mjt@super.ORG (Michael J. Tighe) (02/13/89)
In article <1989Feb11.234744.20258@utzoo.uucp> henry@utzoo.uucp (Henry Spencer) writes: > >Can you cite references for this? I'm unaware of any plan to reopen >Vandenberg, and am aware of a number of indications that it will never >be reopened. > I too thought it would not be reopened, but do not know exactly why. I have heard several reasons (points in wrong direction, traps Hydrogen gas, etc), are these the reasons? If not why is it closed? Sorry if this has been answered before, but I was out of the US when all this happened. -- ------------- Michael Tighe internet: mjt@super.org uunet: ...!uunet!super!mjt
henry@utzoo.uucp (Henry Spencer) (02/14/89)
In article <5852@super.ORG> mjt@super.UUCP (Michael J. Tighe) writes: >I too thought it would not be reopened, but do not know exactly why. I have >heard several reasons (points in wrong direction, traps Hydrogen gas, etc), >are these the reasons? If not why is it closed? ... There is a potentially serious problem -- how serious depends on who you ask -- with unburnt hydrogen being trapped in the exhaust ducts after a last-minute abort. Solutions have been studied but not implemented. The *real* reason that the Vandenberg shuttle pad is shut down is simply that there isn't enough demand for it. NASA would like to have it for a few launches, but would like the USAF to fund it (as the original deal specified). The USAF wouldn't mind having it for one or two launches, but considers the costs excessive and has decided to do without. Most of the USAF payloads that were going to use polar-orbit shuttle launches got shifted to other launchers as the USAF lost faith in the shuttle. There just isn't enough interest in putting shuttles into polar orbit for anyone to pay the bills to keep the Vandenberg pad open. -- The Earth is our mother; | Henry Spencer at U of Toronto Zoology our nine months are up. | uunet!attcan!utzoo!henry henry@zoo.toronto.edu