mmachlis@athena.mit.edu (Matthew A Machlis) (12/18/89)
There are several reasons why the shuttle does not land at Kennedy, many of them being traceable back to the stupidity of one or more engineers. 1) The runway is grooved to reduce hydroplaning when there is standing water. However, the grooves are so deep that they do quite a bit of damage to the tires whenever an orbiter has landed there. 2) The runway is aligned such that there is almost always a crosswind. I don't know if it's true, but the story I heard is that whoever had to decide which way to orient the runway took all of the old wind data and averaged it. Since the wind in the area almost always blows directly onshore or offshore, the average was no wind and the runway was aligned parallel to the shore. 3) The weather changes too quickly. From the moment of the deorbit burn, there is about 45 minutes before landing, during which the landing site simply cannot be changed. And anyone who has been in Florida knows that thunderstorms can pop up out of a clear sky faster than that in that area. 4) The runway is a little short, and is surrounded by swamp-land, allowing for no margin of error. As everyone knows, the shuttle could probably land anywhere within a couple miles of the runway at Edwards with not too much of a problem (except on top of the buildings, of course). So... would you rather pay the cost of flying the orbiters back to Florida every mission, or greatly increase the risk of losing one with its crew? About the launch facility at Vandenberg: when I was back in L.A. I saw a CBS news report about what happened there. If anyone knows differently, please correct me, but my impression is that the Air Force spent billions of dollars (of -taxpayers'- dollars!) to build a complete facility, and then decided that because of the weather and other considerations -- things which should have been considered before a cent was spent on building anything -- the entire facility was declared unusable. It ended up costing the military an incredible amount of money and was a completely and utterly worthless from the very beginning. And, on the shuttle production line -- over the summer I read a summary of a report (I'm afraid I don't remember who published it, sorry) that said that if we expect to go ahead with building a space station, we need to start building a fifth orbiter right now to replace the one which, according to basic statistics, will be destroyed in an accident before the space station is completed. It said we could not afford to get halfway through construction of the station and have the fleet reduced to 3 orbiters. Of course, who knows when/if a station will ever be built anyway, so this is a rather highly conditional argument.
steve@pmday_2.Dayton.NCR.COM (Steve Bridges) (12/18/89)
In article <1989Dec17.214834.10372@athena.mit.edu> mmachlis@athena.mit.edu (Matthew A Machlis) writes: >[text deleted....] > >About the launch facility at Vandenberg: when I was back in L.A. I saw >a CBS news report about what happened there. If anyone knows differently, >please correct me, but my impression is that the Air Force spent billions >of dollars (of -taxpayers'- dollars!) to build a complete facility, and >then decided that because of the weather and other considerations -- things >which should have been considered before a cent was spent on building >anything -- the entire facility was declared unusable. It ended up costing >the military an incredible amount of money and was a completely and utterly >worthless from the very beginning. > I remember when I was at the AFROTC Field Traning Encampment an Vandenberg in June of 1983, we got a tour of SLC-6 (or Slick-6) (SLC stands for Shuttle Launch Complex). It was about 80% complete then. It was built on what used to be an atlas test site. Vandenberg was really geared up for the shuttle. The runway was extended to 15,000' and widened to 300', and the only permanent airfcraft based there were some Hueys from a Search and Rescue Detachment (Det 8 I think). In addition, there was a mate-demate facility for the orbiter and the 747. The road was widened to be able to take the orbiter from the runway to the launch complex. Also, a barge facility was built for the SRBs and external tank. There are several advantages for launching from Vandenberg. Satellites can be placed into polar orbit, since the downrange portion of the launch is over the ocean, with no danger of an exploding launch vehicle hitting land. As the the weather, early morning there stinks. During the month I was there, the fog would roll in very early, and sometimes not even burn off until 10 or 11 in the morning, but after that, the weather was great!!! One of the most impressive sights I have ever seen was a night salvo launch of 2 Minuteman ICBMs. We were on survival training. We were just about to bed down, and head this rumble. We ran to a clearing, and saw 2 streaks of light heading west. I also was able to witness the first launch of the MX (Peacekeeper). What a sight!!! -- Steve Bridges | NCR - USDPG Product Marketing and Support OLS Steve.Bridges@Dayton.NCR.COM | Phone:(513)-445-4182 622-4182 (Voice Plus) ..!uunet!ncrlnk!usglnk!pmday_2!steve "Helicopter 4 Mike Bravo cleared low-level to the heliport"
mrb1@cbnewsh.ATT.COM (maurice.r.baker) (12/20/89)
In article <1989Dec17.214834.10372@athena.mit.edu>, mmachlis@athena.mit.edu (Matthew A Machlis) writes: > > There are several reasons why the shuttle does not land at Kennedy, many > of them being traceable back to the stupidity of one or more engineers. ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ ^^^^^^^^^ Please do not make a statement like this without some factual basis. Many of the decisions which relate to space program (or any similar public endeavor, for that matter) are influenced by economists, politicians, life scientists, public relations departments, non-technical managers, etc. -- as well as engineers. Perhaps an engineer did single-handedly make the decision. I would be interested in seeing the history of this issue. Our profession is taking enough of a beating these days without this kind of thoughtless remark. Maurice R. Baker Electrical Engineer hoqub!mrb