mmachlis@athena.mit.edu (Matthew A Machlis) (05/11/91)
There are two main reasons why to land at Edwards instead of Florida: 1) Weather, as someone just mentioned. There is about 90 minutes between when the orbiter is committed to landing at a particular site and when it actually touches down, and during that 90 minutes the weather in Florida can change drastically, as opposed to the stable Edwards weather. 2) Room for error. I just read that several flights ago, one of the shuttles actually touched down 700' short of the runway at Edwards. Out there in the desert you could land several thousand feet short with no big deal. The Florida runway does have a 1000' overrun at either end of the runway, but this is still less error margin than at Edwards.\ I would definitely like to see them landing at Florida regularly to save all that money, but only when it has been determined to be totally safe (at least not any riskier than landing at Edwards). -- ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Matt Machlis MIT Space Systems Laboratory (617)253-2272
rroberts@magnus.acs.ohio-state.edu (Ross Allan Roberts) (05/11/91)
>2) Room for error. I just read that several flights ago, one of the shuttles >actually touched down 700' short of the runway at Edwards. Out there in the >desert you could land several thousand feet short with no big deal. The >Florida runway does have a 1000' overrun at either end of the runway, but this >is still less error margin than at Edwards.\ Isn't braking a factor too? I thought I read once that a shuttle landing at KSC burned completely through its brake linings trying to stop in time. I do know they have beefed up the brakes, but it's still a quick stop at KSC. __________________________________________________________________________ |Ross Roberts | KEYSTONE DRAFT LIGHT DRY!!! | |rroberts@magnus.acs.ohio-state.edu|The Great Light Beer In a Can | | |That Tastes Like Beer In A Bottle | |Vai, Rush, Apple, Pioneer, Honda |That Tastes Like Beer In A Keg | |and about $50,000 are all I need! |With No Beer Taste, and No Aftertaste| --------------------------------------------------------------------------
gaudiot@priam.usc.edu (Jean-Luc Gaudiot) (05/11/91)
Why is the shuttle committed to landing at KSC 90 minutes prior to landing? It seems to me (looking at the last flight path) that, say over Vancouver, it still had sufficient altitude to reach either site. This would mean that commitment to a landing site could occur much later, right? I am sure I am missing something important, then ... Jean-Luc Gaudiot The Flying Frenchman
kent@vf.jsc.nasa.gov (05/14/91)
In article <1991May10.181129.1554@athena.mit.edu>, mmachlis@athena.mit.edu (Matthew A Machlis) writes: > > I would definitely like to see them landing at Florida regularly to save all > that money, but only when it has been determined to be totally safe (at least > not any riskier than landing at Edwards). > > -- > ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- > Matt Machlis > MIT Space Systems Laboratory > (617)253-2272 Its safer to land at Edwards. The lake bed has a large margin for error. Moving the prime landing site to KSC is waiting on: 1) the new brakes on the orbiters (this is complete) 2) Installation of the drag chutes on the orbiters. (Endevour will be the first) 3) complete testing of the new brakes, drag chute, and nose will steering. When all this is done. Then the KSC will be prime. -- 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