giles@ucf-cs.UUCP (Bruce Giles) (11/28/83)
I was at Canaveral National Seashore on Thanksgiving, and thought many of you would be interested in the security surrounding the shuttle before the launch. In a word, there was none. For those of you unfamiliar with the cape, the access road to the beach passes within a few miles of the launch pads. In fact, on Thursday I could clearly make out the external tank and both SRBs. (The orbiter was under the canopy, or whatever they call it.) It is probabily within range of a high-power rifle, and certainly within range of a small ground-to-ground missile. When I have gone to the beach before previous launches, if the shuttle was on the pad a security officer has always stopped each car and asked questions. Questions such as: (1) have you been here before? (2) are you carrying any firearms? (3) are you carrying any explosives? Occasionally I have seen them turn back cars, or had them pull them to the side. But there was at least the appearance of active security. Thursday, however, there was none of that. You passed a sign stating that you where entering a security zone, and the first 1/2 mile of the beach was closed. That was it. And, the temperatures were warm enough that I was not alone on the beach. Does anyone know if they have dropped all security on the beach? I also heard that the beach will reopen the day after the launch, instead of the day after touchdown as before. I admit I enjoy the freedom which CNS provides (esp. the north end of Playalinda; you'ld have to be here) but security for the shuttle comes first. After all, the shuttle does provide a very tempting terrorist target. Anyone else have information on shuttle security? Bruce Giles --------------------------------------------- UUCP: decvax!ucf-cs!giles cs-net: giles@ucf ARPA: giles.ucf-cs@Rand-Relay Snail: University of Central Florida Dept of Math, POB 26000 Orlando Fl 32816 ---------------------------------------------
karn@allegra.UUCP (11/30/83)
I don't understand how anyone can say that there was no security at Kennedy surrounding the shuttle launch complex. I was there for STS-9 starting on Saturday (T-2 days) with press credentials. I lost track of how many roadblocks we had to pass through and how many times we had to individually show our badges and car passes. Armed guards were present at all intersections in the areas leading to the pad, VAB, landing strip, etc. When we took the bus tours out to the pad areas on the day before launch, we had to exchange our badges for red hazard area passes so that they would know who was trying to hide in the bushes. This was true even though we were not taken through the perimeter fence around the launch pad - only on the Saturn Causeway running parallel to the crawlerway and around on Cape Road on the east side of the pad. It should be pointed out that pad 39A (used for STS-9) is the southernmost pad at Launch Complex 39; pad B, when it becomes operational, will most likely push the security perimeter much further north along the beach. Despite the ubiquitous presence of security people, they were universally courteous and polite to us, and I think everybody good-naturedly accepted the need for at least SOME of the hassles. Its a shame that a realistic view of human nature makes security necessary. I would say, though, that concern for safety is probably a larger factor than protection against crazies. KSC is so large that just accounting for each and every person's whereabouts at the time of launch, even when they aren't intentionally trying to violate the security zones, must be a major challenge. After you've first seen how enormous the pad area is, and then how fast the blast wave from SRB ignition spreads to cover the entire area, you begin to develop a very healthy respect for the beast. Phil Karn
judd@umcp-cs.UUCP (12/02/83)
.....
Organization: Univ. of Maryland, Computer Science Dept.
Lines: 9
has anyone ever actualy threatend to shoot down a shuttle??
how hard would it be?? (30-06 rifle fired at launch vs say sofisticated
SAM)
--
Spoken: Judd Rogers
Arpa: judd.umcp-cs@CSNet-relay
Uucp:...{allegra,seismo}!umcp-cs!juddgiles@ucf-cs.UUCP (Bruce Giles) (12/02/83)
I quote the following from the 29 November 1983 issue of *The Orlando Sentinel*. (launch edition) --------------------------------------------------------------------- Coast Guard shuttle's defense line ---------------------------------- By Sara Roen of the Sentinel Staff ABOARD THE C.G.C. POINT CHARLES -- After chasing away shuttle viewers who got too close Sunday and Monday, the Coast Guard crew relaxed on the bridge to monitor the area from their anchorage, 150 yards out in the Atlantic. The 10-member crew's job was to protect the shuttle from sabotage. They arrived in the 82-foot Point Charles on Sunday and stayed just off- shore until minutes before the launch Monday when they moved to a spot three miles out in the ocean. The crew and 65 other enlisted, reserve and auxiliary guard members spent the 72 hours before the launch patrolling NASA's designated "vulnerable" areas, including the Atlantic Ocean, the Banana and Indian rivers and Mosquito Lagoon. The Coast Guard patrols 350 square miles around Kennedy Space Center, while NASA and Air Force security teams patrol the air. Monday's launch posed an unusual problem. It came during hunting season and guardsmen had to watch for hunters who may have strayed into the restricted areas over the weekend. Fishing also was not allowed in restricted waters, Commander Bob Merrilees said. During a launch the Coast Guard is the only law enforcement agency with police authority in the restricted areas. On Monday, guard members in 27 vessels chased away several boaters who had anchored in restricted zones on the Banana River. While protecting the shuttle, guard members must stay highly visible, keep a sharp lookout and monitor sophisticated radar and camera equip- ment, Merrilees said. Enlisted and reserve guard members are heavily armed on patrol, he added. Elwewhere, reservist Richard McCann spent Monday driving a 41-foot boat through secured areas. "We're making sure no boats get in," he said. "But you ought to look at that shuttle. You get sick of it." ----------------------------------------------------------------------- C'mon -- hunters on the pad? As I said, security can be pretty lax. (I admit I have not been anywhere on KSC except the VIP site during the three days before a launch, but Thanksgiving was only four days before the launch). Bruce Giles --------------------------------------------- UUCP: decvax!ucf-cs!giles cs-net: giles@ucf ARPA: giles.ucf-cs@Rand-Relay Snail: University of Central Florida Dept of Math, POB 26000 Orlando Fl 32816 ---------------------------------------------
giles@ucf-cs.UUCP (Bruce Giles) (12/07/83)
I am not as concerned about someone actually shooting down a shuttle in ascent as I am with 'nuisance' sabotage. An example of what I am talking about it as follows: Imagine that it is 23 November, and STS-9 is still on the launch pad, being prepared for launch. However, it is still a week to the launch, and the security peri- meter is still pretty loose. Now, imagine a member of a radical fringe in the scrubs with a 30-30. He raises the rifle, fires 20 rounds at the shuttle, and tries (unsuccessfully) to escape. What has he done? I would imagine that he was able to puncture the external tank in several places, and possibily chipped a couple of the tiles. For *any* launch, the shuttle would have to be rolled back to replace the external tank. (Would *you* want to fill a tank with LOX and LH which has been patched on the launch site?). For STS-9, this would entail a delay until February, with the loss of millions of dollars (due to the delay), and the use of the orbiter (since it has to wait 3 months for the mission). How many times will it take until ESA stays with Arianne? Most companies go with Arianne because it would then be far more reliable? Most companies go with Arianne because of pressure from insurance companies? The general public begins to hate NASA because it seems to be incompetent in defending itself/ doing anything right? (compare the last with the military after the Vietnam War). Finally, such damage would be possible using readily available arms, not sophisticated weapons such as SAMs (which have their own nightmares). Bruce Giles --------------------------------------------- UUCP: decvax!ucf-cs!giles cs-net: giles@ucf ARPA: giles.ucf-cs@Rand-Relay Snail: University of Central Florida Dept of Math, POB 26000 Orlando Fl 32816 ---------------------------------------------