ExiledInIllinois Posted March 14, 2011 Share Posted March 14, 2011 They launch shuttles from FL because it's close to the equator (which reduces launch costs) and open to the east (for safety). It has precisely ****-all to do with climate. And they also land in FL. And mission control is in Houston because of politics - launch control, though, is at KSC. :rolleyes: About 12 degrees N Lat between Buffalo, NY and northeast FLA. Whatever you say rocket surgeon. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chef Jim Posted March 15, 2011 Share Posted March 15, 2011 They launch shuttles from FL because it's close to the equator (which reduces launch costs) and open to the east (for safety). It has precisely ****-all to do with climate. And they also land in FL. And mission control is in Houston because of politics - launch control, though, is at KSC. And the only reason they land in CA is if the weather in FLA is not coducive to a landing. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ExiledInIllinois Posted March 15, 2011 Share Posted March 15, 2011 And the only reason they land in CA is if the weather in FLA is not coducive to a landing. And when the shuttle program was new, for quite sometime all they did was land in Cali (Edwards)... Why? Tell it to the Russians, who of course were launching and landing capsules... Why didn't they splash down in/on the arctic? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gene Frenkle Posted March 15, 2011 Share Posted March 15, 2011 And when the shuttle program was new, for quite sometime all they did was land in Cali (Edwards)... Why? Tell it to the Russians, who of course were launching and landing capsules... Why didn't they splash down in/on the arctic? It costs a small fortune to transport the shuttle back to FLA if it doesn't land there. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ExiledInIllinois Posted March 15, 2011 Share Posted March 15, 2011 It costs a small fortune to transport the shuttle back to FLA if it doesn't land there. I know.. Then why were the first missions always landing in Cali @ Edwards?... Area wa bigger? Dryer? The weather wasn't always bad in FLA. Getting the bugs out? It is always easier to get the bugs out in more perfect enviro. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gene Frenkle Posted March 15, 2011 Share Posted March 15, 2011 I know.. Then why were the first missions always landing in Cali @ Edwards?... Area wa bigger? Dryer? The weather wasn't always bad in FLA. Getting the bugs out? It is always easier to get the bugs out in more perfect enviro. I'm not really sure. Probably something to so with the facilities at each place at at time, but that's just a guess. That bird's pretty heavy! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ExiledInIllinois Posted March 15, 2011 Share Posted March 15, 2011 (edited) I'm not really sure. Probably something to so with the facilities at each place at at time, but that's just a guess. That bird's pretty heavy! Maybe... But I always thought it was becasue of the condusive geo and dry weather to land a shuttle, especially all the very first missions... And @ first did they dare to land on an artificial runway?... Wasn't it a natural surface they used at Edwards?... And where can you find ares like that? Oh, of course... That has to do with geography. There is a reason why they test cars at the Bonneville salt flats in Utah. But for the rest, not really you Gene.. Laugh on and spin what I am saying to mean "perfect weather", "nice for our soldiers", etc... etc... Edited March 15, 2011 by ExiledInIllinois Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gene Frenkle Posted March 15, 2011 Share Posted March 15, 2011 Maybe... But I always thought it was becasue of the condusive geo and dry weather to land a shuttle, especially all the very first missions... And @ first did they dare to land on an artificial runway?... Wasn't it a natural surface they used at Edwards?... And where can you find ares like that? Oh, of course... That has to do with geography. There is a reason why they test cars at the Bonneville salt flats in Utah. But for the rest, not really you Gene.. Laugh on and spin what I am saying to mean "perfect weather", "nice for our soldiers", etc... etc... Ok, I was curious, so I did some digging...from Wiki: The runway (at Kennedy) was first used by a space shuttle on 11 February 1984 when the STS-41-B mission returned to earth. This also marked the first ever landing of a spacecraft at its launch site. Prior to this all shuttle landings were performed at Edwards Air Force Base in California (with the exception of STS-3 which landed at White Sands Space Harbor) while the landing facility continued testing and shuttle crews developed landing skills at White Sands and Edwards where the margin for error is much greater than SLF and its water hazards. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shuttle_Landing_Facility Seems they were still developing the facility at Kennedy during the early missions. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jim in Anchorage Posted March 15, 2011 Share Posted March 15, 2011 FLA has only one runway: 15-33. So if the wind is, say coming from 240 you are forced to deal with a cross wind. I really doesn't know, but the shuttle just doesn't look like it could handle much of a cross wind component. Edwards has two runways in a x shape so you can aways land into the wind. I have no idea why they would care about clouds. Are they returning from orbit under visual flight rules? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ExiledInIllinois Posted March 15, 2011 Share Posted March 15, 2011 (edited) Ok, I was curious, so I did some digging...from Wiki: http://en.wikipedia....anding_Facility Seems they were still developing the facility at Kennedy during the early missions. I agree. Yet, my point is they still would have tested at White Sands/Edwards, even if that runway in FLA was already built and operational. Why? The answer is here in your post: "...and shuttle crews developed landing skills at White Sands and Edwards where the margin for error is much greater than SLF and its water hazards." Again, blessed by geography to help the ecomony. You don't think the Edwards local economy thrives because to the NASA/military (then test pilots) complex. What is the underlying factor for selecting such places? Same thing with the point I was making about Texas and San Antonio. Could BFLO/WNY have put in a bid to have these complexes in their area? :lol: Kinda like the how cities bid for the SuperBowl and how BFLO has an open stadium. That is all changing though with NYC being awarded a SB. FLA has only one runway: 15-33. So if the wind is, say coming from 240 you are forced to deal with a cross wind. I really doesn't know, but the shuttle just doesn't look like it could handle much of a cross wind component. Edwards has two runways in a x shape so you can aways land into the wind. I have no idea why they would care about clouds. Are they returning from orbit under visual flight rules? Man you guys spin... Do you read? I am not saying anything about clouds.. Sure if it is raining. Like I said, even if FLA was operational, there is areason why Cali would have been used first: Geography! Safety! Do you even know what the word geography means? It encompasses a lot... It is not just "nice" weather. Man, get that bee out of your bonnet! Could BFLO/WNY put in a bid to house these facilties? Just answer this one simple question! Of course BFLO/WNY/NYS could put in a bid... Would they win? You gotta be kidding! Where in the area? Edited March 15, 2011 by ExiledInIllinois Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jim in Anchorage Posted March 15, 2011 Share Posted March 15, 2011 (edited) I agree. Yet, my point is they still would have tested at White Sands/Edwards, even if that runway in FLA was already built and operational. Why? The answer is here in your post: "...and shuttle crews developed landing skills at White Sands and Edwards where the margin for error is much greater than SLF and its water hazards." Again, blessed by geography to help the ecomony. You don't think the Edwards local economy thrives because to the NASA/military (then test pilots) complex. What is the underlying factor for selecting such places? Same thing with the point I was making about Texas and San Antonio. Could BFLO/WNY have put in a bid to have these complexes in their area? :lol: Kinda like the how cities bid for the SuperBowl and how BFLO has an open stadium. That is all changing though with NYC being awarded a SB. Man you guys spin... Do you read? I am not saying anything about clouds.. Sure if it is raining. Like I said, even if FLA was operational, there is areason why Cali would have been used first: Geography! Safety! Do you even know what the word geography means? It encompasses a lot... It is not just "nice" weather. Man, get that bee out of your bonnet! Could BFLO/WNY put in a bid to house these facilties? Just answer this one simple question! Of course BFLO/WNY/NYS could put in a bid... Would they win? You gotta be kidding! Where in the area? First of all I was not talking to you. That would be a waste of time. I was speculating why they may have to land at Edwards rather than FLA. Of course you missed the significance of FLA having only one runway and Edwards having two in a x shape as far as crosswind landings are concerned, and ran off with you're goofball geography obsession. link 17 MPH is lame. I can land a 152 all day in a 17 MPH crosswind, with half my rudder left. Edited March 15, 2011 by Jim in Anchorage Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gene Frenkle Posted March 15, 2011 Share Posted March 15, 2011 First of all I was not talking to you. That would be a waste of time. I was speculating why they may have to land at Edwards rather than FLA. Of course you missed the significance of FLA having only one runway and Edwards having two in a x shape as far as crosswind landings are concerned, and ran off with you're goofball geography obsession. link 17 MPH is lame. I can land a 152 all day in a 17 MPH crosswind, with half my rudder left. Yeah, that makes a lot of sense as to why they might choose to land at Edwards instead of Kennedy today. At least one of the reasons, but it sounds like you know more about flying than I do. The wiki article also makes it sound like Edwards has wider landing strips as well, which would make it a bit safer while they were still working the kinks out in the early days of the program. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jim in Anchorage Posted March 15, 2011 Share Posted March 15, 2011 Yeah, that makes a lot of sense as to why they might choose to land at Edwards instead of Kennedy today. At least one of the reasons, but it sounds like you know more about flying than I do. The wiki article also makes it sound like Edwards has wider landing strips as well, which would make it a bit safer while they were still working the kinks out in the early days of the program. Got my pilots license some years ago. Given the poor crosswind capability's of the shuttle[max 17 MPH is pretty bad] I am surprised they do not have a E-W runway in addition to the existing N-S. I noticed lightning is scrub also. Could you pick a worse place than FLA? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ExiledInIllinois Posted March 15, 2011 Share Posted March 15, 2011 Yeah, that makes a lot of sense as to why they might choose to land at Edwards instead of Kennedy today. At least one of the reasons, but it sounds like you know more about flying than I do. The wiki article also makes it sound like Edwards has wider landing strips as well, which would make it a bit safer while they were still working the kinks out in the early days of the program. Thank you. It is a freakin' desert, where are they gonna go? Got my pilots license some years ago. Given the poor crosswind capability's of the shuttle[max 17 MPH is pretty bad] I am surprised they do not have a E-W runway in addition to the existing N-S. I noticed lightning is scrub also. Could you pick a worse place than FLA? Yes, you are right... But now compare that to where it is launched and the price tag against transportation. Of course they want to launch just west of the ocean... That way if something goes wrong... They scuttle over the water rather than populated land... Or in the case of Challenger, blow-up. FLA, pretty much perfect LOCATION place to launch... Not so perfect to land... Yet, landing there can be learned and they can save some dough. Where else in the country are they more blessed to carry out these missions? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chef Jim Posted March 15, 2011 Share Posted March 15, 2011 Yeah the Mojave is blessed by great geography. That place is a !@#$ing hot be of activity. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DC Tom Posted March 15, 2011 Share Posted March 15, 2011 17 MPH is lame. I can land a 152 all day in a 17 MPH crosswind, with half my rudder left. You're probably not flying a brick. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gene Frenkle Posted March 15, 2011 Share Posted March 15, 2011 (edited) Got my pilots license some years ago. Given the poor crosswind capability's of the shuttle[max 17 MPH is pretty bad] I am surprised they do not have a E-W runway in addition to the existing N-S. I noticed lightning is scrub also. Could you pick a worse place than FLA? Like Tom said, they picked Florida because it's as close to the equator as you can get while remaining on US soil, which makes it the best launch point we have. Financially, it obviously helps to be able to land in the same place, but it looks like a tough place to build a huge landing strip, let alone two. Note the water hazards, should you push or pull your shot enough to miss the fairway. http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/c/c0/Shuttle_Landing_Facility.jpg/800px-Shuttle_Landing_Facility.jpg (Ah well, I can't seem to get the image tags to actually display an image) Edited March 15, 2011 by Gene Frenkle Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DC Tom Posted March 15, 2011 Share Posted March 15, 2011 Like Tom said, they picked Florida because it's as close to the equator as you can get while remaining on US soil, which makes it the best launch point we have. Financially, it obviously helps to be able to land in the same place, but it looks like a tough place to build a huge landing strip, let alone two. Note the water hazards, should you push or pull your shot enough to miss the fairway. http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/c/c0/Shuttle_Landing_Facility.jpg/800px-Shuttle_Landing_Facility.jpg (Ah well, I can't seem to get the image tags to actually display an image) KSC's also a nature preserve, so it's not like you can just slap down a cement slab whenever you feel like it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gene Frenkle Posted March 15, 2011 Share Posted March 15, 2011 KSC's also a nature preserve, so it's not like you can just slap down a cement slab whenever you feel like it. From the wiki article again: A local nickname for the runway is the "gator tanning facility", as some of the 4,000 alligators living at Kennedy Space Center regularly bask in the sun on the runway. That's pretty cool that they were able to build something like this without completely ruining the area for local wildlife. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DC Tom Posted March 15, 2011 Share Posted March 15, 2011 :rolleyes: About 12 degrees N Lat between Buffalo, NY and northeast FLA. Whatever you say rocket surgeon. Stick to carp, fish-boy. As a matter of orbital physics, that's a HUGE difference. Not only does that extra 11 degrees impart significant more energy to a rocket launched on an east-west trajectory, but it provides a shallower orbital inclination, which would otherwise have to be changed in orbit with an immense expenditure of energy. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts