yetmank@merrimack.edu (05/10/91)
In article <1991May10.135453.509@magnus.acs.ohio-state.edu>, mboone@magnus.acs.ohio-state.edu (Michael B Boone) writes: > In article <32726@usc> sharp@mizar.usc.edu (Malcolm Sharp) writes: >>I read that with the shuttle landing at KSC instead of Edwards it >>saves about $1million (plus time). Why is Edwards used as the >>primary landing area? >>-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- >>Malcolm Sharp > > 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. > > I think that the Kennedy landing strip surface (concrete?) is harder than > that of Edward's lake bed, although I'm not sure what that would mean in > terms of the shuttle landing. Anyone want to fill me in? > > Mike. > > --------------------------------------------------------------------------- > mboone@magnus.acs.ohio-state.edu (Michael B. Boone) Ohio State // > The best way to accelerate a Mac is at 9.8 m/s^2 University \X/ Amiga > --------------------------------------------------------------------------- I'm no genius when it comes to the shuttle, but I think Edwards is the primary site because the runway is longer. Also your point about the concrete surface verses the Earthen landing strip in California is well taken. It's worth noting that Endeavour may change all of this. I heard on the news that the new shuttle will be equipped with a parachute like drag racers use to aid in slow down. We saw what happened on the last landing at Kennedy Space Center, the Discovery crew hit the brakes so hard, they blew a tire. With Endeavour, the speed could be reduced with the parachute. This could make KSC the primary landing site for Endeavour, and avoid the long cross country voyage atop a 747. Just thoughts, don't know how much is fact. Kevin E-mail MIGHT reach me at: yetmank@merrimack.edu "You can still Rock in America" - Night Ranger
sharp@mizar.usc.edu (Malcolm Sharp) (05/10/91)
I read that with the shuttle landing at KSC instead of Edwards it saves about $1million (plus time). Why is Edwards used as the primary landing area? -- -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- Malcolm Sharp Coordinator, Instructional/Technical Support University of Southern California
mboone@magnus.acs.ohio-state.edu (Michael B Boone) (05/10/91)
In article <32726@usc> sharp@mizar.usc.edu (Malcolm Sharp) writes: >I read that with the shuttle landing at KSC instead of Edwards it >saves about $1million (plus time). Why is Edwards used as the >primary landing area? >-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- >Malcolm Sharp 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. I think that the Kennedy landing strip surface (concrete?) is harder than that of Edward's lake bed, although I'm not sure what that would mean in terms of the shuttle landing. Anyone want to fill me in? Mike. --------------------------------------------------------------------------- mboone@magnus.acs.ohio-state.edu (Michael B. Boone) Ohio State // The best way to accelerate a Mac is at 9.8 m/s^2 University \X/ Amiga ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
henry@zoo.toronto.edu (Henry Spencer) (05/10/91)
In article <32726@usc> sharp@mizar.usc.edu (Malcolm Sharp) writes: >I read that with the shuttle landing at KSC instead of Edwards it >saves about $1million (plus time). Why is Edwards used as the >primary landing area? Edwards has longer runways at a greater variety of angles (i.e. less trouble with crosswinds) and, more important, far more predictable weather. Surprise thunderstorms are common at KSC; it is quite possible for one to develop in the time between retrofire and landing. It's actually a lousy place to put a spaceport, as opposed to a rocket test range. -- And the bean-counter replied, | Henry Spencer @ U of Toronto Zoology "beans are more important". | henry@zoo.toronto.edu utzoo!henry
john@newave.UUCP (John A. Weeks III) (05/11/91)
In article <32726@usc> sharp@mizar.usc.edu (Malcolm Sharp) writes: > I read that with the shuttle landing at KSC instead of Edwards it > saves about $1million (plus time). Why is Edwards used as the > primary landing area? There are a number of reasons. Edwards normally has few storms, so there is generally a better chance of good weather. Storms can brew up over Florida in less than the hour that the shuttle takes to reenter and land after doing the de-orbit burn. Many of the Edwards runways are dry lake bottoms. This is somewhat easier on the orbiter on landing. There were some early tire problems with the shuttle which would have made past landings at KSC a bit more risky. Edwards has a number of runways, which means more options at landing. If a cross wind blows in just before landing, the shuttle can be directed to a different runway to aviod trying to make a difficult landing. The biggest reason for avoiding KSC is an issue with the orbiter braking system. There have been problems with the older brake pads. A brake failure at KSC would result in loss of vehicle when the orbiter ran off of the end of the runway. At Edwards, there is nothing but dry lake at the end of the primary shuttle runways, which reduces the risk to the orbiter if the brakes fail. NASA recently started installing carbon fiber brake pads on the orbiters. This reduces the brake failure risk on landing. To give the orbiter a bit of extra braking margin, NASA is going to retro-fit the Shuttle with drag chutes. The new shuttle already has a chute. -john- -- ============================================================================= John A. Weeks III (612) 942-6969 john@newave.mn.org NeWave Communications, Ltd. ...uunet!tcnet!newave!john
henry@zoo.toronto.edu (Henry Spencer) (05/12/91)
In article <825@newave.UUCP> john@newave.mn.org (John A. Weeks III) writes: >The biggest reason for avoiding KSC is an issue with the orbiter braking >system. There have been problems with the older brake pads. A brake >failure at KSC would result in loss of vehicle when the orbiter ran off >of the end of the runway... The KSC runway, and most of the normal alternate runways, now have an arresting-net system to cope with this possibility. -- And the bean-counter replied, | Henry Spencer @ U of Toronto Zoology "beans are more important". | henry@zoo.toronto.edu utzoo!henry
oliver@vf.jsc.nasa.gov (05/14/91)
In article <1991May11.222140.10002@zoo.toronto.edu>, henry@zoo.toronto.edu (Henry Spencer) writes: > > The KSC runway, and most of the normal alternate runways, now have an > arresting-net system to cope with this possibility. > -- > And the bean-counter replied, | Henry Spencer @ U of Toronto Zoology > "beans are more important". | henry@zoo.toronto.edu utzoo!henry The landing barriers are NOT installed at KSC or at Edwards. They are used primarily on shorter runways at the abort landing sites. Landing barriers are currently installed at the following locations: Moron RW 21 12,000 ft Zaragoza RW 30 12,397 ft Banjul RW 32 12,000 ft Honolulu RW 08R 10,700 ft Guam RW 06L 10,755 ft The runway lengths are threshold to threshold and do not account for any additional underrun/overrun length. Also, the runway at Guam ends at the edge of a 400 ft cliff. -- Pat Oliver - Lockheed Engineering and Sciences Company at NASA JSC 2400 NASA Rd One, Houston, TX 77058 (713) 483-3323 OLIVER@vf.jsc.nasa.gov
tif@doorstop.austin.ibm.com (Paul Chamberlain) (05/14/91)
In article <32726@usc> sharp@mizar.usc.edu (Malcolm Sharp) writes: >I read that with the shuttle landing at KSC instead of Edwards >saves about $1million (plus time). While I wish we could land at KSC all the time, I'm gonna take this opportunity to gripe about the media. Why do they say $1,000,000 when, in fact, $1Million is pretty cheap compared to the total cost? I know why, but ... they're slime! And "the shuttle destroys tons of ozone" never-mind that there are zillions of tons destroyed by other things!! etc.etc., I feel a little better now. What does a mission cost anyway? Just give me an order of magnitude. Paul Chamberlain | I do NOT speak for IBM. IBM VNET: PAULCC AT AUSTIN 512/838-9748 | ...!cs.utexas.edu!ibmchs!auschs!doorstop.austin.ibm.com!tif
petej@phred.UUCP (Peter Jarvis) (05/20/91)
In article <1991May10.124219.21822@merrimack.edu> yetmank@merrimack.edu writes: > >It's worth noting that Endeavour may change all of this. I heard on the news >that the new shuttle will be equipped with a parachute like drag racers use to >aid in slow down........... >....This could make KSC >the primary landing site for Endeavour, and avoid the long cross country voyage >atop a 747. > All Shuttles are expected to be fitted with chutes eventually. Peter Jarvis....