eder@ssc-vax.UUCP (Dani Eder) (12/18/84)
> > When I was at Cape Canaveral, the guide said that the shuttle could land at > most major airports, since the runways would be long enough. So in case of an > emergency, there would be *lots* of landing sites. > > Evelyn C. Leeper While the guide was correct from a physical standpoint, safety would be compomised. The Space Shuttle is a glider, and cannot make up having too little energy on approach. While it has taken about 8-9000 feet to roll out, which is shorter than the length of many airport runways, you would like to have an extra mile or so of length and 100-150 feet of width to miss in. The Shuttle also uses specialized approach and landing equipment, and requires specialized equipment to make sure no hazardous leaks are occuring after landing. The designated landing sites outside the US have that equipment pre-positioned, and there are people who know how to use it there. The next level of backup would be large military airfields. Military ground crews are more familiar with handling hazardous materials (like bombs), the field could be closed without messing up air traffic schedules all over the place. Remember that the most likely reason to land at Dakar, Senegal is an aborted launch. Would you want to land a vehicle full of high explosives, with something definitely BROKEN, at a busy, unprepared airport? Dani Eder / Boeing Aerospace Company / "Tommorrow, you can be anywhere" / uw-beaver!ssc-vax!eder / (206)773-4545