New Shuttle launch site needed?

[_RaT_]

It is happening again. I cannot believe how many times the shuttle launches get scrubbed because of weather in Florida. Is there not a better location? Surely Arizona, California, New Mexico etc would make far better canididates weather wise. Does the possibilty of a aborted takeoff make Florida the the only safe option? It gets frustrating seeing the amount of work that goes into prepping the shuttle only to have lousy weather in Florida scrub it time after time after time.

 

[texbaylea]

I joined NASA after the Mercury Program and by that time the Florida location was well established. I believe that safety was a major concern for the selection of that location. The eastern test range had been in existance before NASA began using it. Believe it or not, in the early days there was nothing around it but scrub and swamp.

Weather is a negative factor but the immense capitol investment that has taken place means that it will remain there.

 

[MossRoad]

It launches towards the east. It crashes in the ocean. Launch it in California and it crashes all over the U.S. So, yes, weather wise, there are probably much better places to launch from. But safety wise for those on the ground... keep it where it is.

Also, the closer to the equater the less fuel it takes to launch. Why? I don't know, but I read it on the internet, so it must be true.

 

[RobertN]

They should have an alternative launch site at Edwards. They could launch and recover from the same site. re: launch danger, they launch pretty big stuff from Vandenburg, which is not far away as a crow flies.

It does present a problem though, if the shuttle is back east and running in to launch issues; it would be a big effort to move it to Edwards to launch...

 

[riptides]

They should have an alternative launch site at Edwards. They could launch and recover from the same site. re: launch danger, they launch pretty big stuff from Vandenburg, which is not far away as a crow flies.

It does present a problem though, if the shuttle is back east and running in to launch issues; it would be a big effort to move it to Edwards to launch...

Way back when the shuttle was all the rage, the USAF was engaged in constructing a second launch site from Vandenburg. I think it was like 25 percent complete before it was halted.

-Mike Z.

 

[Tom_H]

The Vandenberg site was going to be for a shuttle owned by the military (Atlantis was originally to be solely for military duty). This site was not going to have a Vehicle Assembly Building; all components were to be conjoined on the pad. Vandenberg has open ocean to the south and is a primary launch site for satelites going into polar orbit. Canaveral is sited to launch eastward. The earth is already moving at 1000 mph to the east as it rotates, so that's why most things launch in that direction. Spy satelites are often placed into polar orbit because Earth rotates west to eact as the satelite circles in a perpendicular plane. This means the spy satelite in polar orbit passes over every spot on earth at least twice a day, once in sunlight and once in darkness. (Ever gone camping and watched for satelites and shooting stars at the same time? Great fun to figure out which satelites are spy craft and which not.)

Everyone claimed that the shuttle was going to be 10x cheaper than conventional rockets. The issue was so PC that all contractors and designers were forced to destroy all blueprints, machine dies, etc. to the Saturn I and Saturn V. (Destroying technology whose R and D cost tens of Billions-hundreds of Billions in today's dollars, is pretty dumb IMHO.) The USAF saw early on that the concept wasn't going to fly (excuse the pun) and opted out in favor of cheaper expendable rockets. Now we're back to needing a big rocket and are modifying shuttle tanks and boosters to do it.

Oh well, that's the government for you!

 

[Alan L.]

I grew up as a huge NASA fan and am very disappointed in the technological stagnation of the program. As a conservative I hate government spending, but this is one program that only the federal government can operate. I fear the Chinese and Russians will surpass us in this regard and this, to me, is disaster.

I feel for these brave astronauts that are willing to fly in this defective vehicle.

 

[_RaT_]

It is happening again. I cannot believe how many times the shuttle launches get scrubbed because of weather in Florida. Is there not a better location? Surely Arizona, California, New Mexico etc would make far better canididates weather wise. Does the possibilty of a aborted takeoff make Florida the the only safe option? It gets frustrating seeing the amount of work that goes into prepping the shuttle only to have lousy weather in Florida scrub it time after time after time.

And it is happening again... When we replace the shuttle, we need to replace the state of Florida as a launch site. So many launches take place at Vandenburg where aborted missions are always planned for. Arizona, New Mexico or California, Florida is not working.

 

[Doc_Bob]

Weather is a negative factor but the immense capitol investment that has taken place means that it will remain there.

Yep, agree, money will keep it there.
Bob

 

[MikePA]

It is happening again. I cannot believe how many times the shuttle launches get scrubbed because of weather in Florida. Is there not a better location? Surely Arizona, California, New Mexico etc would make far better canididates weather wise. Does the possibilty of a aborted takeoff make Florida the the only safe option? It gets frustrating seeing the amount of work that goes into prepping the shuttle only to have lousy weather in Florida scrub it time after time after time.

Granted, the federal government spends money on things of dubious value, but what's the point in spending millions (billions) to duplicate the infrastructure already present in FL somewhere else just so a few shuttle take offs/landings don't get delayed?