Why is the launch site so much in the north? I thought the closer to the equator the better. Anyone able to clarify why?
High latitude launch sites are better for polar or highly inclined orbits.
Consider a launch from the equator targeting a pure polar orbit (i.e. going over the poles). You not only have to reach orbit, but also cancel out the "equatorial direction" component of your initial velocity to zero, which takes extra delta-v.
Polar orbits are good for a single satellite to see the entire Earth's surface (basically scanning over a different part each orbit), which is often desirable depending on the purpose. For example something that wants to measure the entire atmosphere or photograph the entire surface, etc.
This isn't true. Because it's a vector addition of velocity vectors—not scalars.
The orbit you want to reach is a delta-v of about 9.0 km/s in the polar direction,
↑ 9.0 km/s
The speed of the Earth's rotation, that you would want to cancel, is maximally 0.46 km/s on the equator, in the azimuthal direction,
→ 0.46 km/s
So your delta-v vector is ↑ 9.0 km/s pointing north, plus ← 0.46 km/s pointing west (cancelling the Earth's rotation), for a vector sum of magnitude
sqrt( (9.0 km/s)^2 + (0.46 km/s)^2 )
= 9.01 km/s
Even though you're negating 460 m/s of speed, it costs no more than an additional 10 m/s (give or take) of delta-v. It's a negligible difference — 0.1%.Launching into a polar orbit is equally easy, from any latitude!
⁂
The converse isn't true. If you're trying to reach an equatorial orbit, the delta-v into that orbit is co-linear with the earth's rotation,
(→ 9.0 km/s), (→ 0.46 km/s)
That's a scalar sum! An azimuthal launch is 460 m/s cheaper on the equator—you inherit the full speed of the Earth's rotation. Latitude is a significant factor here: it's easier to launch, the closer to you are to the equator.
(More profoundly, the orbit you're trying to reach might not even pass through the point you're trying to launch from. This happens if the target orbit inclination is smaller than your launch site's latitude (in absolute value)).
And they can time it so they get the sun at the same relative location for each photo pass.
I think it's just the best available location in Europe for it. Previously, the same company were doing launches from European territory (French Guiana), but not on continental Europe, which seems to be the new direction.
https://isaraerospace.com/press/andoya-spaceport-future-laun...
I really have to wonder why Spain isn’t a viable launch site .. anyone know?
If you're wondering because Spain is southerly and hence closer to the Equator, consider this: the extreme southernmost point of continental Spain (latitude 36° N) is still farther north than most of North Carolina in the USA [0].
Only the Canary Islands have comparable latitudes to Cape Canaveral. While on the one hand a Canarian launch site could perhaps be a huge economic and productive boon for the Islands, I think that it might conflict with their unique ecosystems, tourism, and even (maybe?) with their current use as a base for telescopes, which is useful thanks to their high mountains and low pollution.
I wonder if its because (1) theres no space left on the Med coast in Spain for this or (2) if a Spanish launch site does not offer enough angle for moderately inclined orbits because (3) they would still be dropping hardware on central Europe for nearly all common orbit profiles.
I suppose they're not launching eastward from West Europe in current political climate. Polar sites are ok for spy sats.
Polar-to-equatorial plane changes aren't impossible either, I remember Russia occasionally doing for commercial launches, before the invasion.