New Shuttle launch site needed?

[_RaT_]

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?

Mike my understanding is the delays are very, very costly in terms of readying the shuttle. I don't think there have been only a "few" delays. Loading/unloading the liquid fuel is very costly. I agree that finding a new launch site for the remainding shuttle life makes little sense, but the FUTURE space program needs to reconsider the whole approach. On a side note, I thought that some of the infrastructure had already been prepared at Vandenburg.

 

[SPYDERLK]

Quote: 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.

The rotational velocity of the earth surface is greater as you approach the equator. The launch already has a higher velocity so does not have to add as much to reach orbit speed.

 

[MikePA]

Mike my understanding is the delays are very, very costly in terms of readying the shuttle. I don't think there have been only a "few" delays. Loading/unloading the liquid fuel is very costly. I agree that finding a new launch site for the remainding shuttle life makes little sense, but the FUTURE space program needs to reconsider the whole approach. On a side note, I thought that some of the infrastructure had already been prepared at Vandenburg.

Thanks for the information re: refueling. I didn't know that.

 

[CurlyDave]

Launches from Vandenberg can only go into a polar orbit for safety reasons.

Normal Shuttle launches always go to the east, to take advantage of the earth's rotation. (1000 mph at the equator).

Any eastward launch from a western state would fly over land -- a bad idea safety-wise.

 

[_RaT_]

Launches from Vandenberg can only go into a polar orbit for safety reasons.

Normal Shuttle launches always go to the east, to take advantage of the earth's rotation. (1000 mph at the equator).

Any eastward launch from a western state would fly over land -- a bad idea safety-wise.

Thanks Dave. So we might be stuck with Florida unless future designs don't do vertical take offs.

 

[jinman]

Thanks Dave. So we might be stuck with Florida unless future designs don't do vertical take offs.

So... If we get rid of the UN and make that a shuttle launch site, would that work? Sounds like a win-win situation to me. Hmm...

 

[_RaT_]

So... If we get rid of the UN and make that a shuttle launch site, would that work? Sounds like a win-win situation to me. Hmm...

No can do Jim, the UN site is contaminated. The exact contaminents aren't easly identifyable although there are a couple of prevalent virusus that are in much higher concentrations there, cantdoanything and noteeth are everywhere.

 

[Tom_H]

If the FL facility didn't exist and scientists and engineers of today had to choose the most acceptable location, they'd still choose the same spot where things sit right now.

The weather is only one of a number of factors. Russians and Chinese launch from inland locations because they don't care if a stray rocket falls on a city, and they don't have to worry about getting sued. They don't allow suing the government. They don't even allow complaining about the government. NASA has to launch over open ocean. U.S. citizenry wouldn't even begin to consider allowing rockets to take off with trajectories passing over populated territory. Earth rotates west to east, so to take advantage of existing inertia, launches must go that direction. This limits it to the east coast. The closer you are to to the equator, the greater the centrifugal speed, so this means going as far south as possible. Going to the FL keys or some island farther south would expose the facility to even worse weather, poorer security against terrorism, and make the costs of supporting infrastructure impossibly high.

This is STILL rocket science. Millions of things have to go perfectly right for these things not to blow up on the pad. More launches are delayed for technical problems of other types than from weather. Scrubbed launches would be a fact of life in any location on earth.

I agree, Kennedy Launch facility does not have the world's most ideal launch weather. When ALL factors are considered, however, it rates out as better than any other potential site. It was people who endlessly complained about scrubbed launches that caused all the pressure to launch (and ignore other potential problems) when NASA shouldn't have that led to the two disasters that have already happened. Rocket science is something you can't be impatient about. That's just part of how it is.

The Air Force is working on an alternative for smaller satelites. They have been testing putting small rockets in the fuselage of a C-17, (when this is ready they'll fly out over the ocean and find clear weather somewhere at the equator), and dropping the whole solid fuel rocket out the back payload door at about 30,000 ft. The 65,000 lb. rocket will right itself, ignite, and be able to put a 1000 lb. satelite into orbit. Maybe some new system will be able to do similar things for manned rockets in the future, but with the current type vehicles, there is no location with better sum total qualities than Canaveral.

To read more about the C-17, and great articles about military aircraft in general, take a look at Air-Attack.com - News & Facts on Military Aviation and Space Projects absolutely great site!

 

[_RaT_]

Tom, very cool site and great comments.

 

[texasjohn]

Well, I vote for putting the new site at Brownsville. It's far south, launch into the Gulf of Mexico....

And, it would help the unemployment situation there.... we are improving the border security by having national Guard rotate thru, so I know it is a very secure site. We couild cut costs by using day labor from Mexico.

If a launch failed, it would land at Guantanamo ... and we could hassle Fidel some.

Am sure our Texas President could pull this off before he leaves office.

WHAT?? You say this wouldn't fix the problem of avoiding hurricanes? Shucks, you aren't expecting a government program to solve the problem it was set up for.... are you

Note: I worked in Clear lake City the Apollo, Skylab, Apollo-Soyuz, and Shuttle programs, back in the days when Nasa was respected, funded and focussed.