I think Tim's point was simply that Sealand's location is too far north to be a good launch site. To put a useful satellite in an orbit with a useful footprint for this purpose from a launch site so far north would require a lot lift capacity eliminating small launch systems, raising the issue of Sealand's ability to support the launch infrastructure. It would probably also mean launching to the east over highly populated areas in the EC which would probably object to the launch as well. -- On Tue, 20 Feb 2001 20:59:25 Jim Choate wrote:
On Tue, 20 Feb 2001, Tim May wrote:
Sealand is a _terrible_ launch location. For multiple reasons.
Your ignorance is astounding to behold.
Really? You know of another place that is likely to allow you to launch rockets to LEO with the express intent of putting wild-card remailers and such in orbit? You know many countries with the sort of technical infrastructure required for even amateur attempts? While it's true it's latitude and weather aren't optimal for any sort of sustained commercial or government effort but we're not talking about that now are we? It's certainly someplace on the E. coast of the horn of Africa would be ideal I think the S. Africans ban amatuer experimental rocketry (you are aware MOST countries ban amateur rocketry?).
No, given the choices it's about optimal. Belize would be a good place as well provded you could get permission. There being a member of the English commonwealth will probably prohibit it.
____________________________________________________________________
Before a larger group can see the virtue of an idea, a smaller group must first understand it.
"Stranger Suns" George Zebrowski
The Armadillo Group ,::////;::-. James Choate Austin, Tx /:'///// ``::>/|/ ravage@ssz.com www.ssz.com .', |||| `/( e\ 512-451-7087 -====~~mm-'`-```-mm --'- --------------------------------------------------------------------
Join 18 million Eudora users by signing up for a free Eudora Web-Mail account at http://www.eudoramail.com