sharp@mizar.usc.edu (Malcolm Sharp) (05/13/91)
If Edwards then is the best landing site, why not use Vandenberg is the space port? Is it because of the obvious things: no port there, infrastructure in place at KSC, no $$ savings, launches would take place over land mass?? -- -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- Malcolm Sharp Coordinator, Instructional/Technical Support University of Southern California
grimm@aio.jsc.nasa.gov (Keith A. Grimm) (05/13/91)
In article <32809@usc>, sharp@mizar.usc.edu (Malcolm Sharp) writes: |> If Edwards then is the best landing site, why not use Vandenberg |> is the space port? Is it because of the obvious things: no |> port there, infrastructure in place at KSC, no $$ savings, |> launches would take place over land mass?? |> |> -- |> -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- |> Malcolm Sharp |> Coordinator, Instructional/Technical Support |> University of Southern California We do not launch from Vandenberg because the launch pad there has a problem in that hydrogen can build up beneath the orbiter prior to launch and thus cause an explosion at engine firing. It has been mothballed for the time being. We land at Edwards because it allows for an extra margin of error. At the time of 51L there was already some concern about the brakes. If for some reason one failed and the other didn't the orbiter could go off the runway. At Edwards that is not as big a problem as it is at Kennedy. Off a runway at Edwards means onto the flat ground. Off the runway at Kennedy means off into a swamp. That why Kennedy is still only a backup landing site. Also the weather is more stable at Edwards than at Kennedy. No hurricanes or less other things to worry about.
henry@zoo.toronto.edu (Henry Spencer) (05/13/91)
In article <32809@usc> sharp@mizar.usc.edu (Malcolm Sharp) writes: >If Edwards then is the best landing site, why not use Vandenberg >is the space port? Is it because of the obvious things: no >port there, infrastructure in place at KSC, no $$ savings, >launches would take place over land mass?? The last is the big one. Maximum-payload launches have to go due east or very nearly so to exploit the Earth's spin, and Vandenberg can't launch east because there are populated areas nearby in that direction. There are also some practical and political problems with Vandenberg. It's a USAF rather than NASA facility. Due to the presence of Indian burial grounds, doing serious construction there is a major exercise in paperwork. The Saturn infrastructure at KSC looked like a good base for shuttle facility construction. Etc. But the big problem was simply that it's in the wrong place. -- And the bean-counter replied, | Henry Spencer @ U of Toronto Zoology "beans are more important". | henry@zoo.toronto.edu utzoo!henry
fsfrick@bones.lerc.nasa.gov (David Fricker) (05/14/91)
In article <32809@usc> sharp@mizar.usc.edu (Malcolm Sharp) writes: >If Edwards then is the best landing site, why not use Vandenberg >is the space port? Is it because of the obvious things: no >port there, infrastructure in place at KSC, no $$ savings, >launches would take place over land mass?? > The scuttlebutt I heard is that the space shuttle launch pad at Vandenburg was not approved by NASA. Vandenburg has a setup allowing covering up the shuttle payload bay, etc., for security. For some reason, this includes a confined rocket exhaust deflector. The U.S. Air Force couldn't convince NASA that a buildup of hydrogen would not occur in case of a failed rocket ignition. Naturally, NASA was worried about an 'overpressure' behind the shuttle. So, now the Air Force has a full-blown (no pun intended) space shuttle launch pad with a sophisticated exhaust deflector system sitting there doing nothing. Again, this is scuttlebutt, NOT official NASA policy/comments/etc. I was just talking with someone who happened to be in on the committee reviewing the exhaust deflector system. Any garbling of the facts is mine & mine alone. -- ----------------------------------------------------------------------------- David Fricker | phone: 216-433-5960 NASA Lewis Research Center | M.S. 5-11 Cleveland, Ohio 44135 | email: fsfrick@bones.lerc.nasa.gov
mboone@magnus.acs.ohio-state.edu (Michael B Boone) (05/14/91)
In article <32809@usc> sharp@mizar.usc.edu (Malcolm Sharp) writes: >If Edwards then is the best landing site, why not use Vandenberg >is the space port? Is it because of the obvious things: no >port there, infrastructure in place at KSC, no $$ savings, >launches would take place over land mass?? > Well, because it would be dangerous to launch over the continental US, Vandenburg is only good for launching into polar orbit which cuts down on the applications you can do. Also, I think that the Vandenburg launch site has been mothballed anyway, and judging from pictures I have seen of it, it is a poor complex compared to Kennedy anyway. Also, I don't have a map of California but Edwards and Vandenburg aren't exactly next door, either, so you'd still have transporation problems, too. Just my $0.02 worth. 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) (05/14/91)
In article <1991May13.172439.13053@eagle.lerc.nasa.gov> fsfrick@bones.UUCP (David Fricker) writes: >The scuttlebutt I heard is that the space shuttle launch pad at >Vandenburg was not approved by NASA. Vandenburg has a setup >allowing covering up the shuttle payload bay, etc., for security. >For some reason, this includes a confined rocket exhaust deflector. >The U.S. Air Force couldn't convince NASA that a buildup of hydrogen >would not occur in case of a failed rocket ignition... The odd structure of the exhaust duct is a relic of the pad's original design (it wasn't built from scratch for the shuttle) rather than a security issue. The risk of hydrogen buildup, while not entirely trivial, was basically used as an excuse to terminate a project that nobody wanted any more. It's the sort of engineering problem that would be solved in a few weeks without fuss if people wanted it solved. >Air Force has a full-blown (no pun intended) space shuttle launch pad >with a sophisticated exhaust deflector system sitting there doing >nothing. Work is now underway on converting it for Titan IV use, actually. -- And the bean-counter replied, | Henry Spencer @ U of Toronto Zoology "beans are more important". | henry@zoo.toronto.edu utzoo!henry
geoffm@purplehaze.EBay.Sun.COM (Geoff Miller) (05/14/91)
In article <32809@usc> sharp@mizar.usc.edu (Malcolm Sharp) writes: >If Edwards then is the best landing site, why not use Vandenberg >is the space port? Is it because of the obvious things: no >port there, infrastructure in place at KSC, no $$ savings, >launches would take place over land mass?? There might be other factors, but I'm certain the primary one is that since the Cape is closer to the equator than Vandenberg, less energy is required to boost a given mass into orbit because of the assistance given by the Earth's rotation. Geoff -+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+- Geoff Miller + + + + + + + + Sun Microsystems geoffm@purplehaze.EBay.sun.com + + + + + + + + Milpitas, California -+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-
rdd@cactus.org (Robert Dorsett) (05/15/91)
In article <1991May14.121925.59@%boot.decnet@edwards-tems.af.mil>, martin%boot.decnet@edwards-tems.af.mil writes: > The logistics of shuttle operations at VAFB dictated that one orbiter > vehicle be essentially dedicated to polar launches. When the fifth orbiter > was scratched to recover from cost overruns, the practicality of launching > from VAFB was seriously undermined. Eventually, the plan was scrapped and > the > completed facilities were mothballed. The facilities are now being modified > for use as a Titan launch complex. I seem to recall several articles in AvLeak, between 1984 and 1986, which alleged that the quality of workmanship at the Vandenberg launch facility was pretty mediocre, and that from a cost/effectiveness standpoint, there was absolutely no use for it (and I don't really accept that *one* orbiter would justify the billions of dollars involved in the project--but then again, that was the Reagan Administration). After the Challenger disaster, Vandenberg was stillborn--but I don't recall any tears shed, since the project was considered dead even before then, being viewed as a cash cow. Does anyone have more info on this? --- Robert Dorsett Internet: rdd@cactus.org UUCP: ...cs.utexas.edu!cactus.org!rdd
kent@vf.jsc.nasa.gov (05/15/91)
In article <6796@male.EBay.Sun.COM>, geoffm@purplehaze.EBay.Sun.COM (Geoff Miller) writes: > > In article <32809@usc> sharp@mizar.usc.edu (Malcolm Sharp) writes: > >>If Edwards then is the best landing site, why not use Vandenberg >>is the space port? Is it because of the obvious things: no >>port there, infrastructure in place at KSC, no $$ savings, >>launches would take place over land mass?? > > > There might be other factors, but I'm certain the primary > one is that since the Cape is closer to the equator than > Vandenberg, less energy is required to boost a given mass > into orbit because of the assistance given by the Earth's > rotation. Due to safety concerns you don't want to launch east over the populated US to put a vehicle in orbit. Can you imagine the outcome of Challenger and the SRB's raining down on the good old USA? You don't want to launch westward because you are fighting the earth's rotation. Vandenburg was going to be used for Shuttle military launches into a poler or high inclination launches (launching northward). Even if vandenburg was the launch site and Edwards the landing site, you still would have to use the Shuttle Carrier Aircraft (the 747) to get it back to Vandenburg. The major expense to the ferry flight is getting the shuttle configured for the flight, and getting it on and off the 747. The fuel and the pilot expense is not that great a difference for a 3 leg trip versus a 1 leg trip. -- Mike Kent - Lockheed Engineering and Sciences Company at NASA JSC 2400 NASA Rd One, Houston, TX 77058 (713) 483-3791 KENT@vf.jsc.nasa.gov
fcrary@lightning.Berkeley.EDU (Frank Crary) (05/16/91)
In article <32809@usc> sharp@mizar.usc.edu (Malcolm Sharp) writes: >If Edwards then is the best landing site, why not use Vandenberg >is the space port? Is it because of the obvious things: no >port there, infrastructure in place at KSC, no $$ savings, >launches would take place over land mass?? Unless you don't mind dropping an solid rocket booster on an inhabited area (and giving up re-using the SRB's) shuttles may only be launched into polar orbits from Vandenberg. Frank Crary UC Berkeley
mll@aio.jsc.nasa.gov (Mark Littlefield) (05/16/91)
In article <32809@usc>, sharp@mizar.usc.edu (Malcolm Sharp) writes: |> If Edwards then is the best landing site, why not use Vandenberg |> is the space port? Is it because of the obvious things: no |> port there, infrastructure in place at KSC, no $$ savings, |> launches would take place over land mass?? |> |> -- |> -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- |> Malcolm Sharp |> Coordinator, Instructional/Technical Support |> University of Southern California All these things, and more. The closer you are to the equator, the more rotational velocity you have from the earth's rotation. That translates to a "jump-start" of sorts. And KSC is somewhat closer to the equator than Vandenberg is. ===================================================================== Mark L. Littlefield Automation and Robotics Division internet: mll@aio.jsc.nasa.gov Intelligent Systems Branch USsnail: Lockheed Engineering and Sciences 2400 Nasa Rd 1 / MS 19 Houston, TX 77258 ====================================================================