[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next] - [Date Index][Thread Index][Author Index]


Option 3?

Why not just go to another alternate site such as Honolulu?
Maybe the crew could use some R&R in Hawaii for a day or 2?
The WX looks good there! http://www.cnn.com/WEATHER/ah/HI/HonoluluHNL.html

What's another million or so to get the Shuttle back to Florida?

All in jest.....

73, Scott

>From: Dino Darling <k6rix@arrl.net>
>To: sarex@AMSAT.Org
>Subject: Re: [sarex] STS-111 LANDING ABORTED AGAIN (question)
>Date: Tue, 18 Jun 2002 14:51:46 -0700
>Besides, there is probably an endangered KNAT or some No-See-Um that would
>be destroyed if there were additional launch facilities at Vandenberg.  We
>wouldn't want to upset the tree hugging, bug saving, democrat voting, don't
>drill in Alaska preaching, citizens here in California.... :-)
>I was at the landing of the first Space Shuttle Mission AFTER the
>Challenger Accident.  There was a HUGE crowd out there to see it land.  For
>no other reason than PR (and to possibly train the workers), they should
>land in CA at least once a year!  I'm sure a BUNCH of people would turn out
>to see it!
>At 16:09 06/18/2002 -0500, you wrote:
>>IIRC .. Edwards is a viable landing site, but when an STS lands at Edwards
>>it then has to be ferried cross country on the 747 piggyback bird, which
>>means a cycle on the mating facility at Edwards, attaching the transport
>>fairings, a fuel stop midcontinent somewhere (I remember one of the early
>>ferry flights stopping at Bergstrom AFB in Austin years ago), and a whole
>>bunch of extra work at KSC starting at the Mate/Demate Facility and extra
>>tasks to do in the OPF.  Same with Rota, Kadena, and the other alternate
>>landing facilities.  Basically it's a *huge* pain, and NASA tends to
>>prefer to wait for the main runway at KSC unless it's really not an option
>>at all.
>>The original plan was to build an STS *launch* facility in California at
>>Vandenberg AFB, but I don't know if that was ever followed up on .. I
>>don't think so, because it would require a complete FSS/RSS facility and a
>>pad similar to 39A/B at KSC.  This might have been during the initial
>>"sales pitch" era when they were still thinking an STS launch would be
>>cheaper than an Apollo mission .. ;-)
>Via the sarex mailing list at AMSAT.ORG courtesy of AMSAT-NA.
>To unsubscribe, send "unsubscribe sarex" to Majordomo@amsat.org

MSN Photos is the easiest way to share and print your photos: 

Via the sarex mailing list at AMSAT.ORG courtesy of AMSAT-NA.
To unsubscribe, send "unsubscribe sarex" to Majordomo@amsat.org