I’ve had this conversation with many people and no one was able to give me a concrete answer. Why are space craft lauched in Florida or Texas? It seems to me New Mexico are Arizona would be much better choices. You can launch at 5000+ feet, which would save a bit a fuel. Also the weather is pure sun like 320 days a year and very consistant. The posible reasons I’ve come up with, but don’t really like.
Complex weather: Does the jet stream or some high altitude weather condidtion make this less safe. I’ve seen on the weather channel where the jet stream does dip down in the middle of the country often, so this is feasible, but I don’t think so.
Accident and Status Quo: They just put the things in Florida to start with and it would be too much effort to move them now.
Pure Politics:NASA creates a lot of jobs and the Senators from Florida have a lot more influence than the ones from New Mexico.
Logistical advantage. Some materials needed(including people pehaps) are easier to get to Florida than the west.
Someone will come along soon and give a much more detailed answer, but I’ll give you a quick, basically correct answer now.
They do it because they want to have water under the shuttle as it flies off. As it flies, it ditches off a few things (like the solid rocket boosters) which fall to earth. Better to have these fall into the ocean then on some poor schmos (sp?) house. Also, they retrieve and reuse the boosters, which they couldn’t do if they crashed into a sand dune in Arizona. They also figure it gives the astronauts a better chance of survival if they have to ditch (I think, but I’m not sure about this one).
When they launch, they always want to launch in an easterly direction in order to get the benefits of the earth’s rotation. To launch west, they would have to work against the earth’s rotation, which is why they seldom launch from California (though they do, in certain circumstances, launch from Brandenburg AFB in CA. Does anyone know what these circumstances are?) The only nation that regularly launches satelites etc. west is Israel, since it doesn’t want to have pieces of space junk falling on its semi-belligerant neighbors to the east,
Hmm dropping the tanks is a reason I had never considered. Very possible, I guess even the old atlas and titan had stages that dropped to earth. But do they drop at an altitude where it would be difficult to aim the shuttle far enough toward on ocean so that you couldn’t do it in Arizona? Cutting across Texas you could get the the Gulf of Mexico fairly easily.
I’m not sure how far east they are when they drop the boosters (or other junk), but what I said about having to ditch is still (I think) true.
As for heading for the Gulf from Arizona, there’s a problem. To do that, they would have to launch the shuttle in a generally Southeast direction, which would give the shuttle a particular kind of orbit. Sometimes, they want an orbit that they would get from launching Northeast, which they can’t do from Arizona (as the boosters would fall on Chicago).
Of course, I don’t even think they would get to the Gulf before they drop their booster (but, again, I’m not sure).
I appreciate the replies Varlos, I hope it dosen’t look like I’m trying to start a fight. I’ve been trying to figure this out for a long time.
Once you’re in orbit, and out of the strongest pull of earth’s gravity it doesn’t seem to me like it would be too hard of an effort to manuever back into a geocentric orbit. At least compared to the huge effort to get those first 5000 feet off the ground.
If you can’t make it to the gulf then it is obviously a moot point.
You’re right that the effort to change one’s orbit from space is miniscule compared to the effort to get off the ground. The thing is, the huge majority of the space craft’s power (i.e. fuel) is used to get it into space. As for the shuttle in particular, they generally carry only enough fuel into space for one long retro burn, or a rocket boost in the direction opposite the shuttle’s current trajectory. They do this only so they can get back to earth, since the burn slows them down enough to degrade their orbit. After the burn, they enter the atmosphere a couple of hours later, no matter what. As an interesting aside, they do literally use up all of their fuel for that retro burn, which leaves none left for the approach to the landing strip. The shuttle goes form orbit to a spec of a landing strip powered only by its momentum; it’s a trillion dollar glider. And, of course, the pilot only gets one shot at the landing (no pulling up and circling around to try again).
Of course not. This is interesting stuff, and the only reason I have any clue about it is that I took “Exploration of Space” freshman year, since it counted towards my natural science requirement as a physics course. It was one of the easy science courses designed for us Poli. Sci. majors, but damned if it wasn’t interesting.
Then again, I’m pretty sure that the shuttle is able to change it’s orbit, but I’m not sure how easy it is, and I know that NASA would prefer to get it right the first time.
Vandenberg is used to launch military satellites that are sent into a near-polar orbit (reconnaissance sats and such). I believe they launch due south over the Gulf of Baja.
I read a nifty bit o’ rumor; supposedly the DoD has a single-stage-to-orbit spaceplane that they operate out of a secret base somewhere in the Rockies. The author named some military reserve that is at a pretty high altitude.
[quote]
…supposedly the DoD has a single-stage-to-orbit spaceplane that they operate out of a secret base somewhere in the Rockies.
[quote]
Hehe, one guy I asked about the feasiblity about launching from the desert said that all the real space flights are out of the desert, fed from the base at area 51 and various secret mountain launch sites. Up until that point he had seemed like a reputable source of NASA information.
Sigh, (note to self):must remember to preview when drunk,
that should have been
Hehe, one guy I asked about the feasiblity about launching from the desert said that all the real space flights are out of the desert, fed from the base at area 51 and various secret mountain launch sites. Up until that point he had seemed like a reputable source of NASA information.
Not to my knowledge, but there is a “Brandenburg [sp?]Gate.” This doesn’t necessarily mean it’s in the city of Brandenburg, or that there is a city of Brandenburg, but there is a gate.
The best place to launch an orbiter from is [ul][li]a place near the equator (to take advantage of the boost from the earth’s rotation.)[/li][li]a place at a high altitude (to avoid as much air resistance as possible.)[/li][li]a place with no population toward the east (to avoid civilian casualties from debris or from a crash)[/li][li]a place with good climate (i.e., dry)[/ul][/li]Hawaii would probably be a better choice than either Arizona or Florida. If they happened to be parts of the U.S., the highlands of Kenya or Equador would probably be even better. Cape Canaveral is notorious for bad weather, especially lightning storms and hurricanes. The Russian space center at Baikonur (in Kazakhstan) is closer to the North Pole than it is to the equator and is at only about one or two thousand feet above sea level, I think. But they don’t have to deal with hurricanes and there are no large population centers nearby.
The air force base in California is Vandenburg. The gat in Germany is Brandenburg.
As stated, Vandenburg launches are for satellites that need a polar orbit. They also launch missiles toward USAKA (U.S. Army Kwajalein Atoll) to flight test them.
NASA is working on a single-stage-to-orbit vehicle. I don’t recall the designation (or the builder), but I think it might be the X-33. There is a place on the east side of Edwards AFB that has been designated the launch site. I think the X-33 is a scaled prototype that will not carry a pilot. There are several people and companies working on SStO concepts, including the famed Burt Rutan. On guy is working on a ship that recovers by deploying rotors and lands like a helicopter. Rutan said that as a helicopter pilot, it’s a wonderful idea. Of course, his design doesn’t recover that way!
A SStO vehicle will reduce the need to launch from Florida. Even though it will probably launch east to take advantage of the Earth’s rotation, there will be no bits dropping off of it that my hit someone on the head. We almost had a SStO in the 1960s. The X-15 reached the edge of space (the pilots wear astronaut wings) and it was assumed that the X-15 concept would be developed to the point where a later generation (not the X-15, but something that came after) would achieve orbit. But we had to get something to the moon first to beat the Soviets, and opted for the inefficient but effective missile approach. Incidentally, the Space Shuttle was helped along by another 1960s NASA project: The lifting bodies. And if you look at the X-33, you can see it’s a lifting body (but one that would be able to achieve orbit on its own). Sort of “X-15 meets HL-10”.
A graphic example of why you don’t want to launch over populated areas can be found in the 1996 failure of a Chinese Long March rocket. It landed on a village. Nobody believes the announced casualty list of six dead and 57 injured.
Well, not sure if I should a start a new thread about this, but…
Whatever happened to the 747 with the shuttle sitting on top of it? That way, the plane could be at least 30,000 up, and it could flying over an ocean (not that it’d be necessary though since the shuttle wouldn’t be carrying fuel tanks).
That’s just to move it around. All the fuel for the Shuttle is in that big-ass tank anyway. Not to mention the fact that it’d melt the 747. And it’s bolted down to the 747. Need more reasons?
There are, however, various designs floating around for a spacecraft that would launch from an airplane (usually a B-52)-- The X-15 (and many of the other Xs)launched that way, and last I knew, we were working on a craft called Pegasus capable of putting small payloads into orbit.
