From here, among other places:
Let’s ignore the immediate politics and reasons, and say that the California legislature has an overwhelming vote to build a satellite, and for bigger political cover got a huge Yes on a “let’s build a satellite” ballot initiative for whole-earth monitoring like this. What would be the legal (especially fight with national government?) or other hurdles to doing so - could it be done?
It would be easy. All it would take is a launch contract with Musk or the ESA. Private organizations launch their own satellites all the time. I don’t know of any law that would prevent a state from doing the same.
I don’t know about the legalities, but the logistics are doable.
The big satellite manufacturers are all based in California (Lockheed Martin, Northrop Grumman, and Boeing’s satellite division). California could pay California-based Space X for the launch. We could even launch from Vandenberg.
So from a logistics standpoint, California could do it and probably do it all “in house”.
Who is going to make use of the collected data is another issue. Would that be a new California agency? Farm it out to universities?
Practically speaking, a major chunk of existing satellites, including probably most of the American ones, are already “California’s own”. And heck, even Montana launched their own satellite some years back.
Vandenberg is an Air Force base. You can’t just show up with a rocket and say “We’d like to use your launch pad”.
Well (as a nitpick), you probably can - but expect to be told “No way - get lost.”
So if “launch its own satellite” is covered by “build it and pay someone to launch it”, no problem for CA. But if it includes actually doing the launching, some serious rocket & launch pad development will be needed.
Vanderberg Air Force Base launches privately-owned rockets all the time:
SpaceX, United Launch Alliance, etc. all use Vandenberg. It’s not quite like using the Post Office - I’m sure you have to sign a contract and pay the Air Force for the use of the facility, but it’s not like Vandenberg only launches military, U.S. government, or even only U.S.-owned satellites.
I’ve seen Real Genius - and I’ve got a good fake mustache handy.
Vandenberg is used for certain satellites, but most US satellites require the use of launches from the Cape in Florida to put the thing in the right orbit.
The substantial majority of satellites launched from the US are non-defense satellites. Pretty much all of the big satellites that are launched are launched from Air Force facilities in California or Florida. The idea that the Air Force would randomly reject a satellite just because the state of California built it is nonsensical.
Even if California doesn’t launch their own satellites from their own territory, there are other countries out there who can put up satellites for you. Some of those countries might even be happy to split the cost of the satellite and share data so that California only pays a fraction of the cost itself. (In fact… doesn’t Trump’s plan basically outsource weather satellites to China?)
This satellite controversy seems like a lot of nonsense to me anyway. While some satellites are used specifically for climate science, even a climate change denier wants to know what temperature it is and where the ice bergs are.
It’s really just Trump making noises to please his base. He’ll ban weather satellites right after he bans Muslims, deports ten million immigrants, fixes health care, waves a magic wand over the tax code and has leprechauns take care of federal spending.
California would need FAA approval … perhaps some Federal licensing issues to use rocket fuel … all doable and procedures already in place … and perhaps California could build better satellite than NASA can …
There’s a difference between between not funding research and outlawing said research … I don’t know why Jerry Brown is so upset about this … I don’t see anything here that stops California from proceeding along their own energy plans …
Yah, but Trump is going to be the boss of the Air Force, and if he says no to NASA, he isn’t likely to let you use his base.
There are two commercial space launch facilities at Vandenberg AFB (formerly known as Sudden Ranch for aerospace history buffs and Arrested Development fans) leased to commerical launch services providers are SLC-4 (with two seperate pads, SLC-4W and SLC-4E) operated by SpaceX for Falcon 9 launches, and SLC-8 operated by Space Services, Incorporated (SSI) which is used for US Air Force Minotaur I and IV/V (Minuteman- and Peacekeeper-based launch vehicles) and provisionally for commercial Athena (Castor 120 and Castor 30) vehicles. SpaceX is unlikely to make their sites available for other launch providers, and SSI would have to make modifications to support anything other than Minotaur and Athena. However, the bigger practical issue is that it is not possible to fly prograde trajectories from Vandenberg without overflying the continental United States, which would not render acceptable Expectation of Casualty (EC) estimations for FAA commerical flight certification. The only permissible launch trajectories from VAFB are polar and retrograde orbits, and even those can be restricted because of overflight situations.
Setting aside trajectory issues, the federal government could deny FAA commerical flight license for a launch from any US facility and there is no legal way for a California entity or government agency to legally launch. The US Air Force, which controls the sites could deny specific launches for any number of manufactured safety or logistical reasons. And the costs of developing, launching, and maintaining a NOAA-grade Earth or space weather observation system that is intended to operate for 10 to 20 years in MEO or upper LEO is in no way comparable to smaller CubeSat launch intended to operate in lower LEO for just a couple of years. A CubeSat or similar smallsat can be developed for a few million dollars and launched in a ride share arrangement or deployed from the International Space Station (ISS) for a modest manifest cost and low intergration costs; a dedicated Earth surveillance satellite intended for high resolution imaging or high fidelity environment measurements starts at a development cost of arond $100M and goes on up depending on capability, and required a dedicated launch vehicle and higher intergration costs including health and status monitoring. And we’d need more than one or even a few satellites to replace the current Earth surveillance capabilities; we’d need at least three separate systems of satellites to maintain the current capabilities for short term weather and long term climate observations, notwithstanding space weather and solar surveillance.
Even if a California-based entity should decide to launch from an international site using a foreign launch provider, there are ITAR and other trade restrictions which the federal government could essentially arbitrarily impose to restrict or delay the launch. So, if the federal government wanted to be obstructive it could be difficult to impossible for the state of California or a California-based commercial entity to effectively launch a satellite, and of course USSPACECOM could refused to provide JSpOC tracking support, which means that the operator would have to provide their own tracking services. Depending on the orbit this could possibly be done via GPS albeit to a reduced degree of precision compared to fixed ground tracking stations.
Governor Brown clearly doesn’t understand either the cost or logistical considerations involved in California alone trying to maintain an Earth surveillance system, and it would probably make sense to ‘team’ with ESA or JAXA to provide both additional funding and technical capability as well as international launch locations; JAXA in particular has a number of excellent sites for launching to a variety of orbital azimuths, as well the technical capabilities for space vehicle development and integration, as well as domestically produced launch vehicles.
Stranger
The other way around. For global Earth monitoring, you probably want a sun synchronous low polar orbit. Those usually launch from Vandenberg.
I have a feeling that as long as trump is prez in and browns our governor California will ignore the federal government whenever possible do what ever it wants do whether the fed likes it or not …
Although ca tends to do that no matter whos in the WH
I was thinking of GEOS-R which recently launched from the Cape, but now that you point that out, makes total sense.
It’s even more other-way-around than that. You don’t pick an orbit and then launch from Canaveral because that’s what gets you the orbit you want; you pick Canaveral as your launch site and then take the orbit that that gives you. From any given launch site, the cheapest orbit has an inclination equal to the site’s latitude (inclinations greater than the latitude are possible but more expensive, and inclinations less than the latitude are so expensive as to be nearly impossible, which is why the ISS is in a high-inclination orbit so that Russia and the US alike can reach it). And the lower that angle is, the cheaper. Meanwhile, you’d also like someplace without inhabited land to the east of it, in case of launch mishaps, and someplace that’s easy to get to. Out of all places in the US, then, Florida is about the best available, if you don’t care about what orbit you’re in, and find Florida’s latitude acceptable.
On the other hand, some missions need a polar orbit. It’s equally easy to launch into a polar orbit from any point on Earth, so Vandenberg works just fine, and they happen to have a lot of infrastructure there, so that’s what they usually use.
Why would he care what launch contracts the Air Force enters into? Has any President in the past ever stopped the Air Force from signing a launch contract?
And even if he did care, what’s to stop California from using Kourou in the French Guiana or Baikonur in Kazakhstan? Neither of those launch facilities are purely government-use only either.
No, Stranger on a Train has it right - a launch facility is the least of the barriers to California launching a satellite - and the real barrier is cost of construction of the satellite and monitoring system. It would make a lot more sense for California to simply partner with the European Space Agency on existing Earth observation missions like Envisat.
Do you mean GOES-16 … Geostationary Operational Environmental Satellite … these are in a geostationary orbit … they remain over a fixed location along the Earth’s equator … but this is a NOAA satellite, not a NASA Earth Science satellite … The Donald isn’t saying he’s turning off all the satellites …
I’d bet that Mr. Musk, if push came to shove, could figure out how to friggin’ Launch from SpaceX’s Pacific barge and land on the Atlantic barge.
Or ship a rocket down to French Guyana with a note: Please insert attached satellite into the following orbit: …
(this is where the Ariana family takes flight)
And, when Donald and Vlad have their inevitable fight, I suspect Mr. Putin would pay to fly the rocket to Kazakhstan and fuel it and launch it for free.