IA80024@MAINE.BITNET (Nicholas C. Hester) (12/19/89)
After reading the responses to my query on shuttle landings at KSC and the use of Vandenburg for future launches, I was wondering about the possibility of using Hawaii. I had heard that it was up for consideration regarding the launching of commercial vehicles and was wondering what the chance was of building a new shuttle launch facility there. It has ocean to protect against a debri from another Challenger type accident as well as nice weather. Comments? ------- Nicholas C. Hester ia80024@Maine.Bitnet ia80024@Maine.Maine.edu
dkrause@orion.oac.uci.edu (Doug Krause) (12/19/89)
In article <IA80024.89352200552@MAINE.BITNET> IA80024@MAINE.BITNET (Nicholas C. Hester) writes:
#After reading the responses to my query on shuttle landings at KSC and the
#use of Vandenburg for future launches, I was wondering about the possibility
#of using Hawaii. I had heard that it was up for consideration regarding the
#launching of commercial vehicles and was wondering what the chance was of
#building a new shuttle launch facility there. It has ocean to protect against
#a debri from another Challenger type accident as well as nice weather.
Could a shuttle-loaded 747 make it to Hawaii? The closest mainland city
is probably San Francisco and that's about 2200? miles away.
Douglas Krause One yuppie can ruin your whole day.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
University of California, Irvine Internet: dkrause@orion.oac.uci.edu
Welcome to Irvine, Yuppieland USA BITNET: DJKrause@ucivmsaado@elsie.UUCP (Arthur David Olson) (12/19/89)
> Could a shuttle-loaded 747 make it to Hawaii? The closest mainland city > is probably San Francisco and that's about 2200? miles away. A shuttle-loaded 747 doesn't need to travel from San Francisco to Hawaii. . . the shuttle can be put on a low-tech, unglamorous boat for the trip. Just make sure the first mate's name is something other than Gilligan. -- Arthur David Olson ado@alw.nih.gov ADO is a trademark of Ampex.
ables@lot.ACA.MCC.COM (King Ables) (12/19/89)
From article <3831@orion.cf.uci.edu>, by dkrause@orion.oac.uci.edu (Doug Krause): > In article <IA80024.89352200552@MAINE.BITNET> IA80024@MAINE.BITNET (Nicholas C. Hester) writes: > #of using Hawaii. > > Could a shuttle-loaded 747 make it to Hawaii? The closest mainland city > is probably San Francisco and that's about 2200? miles away. So put it on a boat (I know, "but it's too slow"). I suspect much of why they use KSC is historical (all the stuff is there, it's already built and paid for, staffed, etc.). Now *originally* why didn't they put it in Hawaii is another question. That probably had to do with the little amount of expertise we had in what kinds of things could go wrong with a launch (and just not wanting to chance it). In Hawaii, a path to orbit will cross over the United States or at least Canada, probably before orbit is achieved. While an accident like Challenger would have "safely" (for everyone else) happened over water if launched from Hawaii, an accident further along in the mission but still before orbital insertion could be disasterous to a populated area. Is orbital insertion achieved before the shuttle passes over Europe? Does anybody know an average figure for miles downrange when orbit is achieved? (and please, in *real* miles, not nautical! ;-) I know, I could convert it). King Ables ables@mcc.com Microelectronics and Computer Technology Corporation (MCC) 3500 West Balcones Center Drive Austin, TX 78759 (512) 338-3749 (office) (512) 343-0978 (switchboard) "George Bush has been in the presence of other Soviet leaders. But that was at their funerals." - Bernard Shaw, CNN
henry@utzoo.uucp (Henry Spencer) (12/20/89)
In article <IA80024.89352200552@MAINE.BITNET> IA80024@MAINE.BITNET (Nicholas C. Hester) writes: >After reading the responses to my query on shuttle landings at KSC and the >use of Vandenburg for future launches, I was wondering about the possibility >of using Hawaii. I had heard that it was up for consideration regarding the >launching of commercial vehicles and was wondering what the chance was of >building a new shuttle launch facility there... Roughly zero. In some ways it is a better place to launch from, but the cost of building a new shuttle facility would be enormous, and I doubt very much that it could be justified. I'd also expect some practical problems; in particular, I'm not sure the shuttle-carrier 747 can make it from the mainland to Hawaii with an orbiter on its back. (Although there has been talk of adding flight refuelling facilities to the carrier.) -- 1755 EST, Dec 14, 1972: human | Henry Spencer at U of Toronto Zoology exploration of space terminates| uunet!attcan!utzoo!henry henry@zoo.toronto.edu
doug@hokulea.hig.hawaii.edu (Doug Myhre) (12/20/89)
In article <9222@elsie.UUCP> ado@elsie.UUCP (Arthur David Olson) writes: >> Could a shuttle-loaded 747 make it to Hawaii? The closest mainland city >> is probably San Francisco and that's about 2200? miles away. > >A shuttle-loaded 747 doesn't need to travel from San Francisco to Hawaii. . . >the shuttle can be put on a low-tech, unglamorous boat for the trip. > If NASA built the orbiter processing facilities here (very unlikely), they could just land the shuttle here. Our reef runway at Honolulu International Airport is supposedly one of the emergency landing sites for the shuttle. We had some NASA folks down here a few months ago doing some preparations on the landing strip for that purpose. As for using South Point on the Big Island (Island of Hawaii) as a lanching point, good luck. The people who want to make it a commercial space port are having enough problems with the environmentalists. There would be lengthy court battles, with much local resistance. *=================================================* * Douglas Myhre <doug@loihi.hig.hawaii.edu> * * Hawaii Institute of Geophysics * * Research Computing Facility * * 2525 Correa Rd. * * Honolulu, HI 96822 * *=================================================*
phil@delta.eecs.nwu.edu (William LeFebvre) (12/20/89)
In article <1989Dec19.172843.10529@utzoo.uucp> henry@utzoo.uucp (Henry Spencer) writes: >In article <IA80024.89352200552@MAINE.BITNET> IA80024@MAINE.BITNET (Nicholas C. Hester) writes: >>After reading the responses to my query on shuttle landings at KSC and the >>use of Vandenburg for future launches, I was wondering about the possibility >>of using Hawaii. I had heard that it was up for consideration regarding the >>launching of commercial vehicles and was wondering what the chance was of >>building a new shuttle launch facility there... > >Roughly zero. In some ways it is a better place to launch from, but the >cost of building a new shuttle facility would be enormous, and I doubt very >much that it could be justified. I'd also expect some practical problems;... Correct me if I'm wrong.....aren't the SRB segments sent to some place other than KSC for refurbishing and repacking? And aren't they sent by rail? I seem to recall that one of the constraints on the length of the segment (and one of the arguments in favor of segmented SRBs) was the requirement that they be carriable via freight train. Such a processing facility would have to be built on the same island as the launch facility to make Hawaii work. And that seems to be a bit of a steep start-up penalty. William LeFebvre Department of Electrical Engineering and Computer Science Northwestern University <phil@eecs.nwu.edu>
mark@watsnew.waterloo.edu (Mark Earnshaw) (12/20/89)
In article <1989Dec19.172843.10529@utzoo.uucp> henry@utzoo.uucp (Henry Spencer) writes: > I'd also expect some practical problems; >in particular, I'm not sure the shuttle-carrier 747 can make it from the >mainland to Hawaii with an orbiter on its back. (Although there has been >talk of adding flight refuelling facilities to the carrier.) Wouldn't another problem be the fact that if anything goes wrong with the 747, there's nowhere to land in the middle of the Pacific. Kind of an expensive way to lose an orbiter. -- Mark Earnshaw, Systems Design Engineering {uunet,utai}!watmath!watsnew!mark University of Waterloo, Ontario, Canada mark@watsnew.waterloo.{edu,cdn}
net8709@dsacg3.dsac.dla.mil (Mary Jane Pees) (12/20/89)
From article <3831@orion.cf.uci.edu>, by dkrause@orion.oac.uci.edu (Doug Krause):
< In article <IA80024.89352200552@MAINE.BITNET> IA80024@MAINE.BITNET (Nicholas C. Hester) writes:
< #a debri from another Challenger type accident as well as nice weather.
< Could a shuttle-loaded 747 make it to Hawaii? The closest mainland city
< is probably San Francisco and that's about 2200? miles away.
And is there anywhere that an emergency landing strip could be built (or any
existing facility) that would be used in an early post-launch failure?henry@utzoo.uucp (Henry Spencer) (12/20/89)
In article <445@lot.ACA.MCC.COM> ables@lot.ACA.MCC.COM (King Ables) writes: >I suspect much of why they use KSC is historical (all the stuff is there, >it's already built and paid for, staffed, etc.). Now *originally* why >didn't they put it in Hawaii is another question. Actually, a site on South Point was considered for what is now KSC, as was Christmas Island. The overwhelming argument against was simply that both sites were thousands of miles from most of US industry, which would have meant higher costs and transportation problems. A secondary issue was the lack of islands downrange for tracking stations. Cape Canaveral already had a lot of relevant support facilities, including tracking stations, and was handy to both rail and barge transport. (The missile test facilities on the Cape, in turn, were located there to get a long clear flight path over water, with enough islands for tracking stations, relatively convenient to water transport, with an existing Air Force station nearby.) >...In Hawaii, a path to orbit will cross over the United >States or at least Canada, probably before orbit is achieved... >Is orbital insertion achieved before the shuttle passes over Europe? I'm not sure exactly where insertion occurs, but the debris "footprint" for a disaster late in flight is a more relevant issue. Remember that an *early* abort leads to the orbiter landing in Europe, and the external tank normally crashes in the Pacific or Indian Ocean depending on trajectory. You bet your booties the footprint passes over Europe if the flight track passes over Europe (which it does for high-inclination missions -- Africa is downrange for more normal missions). -- 1755 EST, Dec 14, 1972: human | Henry Spencer at U of Toronto Zoology exploration of space terminates| uunet!attcan!utzoo!henry henry@zoo.toronto.edu
henry@utzoo.uucp (Henry Spencer) (12/20/89)
In article <2274@accuvax.nwu.edu> phil@delta.eecs.nwu.edu (William LeFebvre) writes: >Correct me if I'm wrong.....aren't the SRB segments sent to some place >other than KSC for refurbishing and repacking? And aren't they sent >by rail? I seem to recall that one of the constraints on the length >of the segment (and one of the arguments in favor of segmented SRBs) >was the requirement that they be carriable via freight train. That's right. They go to Morton Thiokol (accursed be their name) in Utah for refurbishing. NASA has its own fleet of special railcars for the job. >Such a processing facility would have to be built on the same island >as the launch facility to make Hawaii work... It would probably be possible to move them by ship, possibly even by air. But it does run the price up. For that matter, moving them by rail runs the price up -- it would make a lot more sense to have most of the KSC- related facilities located near KSC, but the combination of existing plants and pork-barrel politics works against that. -- 1755 EST, Dec 14, 1972: human | Henry Spencer at U of Toronto Zoology exploration of space terminates| uunet!attcan!utzoo!henry henry@zoo.toronto.edu
henry@utzoo.uucp (Henry Spencer) (12/20/89)
In article <1711@dsacg3.dsac.dla.mil> net8709@dsacg3.dsac.dla.mil (Mary Jane Pees) writes: >And is there anywhere that an emergency landing strip could be built (or any >existing facility) that would be used in an early post-launch failure? Not that I know of. The eastern Pacific is *very* empty. Mind you, the Atlantic isn't exactly full of islands either -- there is no shuttle emergency landing site between the Cape and Europe. -- 1755 EST, Dec 14, 1972: human | Henry Spencer at U of Toronto Zoology exploration of space terminates| uunet!attcan!utzoo!henry henry@zoo.toronto.edu
carl@ritcsh.cs.rit.edu (Captain Carl) (12/21/89)
In article <9222@elsie.UUCP> ado@elsie.UUCP (Arthur David Olson) writes: > >A shuttle-loaded 747 doesn't need to travel from San Francisco to Hawaii. . . >the shuttle can be put on a low-tech, unglamorous boat for the trip. Just exactly how feasable would that be, putting the Shuttle on a Boat to send across the ocean. I don't think that NASA would be to keen about that idea. Especially with the tropical storms that pop up from nowhere in the middle of the ocean. Also, wouldn't it be a bad idea to launch the shuttle from the Islands with all the active volcanoes and bad weather they have?? -- "Captain" Carl Johnson @ Computer Science House Rochester Institute of Technology carl@ritcsh.cs.rit.edu bitnet - cej2421@ritvax "It takes two to speak the truth, -one to speak, and another to hear."
sw@cbnewsl.ATT.COM (Stuart Warmink) (12/21/89)
In article <445@lot.ACA.MCC.COM>, ables@lot.ACA.MCC.COM (King Ables) writes: > > I suspect much of why they use KSC is historical (all the stuff is there, > it's already built and paid for, staffed, etc.). Now *originally* why > didn't they put it in Hawaii is another question. Florida was originally chosen because of the benign climate and ice-free ports. Easy access to barge traffic was a major consideration. All the larger pieces of hardware (Saturn 1st stage, Shuttle ET) are delivered in such a manner. Also, downrange tracking stations are convenient from Florida: Bermuda and Ascension (assuming 28 degree or so inclination orbits). There isn't much out there around Hawaii :-). -- ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ Stuart Warmink, Whippany, NJ, USA | sw@cbnewsl.ATT.COM | Pretentious? Moi? -------------------------> My opinions are just that <------------------------
shafer@elxsi.dfrf.nasa.gov (Mary Shafer (OFV)) (12/22/89)
In article <IA80024.89352200552@MAINE.BITNET> IA80024@MAINE.BITNET (Nicholas C. Hester) writes: >After reading the responses to my query on shuttle landings at KSC and the >use of Vandenburg for future launches, I was wondering about the possibility >of using Hawaii. I had heard that it was up for consideration regarding the >launching of commercial vehicles and was wondering what the chance was of >building a new shuttle launch facility there. It has ocean to protect against >a debri from another Challenger type accident as well as nice weather. >Comments? There's no way to get the Shuttle to Hawaii safely and uncorroded. It would have to be deck cargo on a ship and would be damaged before it ever arrived, since Hawaii is beyond 747 range. I suppose you could land there from orbit, but I'm not sure the weather is enough better than Florida to make this viable. The times I've been in Hawaii, there's been a lot of rain and you can't land the Shuttle in rain. -- Mary Shafer shafer@skipper.dfrf.nasa.gov or ames!skipper.dfrf.nasa.gov!shafer NASA Ames Dryden Flight Research Facility, Edwards, CA Of course I don't speak for NASA
johnob@tekigm2.MEN.TEK.COM (John Obendorfer) (12/22/89)
In article <771@ritcsh.cs.rit.edu> carl@ritcsh.cs.rit.edu.UUCP (Captain Carl) writes: >Also, wouldn't it be a bad idea to launch the shuttle from the Islands >with all the active volcanoes and bad weather they have?? Well, the last time I was hopping around the south point of the big island, down below the Kiliuea (sp) volcano, I was literally hopping on a 2-week old lava flow, watching the *really* hot stuff drop into the ocean. I can see it now: "STS-37 will be launched now no sooner than February 18, 1990. The launch will slip as NASA technicans must clear the pad of now-hardened lava from recent eruptions ... " The Hawaii volcanoes are the most active volcanos in the world. Hail Pele, John
bj@gvgspd.GVG.TEK.COM (Brion Johnson) (12/22/89)
In article <5766@uhccux.uhcc.hawaii.edu> doug@loihi.hig.hawaii.edu (Doug Myhre) writes: >they could just land the shuttle here. Our reef runway at Honolulu > >As for using South Point on the Big Island (Island of Hawaii) as a lanching >point, good luck. The people who want to make it a commercial space port >are having enough problems with the environmentalists. There would be >lengthy court battles, with much local resistance. If you were to put in an installation on the Big Island, it would make sense to put a runway there as well. You could make it as big as desired. However, isn't the weather often rainy? And with some amount of consistant winds? And also not to forget that there are active volcanos in the area, that have a tendency to coat manmade objects with lava on occasion. Manaua Kea is nice and high, but already occupied with several delicate astronomical installations. That, however, brings up a thought - is there any advantage to launching from the top or near top of some mountain, say at 15,000 feet or so? Henry, what do you think? Just thoughts. Brion
tneff@bfmny0.UU.NET (Tom Neff) (12/22/89)
In article <7641@tekigm2.MEN.TEK.COM> johnob@tekigm2.MEN.TEK.COM (John Obendorfer) writes: >In article <771@ritcsh.cs.rit.edu> carl@ritcsh.cs.rit.edu.UUCP (Captain Carl) writes: >>Also, wouldn't it be a bad idea to launch the shuttle from the Islands >>with all the active volcanoes and bad weather they have?? > Well, the last time I was hopping around the south point of the big >island, down below the Kiliuea (sp) volcano, I was literally hopping on >a 2-week old lava flow, watching the *really* hot stuff drop into the >ocean... > The Hawaii volcanoes are the most active volcanos in the world. The current active flow (since the '83 Kilauea eruption) is located well up the Ka'u coast to the NE of South Point, about halfway to Kohala. The flows covering southern Ka'u are over a thousand years old. You can see the terrain well from the upper reaches of Chain of Craters Road leading down from the National Park and the Kilauea caldera. It is forbidding and actually well isolated for dangerous work. But, and these are big buts: The Pacific is not friendly along most of the Big Island's coasts. Barge and small craft access would be chancy at times. Kona storms, when they come, could shut things down for days at a time. Another thing that could shut things down for WEEKS at a time is "volcano weather." This happens when Pele breathes extra sulfur and fine ash into the air from her numerous vents around Kilauea and Mauna Loa; the result is stagnant, hazy weather with lots of fog and rain, BIG lightning and sharp, tangy, corrosive sulfur vapors day and night. There are also numerous low grade seismic tremors from Pele's internal goings-on. The hazards of orbiter transportation to Hawaii have already been discussed. The existing 747 fleet could be upgraded for midflight refueling, but there would be no emergency landing options in case of problems on the way. We could build a new shuttle runway on the huge, gently sloping lava fields along Kona side, but Hawai'i is one of the WINDIEST places around on average. There'd be lots of safety holds (or worse, safety waivers). Net-net, the Big Island would be a lousy deal for the program. It would also add much-regretted light pollution to the headaches of the Keck Observatory staff at Mauna Kea... Canal Zone spaceport, anyone? :-) <ducking> -- "We plan absentee ownership. I'll stick to `o' Tom Neff building ships." -- George Steinbrenner, 1973 o"o tneff@bfmny0.UU.NET
hogg@db.toronto.edu (John Hogg) (12/22/89)
In article <SHAFER.89Dec21092942@skipper.dfrf.nasa.gov> shafer@elxsi.dfrf.nasa.gov (Mary Shafer (OFV)) writes: >There's no way to get the Shuttle to Hawaii safely and uncorroded. It >would have to be deck cargo on a ship and would be damaged before it >ever arrived, since Hawaii is beyond 747 range. While a number of major problems with Hawaii as a launch site have been pointed out, I think that Mary's a bit harsh on shuttle transportation by ship. Aircraft are regularly carried by specialized vessels (they're called ``aircraft carriers''); launchers right up to Saturn first stages have been moved to KSC by barge; and the SRBs *land* in salt water after each flight. Granting that shuttles are a bit more delicate than these other examples, they still spend most of their lives in the middle of a salt marsh on a seacoast. By comparison, a special Basic Orbiter Aquatic Transporter could give velvet-glove treatment. A simple hangar structure could seal out the spray, and even allow air conditioning and dehumidification. The shuttle wouldn't simply be dumped on the top layer of a container ship's cargo! I'm sure that *somebody* looked into building such an animal. For the present setup, of course, it makes absolutely no sense. Edwards lacks a year-round ice-free harbour. -- John Hogg hogg@csri.utoronto.ca Department of Computer Science, University of Toronto
shafer@elxsi.dfrf.nasa.gov (Mary Shafer (OFV)) (12/22/89)
In article <1989Dec21.174304.9072@jarvis.csri.toronto.edu> hogg@db.toronto.edu (John Hogg) writes: In article <SHAFER.89Dec21092942@skipper.dfrf.nasa.gov> shafer@elxsi.dfrf.nasa.gov (Mary Shafer (OFV)) writes: >There's no way to get the Shuttle to Hawaii safely and uncorroded. It >would have to be deck cargo on a ship and would be damaged before it >ever arrived, since Hawaii is beyond 747 range. While a number of major problems with Hawaii as a launch site have been pointed out, I think that Mary's a bit harsh on shuttle transportation by ship. Aircraft are regularly carried by specialized vessels (they're called ``aircraft carriers''); launchers right up to Saturn first stages have been moved to KSC by barge; and the SRBs *land* in salt water after each flight. Granting that shuttles are a bit more delicate than these other examples, they still spend most of their lives in the middle of a salt marsh on a seacoast. I keep thinking about that "convertible" Hawaiian 737. The Hawaiian climate, characterized as extremely adverse for aircraft, was regarded as a major factor in that accident by the NTSB. Hawaii is a lot warmer that Florida year-round and this accelerated corrosion damage. The planes that go on carriers were built just for that purpose and corrosion control is an extremely important issue, starting before they cut metal. The Shuttle can barely stay out in the rain without everyone getting excited. A simple hangar structure could seal out the spray, and even allow air conditioning and dehumidification. The shuttle wouldn't simply be dumped on the top layer of a container ship's cargo! And how long would we have to wait and what would we pay for this? The 747 is pretty minimum-care--it sits here in our nice dry desert. It's not out growing barnacles in somebody's dock. For the present setup, of course, it makes absolutely no sense. Edwards lacks a year-round ice-free harbour. Well, it's not a deep-water harbour, but Dryden is on Lakeshore Drive. We do have waterskiing in the winter--we just use a helicopter! :-) -- Mary Shafer shafer@skipper.dfrf.nasa.gov or ames!skipper.dfrf.nasa.gov!shafer NASA Ames Dryden Flight Research Facility, Edwards, CA Of course I don't speak for NASA