Very simplified: Ozone holes is a natural phenomena apperaing from time to time on poles. Ozone created by UV light from sun and by lightnings. Ozone also is unstable and decompose within a hour. Obviously, poles lack sun a lot, especially during polar nights, when there are no any light from sun at all, and hardly you will see thunderstorm on poles.
From the other side, rockets did not use athmospheric oxygen at all, the oxidizer for fuel is on board. Complete combustion in engine is critical for good performance, fuel that burns outside of engine does not provide any impulse for rocket at all, so it is completely wasted. There is nothig to combine with oxygen/ozone in rocket exhaust, since everything already burned, before the contact with atmosphere. Rockets can't interfere with ozone layer noticeably.
Also, launching sites are placed as close to equator as possible to utilise Earth rotation. There are a lot of sun on equator, so even if a very unefficient and poorly engineered rocket will make a noticeable hole in a ozone layer, it will be closed in a minutes with a sunlight UV radiation.
Yes to everything except the equator for launches. If that were true, Africa, South America, and subtropical land would have been picked.
My understanding is that launch sites are chosen more for the weather, the atmospheric density, and the infrastructure.
Most launches occur out of Kazakhstan ro for their high altitude and thin atmosphere. Also the soviets were poor and too cheap to build anywhere else; but the fact remains it has good weather, a thin atmosphere, and is close to it’s supporting space agency with infrastructure to it.
There is launch site in Plesetsk, Russia, not far from north pole. You need a significant amout of excess fuel to launch a satellite with something different from polar orbit. That is why only small amount of light-weight satellites launched from there. No any serious space vehicles was lauched from Plesetsk.
Baikonur in Kasakhstan is much closer to equator, than other Russian launch sites. That is why it still used to launch most heavy missions, despite being placed in another country. And it is not close to infrastructure at all. Most infrastructure from manufacturing facilities to mission control is in Russia, not far from Moscow,
You don't need to be exactly at equator to get most from Earth rotation.
Very simplified: Ozone holes is a natural phenomena apperaing from time to time on poles. Ozone created by UV light from sun and by lightnings. Ozone also is unstable and decompose within a hour. Obviously, poles lack sun a lot, especially during polar nights, when there are no any light from sun at all, and hardly you will see thunderstorm on poles.
From the other side, rockets did not use athmospheric oxygen at all, the oxidizer for fuel is on board. Complete combustion in engine is critical for good performance, fuel that burns outside of engine does not provide any impulse for rocket at all, so it is completely wasted. There is nothig to combine with oxygen/ozone in rocket exhaust, since everything already burned, before the contact with atmosphere. Rockets can't interfere with ozone layer noticeably.
Also, launching sites are placed as close to equator as possible to utilise Earth rotation. There are a lot of sun on equator, so even if a very unefficient and poorly engineered rocket will make a noticeable hole in a ozone layer, it will be closed in a minutes with a sunlight UV radiation.
Yes to everything except the equator for launches. If that were true, Africa, South America, and subtropical land would have been picked.
My understanding is that launch sites are chosen more for the weather, the atmospheric density, and the infrastructure.
Most launches occur out of Kazakhstan ro for their high altitude and thin atmosphere. Also the soviets were poor and too cheap to build anywhere else; but the fact remains it has good weather, a thin atmosphere, and is close to it’s supporting space agency with infrastructure to it.
There is launch site in Plesetsk, Russia, not far from north pole. You need a significant amout of excess fuel to launch a satellite with something different from polar orbit. That is why only small amount of light-weight satellites launched from there. No any serious space vehicles was lauched from Plesetsk.
Baikonur in Kasakhstan is much closer to equator, than other Russian launch sites. That is why it still used to launch most heavy missions, despite being placed in another country. And it is not close to infrastructure at all. Most infrastructure from manufacturing facilities to mission control is in Russia, not far from Moscow,
You don't need to be exactly at equator to get most from Earth rotation.
They are selected for places where the public can't see the "rockets" crash down into the ocean a few miles away.
Lack of solar strength seems causally related given that’s how ozone is created
Nope. The sun and other astronomical cycles.