eder@hsvaic.boeing.com (Dani Eder) (05/22/91)
In article <1991May10.135453.509@magnus.acs.ohio-state.edu> mboone@magnus.acs.ohio-state.edu (Michael B Boone) writes: > >I believe that it is because Kennedy often has strong crosswinds on the >landing strip, where Edwards doesn't. I think that the commission that >reviewed the Challenger accident also recommended that Edwards be used to >cut down on any risk or landing difficulty. > Has anyone on the NET ever wondered why the Space Shuttle landing strip was built NOT pointing into the prevailing winds? Or if the winds are variable, why didn't they build more than one runway to cover different wind directions, like some airports do? Or why they didn't extend the already existing runway called the 'Skid Strip', on the Air Force side of the launch siter, which was already 10000 ft long ( the Shuttle runway is 15000 ft long). The skid strip points in almost the same direction as the Shuttle landing strip.
irwin@iago.caltech.edu (Horowitz, Irwin Kenneth) (05/23/91)
In article <287@hsvaic.boeing.com>, eder@hsvaic.boeing.com (Dani Eder) writes... >In article <1991May10.135453.509@magnus.acs.ohio-state.edu> mboone@magnus.acs.ohio-state.edu (Michael B Boone) writes: >> >>I believe that it is because Kennedy often has strong crosswinds on the >>landing strip, where Edwards doesn't. I think that the commission that >>reviewed the Challenger accident also recommended that Edwards be used to >>cut down on any risk or landing difficulty. >> > >Has anyone on the NET ever wondered why the Space Shuttle landing strip >was built NOT pointing into the prevailing winds? Or if the winds >are variable, why didn't they build more than one runway to cover >different wind directions, like some airports do? > >Or why they didn't extend the already existing runway called the >'Skid Strip', on the Air Force side of the launch siter, which was >already 10000 ft long ( the Shuttle runway is 15000 ft long). The >skid strip points in almost the same direction as the Shuttle landing >strip. I would imagine that the local topography around KSC has something to do with this. The prevailing winds are mainly E/W (off the ocean) and the narrow strip of land is not long enough in this direction to build a shuttle landing strip. As for the landing strip at Cape Canaveral AFS, I don't have any idea about this. ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Irwin Horowitz |"Suppose they went nowhere?"-McCoy Astronomy Department |"Then this will be your big chance California Institute of Technology | to get away from it all!"-Kirk irwin@romeo.caltech.edu | from STII:TWOK ih@deimos.caltech.edu | -------------------------------------------------------------------------------
roberts@triton.unm.edu (05/24/91)
In article <287@hsvaic.boeing.com> eder@hsvaic.boeing.com (Dani Eder) writes: > >Has anyone on the NET ever wondered why the Space Shuttle landing strip >was built NOT pointing into the prevailing winds? Or if the winds >are variable, why didn't they build more than one runway to cover >different wind directions, like some airports do? Having not been to the runway area at KSC at my only time there, I would guess that the marshes and other objects were factors in deciding which way the KSC shuttle landing strip would face. Robert