating the accomplishments of Vikings and, possibly, Irish monks. Oh, and don't forget those wacky "indians", boy did they have a walk, whew...

    Queen Isabelle: No, my lust monkey, I forbid it. I will not allow my husband to fund your dangerous mission. For god's sake, your ships are not even fully sea monster proof.

    Christopher Columbus: Oh my gilded buttercup, they are sea monster proofed as much as current technology will allow. Besides, the only thing I need to scare off those monsters is my trusty muskett and a lock of your hair that I may hold in a locket close to my heart!

    Queen Isabelle: Oh take me NOW!!!

    King Ferdinand: Jesus H. Christ would you two shut up, I'm trying to watch the game. Chris here's a check, now get the fuck out!!

    How many readers of /. would be willing to risk a 10% yearly mortality rate to be the first pioneers on a lunar settlement. If nothing else, think of the babes!!!

  • How often do they plan on launching rockets? One thing this made me think of was how often NASA launches from Cape Canaverel. I can't imagine they have the budget to launch more than once a month, also taking into account launch windows. Perhaps Christmas Island being a more ideal launch location due to it's geographic location will have wider launch windows, allowing spacecraft to take off more often, or maybe Australia just wants to invest more into its space program, and launch more often. I guess commercial projects such as communication sattelites will be wanting to use this place as well possibly.

    Guess the disruption for the locals will mostly depend on how often stuff is taking off. If it's more than once a week I can see it becoming a big nuisance, but if it's more like 2 or 3 times a month, I would see of it as more of a perk to be able to witness space launches =)
  • Isn't that where misfit toys are sent?
  • According to the paper which I originally got the figure from, it was $13,000.

    According to an inflation calculator at http://www.westegg.com/inflation/ [westegg.com]...

    What cost $13000 in 1943 would cost $132688.99 in 2000.

    Equivalently, if you were to buy exactly the same products in 2000 and 1943, they would cost you $13000 and $1273.66 respectively.

    $132,000 seems about right for a sub-orbital rocket with minimal guidance built with slave labor.

  • Actually, I'd be for the viaducts even if the wildlife population isn't affected. I'd be worried about my car.

    But I also agree about the hunting. Let's cull the herd before it's done through the medium of starvation. Don't forget that the end deaths will be 2-3 times what the hunting would be, because the deer that end up starving still eat before starving to death. It also results in damaged forest areas as the deer strip anything remotly edible.

    Firethorn

  • If you ever wondered what the .cx in "goatse.cx" stood for, now you know. CX is the TLD for Christmas Island [www.nic.cx].(The link points to a somewhat broken site, but it gets the point across.)

  • That's completely untrue. Several solutions are in place.

    Several "passageways" under the roads were built for the crabs to safely cross. However, there are two factors contributing to the death of the crabs: 1) They're too stupid to use the passageways. 2) There are soooo many crabs, that they couldn't all fit in there anyways.

    The inhabitants DO think about solutions, there just isn't a good one. They certainly aren't going to stop life as we know it on the island for a few million crabs, but they have made some allowances.

  • Okay, last time I was in Holland ('97, '98) you guys didn't have a great deal of migrating crustacean wildlife. Ever think about the average intelligence of a crab? They're actually pretty stupid dude. They have the basic survival instincts, that's about it. If you put up barriers so that they couldn't cross the roads, that's a different story (and therefore HAD to go through the tunnels). However, given a choice between a small tunnel and wide open road, the crabs are going to go through whatever is closest.

    I'm not blaming anyone. I'm merely commenting that you were misinformed. Some (all??) roads do have passageways for crab migration. However, they haven't taken any steps to force the crabs to use them. Given that several million crabs DO make it successfully from the forest to the ocean, I agree, a million crab loss sucks, but since they aren't anywhere even close to being endangered, I'm not going to lose sleep over it; especially when it's a few thousand miles away.

  • No, the whole point of putting the spaceport there is that it's so close to the equator, and therefore affords the greatest impetus to spacecraft being launched. I think it's because the greater distance from the fulcrum point (the Earth's axis) results in a higher linear velocity, although I can't be sure about that.

  • Re:Payback (Score:3)

    by cthugha ( 185672 ) on Wednesday June 27, 2001 @01:47AM (#126122)
    The Earth rotates in an Easterly direction (Sun rises in the East, sets in the West), so the best launch direction is to the East. So we just might still get junk falling on us from failed launches :(.
  • If setting off a rocket gets rid of crabs, I'm aiming one into my pants....

    Tom.

  • ....now we will get links to http://www.spaceport.cx/ hidden all over the place. Oh, well it's better than goatse.cx ^_^
  • Austrilians + Russians teaming up?

    This could be good...the US needs some competition to give them a good kick in the pants to get us back in the space "race"

    To think, we were headed in the right direction only when blinded by fear and greed. That's sad.

    Magius_AR

  • I think you'll find that they were referring to the flaming Skylab that fell out of the sky onto Australia...

    we escaped MIR though...

  • If you move into their living space and take over all their food sources, they are going to chew up your lawns. If the local government would provide a few preserves where they could live and eat, they wouldn't be in your apartment complex.

  • slip of the mouse maybe?

  • have you ever sent this in as an article or to ask slashdot?

    it doesn't quite fit here, but some people might be interested

  • Re:Exhaust safe? (Score:4)

    by GearheadShemTov ( 208950 ) on Wednesday June 27, 2001 @04:40AM (#126133)
    The rocket they are talking about here is the old R7 booster [friends-partners.org], the rocket that launched the Sputnik and all Russian manned spacecraft (with the exception of their Buran shuttle, which only ever flew unmanned).

    The project began in 1950, the design of the ICBM version was frozen in 1954, and the first flight occured in 1956. As of last year over 1,628 had been launched with a success rate of 97.5% for production models, pretty remarkable for a booster design nearing fifty years of service this decade.

    The R7 and its derivatives use plain old kerosene and liquid oxygen, so the exhaust would be mostly H2O and CO2. I'm not sure what gas generator fuel it uses for its turbopumps, but that would be the only other exhaust that could possibly be toxic. I'm supposing it uses kerosene and LOX, but it may be using H2O2. In either case the exhaust products are quite benign.

    If you are interested in finding out more about boosters and spacecraft of the world, check out astronautix.com [friends-partners.org].

    -RLN

  • My school (Knox Grammar in Sydney, Australia) has a joint satellite project with another school in Sydney, Ravenswood and a school in Russia.
    The satellite is named "Kolibri" and each school has equipment for communicating and recieving data from the satellite.
    The students are performing actual research regarding "the structure and intensity of low-frequency electromagmetic fields around the Earth".
    You can read more about this project here [unsw.edu.au] and here. [iki.rssi.ru]
  • Did anyone around here with a .cx domain notice that at almost exactly the same time /. went down Friday, so did niccx.com? I've not been able to get through to them at all since. Anyone know what's happened Down Under?

  • Re:Environmental issues (Score:3)

    by eXtro ( 258933 ) on Wednesday June 27, 2001 @02:22AM (#126140) Homepage
    Actually, the red crabs thrive despite the massive number of them that get whacked every year by vehicular traffic. This suggests that there is some natural predator that normally kept them in check which is no longer present or that the number of them killed by traffic isn't an impact with respect to their birth rate.

    The viaducts are a great idea when you're dealing with a population of wildlife that's being adversely affected by humanity. In this case at least from the little bit of information I've seen humanity is just acting as a check. For the individual red crab it may suck getting run over by a car, but statistically it might be the better thing unless other predators are introduced.

    It's sort of like the anti-hunting people who complain about shooting bambi. I don't hunt, but I respect the right to hunt (according to laws etc). Since we've killed off most of their natural predators (wolves) deer populations run rampant in some places. This means that they often face starvation as food supplies go scarce. Reducing the population of deer (or more accurately, controlling) through hunting is more humane than just letting herds grow to the point where their food supply can't support them. Again, for the deer that is turned into steaks its a raw deal, but for the herd as a whole its a good thing.

  • Indonesia will be in the path of the launches, but I think too close to be in danger from dropped boosters and first stages. There is a chance that a malfunctioning rocket could come down in a populated area of Indonesia. Other island groups might be under the launch path also, but past Indonesia there's a lot of ocean and not much land, so if the rocket is under control they can make sure nothing comes down anywhere near land.
  • As there was no indigenous population, a work force had to be imported[to work in the phosphate mines] If I understand the source of the "phosphate" correctly, the main industry there is mining well-aged bird poop. In a tropical climate. Tourism may be a significant industry also -- but I grew up in a town that lived on tourism, and shoveling bird poop might be preferable to the tourist trade. So I think the residents are likely to consider a few minutes of loud noise every few days as an good trade off for new jobs.
  • 10% yearly mortality rate? That's nothing. Less than half of the Pilgrims survived the first year. The real record in mortality on a successful mission might belong to Magellan's around the world expedition: 5 ships went out, 1 came home, with only about 20 crewmen left. (Magellan himself died in the Phillipines.) I'm not sure how many men were in the original crews or in those who crossed into the Pacific. If I remember right, 2 ships turned back -- one empty supply ship by plan, the other because the crew mutinied (and were eventually hung), so I guess you should only count the 3 crews that crossed the Straits of Magellan. I'm guessing that these ships had crews of 50 to 100 originally, which makes the mortality rate 90% or more.
  • I can assure you that the rockets from Chistmas Island will not pass over Indonesia... Ian Bryce, Chief Engineer, Asia Pacific Space Centre. Ian, thanks for the link to the flight paths. [apsc2orbit.com] I didn't realize rockets started shedding stages so early. Flight path A (just south of east, for near-equatorial orbits) drops several pieces in the strait between Indonesia/New Guinea and Australia. This is indeed deep ocean, but not very wide if those Russian guidance systems malfunction. Of course, the control center does have self-destruct options when a rocket starts to go off course. I think most American launches pass pretty close to but not quite over the Bahamas, and although our systems are far from 100% reliability they have never killed any Bahamians... The other flight paths are pretty safe: B (southeast over western Australia, dropping all the pieces before the land) and C (SSW over one of the emptiest parts of the ocean), but is there any advantage to an equatorial launch point if the orbit is not going to the east?
  • What will this mean to the large red crab population [exn.ca] on Christmas Island? Will this be its death stab?

    Right now, people just drive over the crabs when they cross roads during there yearly crab migration. Apperantly, the inhabitants don't even think about a solution. In Holland we have special little viaducts for wildlife roadcrossing. On Chrismas Island the red crabs are killed by millions every year. What will this spaceport do the population? Is there even being thought of the consequences for the crabs?

    More on Christmas Island crabs:

    http://www.kidzworld.com/Frameset/reloadframe.asp? s=102&p=http://www.kidzworld.com/site/p820.htm [kidzworld.com]

    http://www.markuskappeler.ch/fot/fots/ch_crabs.htm l [markuskappeler.ch]

  • It's not only the noise pollution.

    A large project like this will likely have a big impact on the infrastructure of the island. There will be more people on the island (employees) to maintain the port. More people means more people per square kilometer, more garbage, more power needs, more food needs, more cars, more roads, etc etc etc.

    This project will undoubtely have big impact on the island in many ways. That's why I think it cannot be that such a port is just being build without a good deep study to what the influence on the environment will be.

    People have to know about the implications of this project to be able to choose fair if they really want it (through voting, for example, last time I heard Australia was a democracy). And I'm sure lots will reject this plan if it means the unique crab population and its yearly migration will be extinguished.

    Personally I find such a nature wonder more important than humanity being able to have one more place in the world to put rockets in the sky to plant another satellite in a circle around the world, eventually reducing you mobile phone cost by about $ 0.000001 per minute or so on average (cost saving by launching on Cristmas Island divided by millions of people using this satellite), or making the CEO's of some communication companies a few 10's of thousands dollars per year richer.
  • If managed properly, this launching facility should be quite safe to the Christmas Island eco-system. Kennedy Space Center is an incredible example of how, when done right, high technology and the environment can thrive. KSC has all sorts of endangered species that live in and around the spaceport. That's not to say that APSC won't completely screw up the island, but if they do, it'll be a complete shame because there's absolutely no excuse. [nasa.gov]
  • Hey Bruce, come on over and we'll throw another crab on the launchpad...

  • Some of the facts (Score:4)

    by spacechicken ( 462919 ) on Wednesday June 27, 2001 @12:42AM (#126162)
    For those with questions;
    i) The Aurora rocket being developed will use liquid oxygen/kerosene for all stages so the worst real pollutants will be CO2 and H2O.
    ii) The best direction to launch is east.
    iii) The project is completely private. The government is simply providing a funding boost to "get it off the ground" in anticipation of job creation/taxes/exports.
    iv) See here [apsc2orbit.com] for more info

Slashdot Top Deals

A Fortran compiler is the hobgoblin of little minis.

Close