Pat Flannery wrote:

What Shuttle didn't get right was the need for acceptable weather at KSC
for a RTLS abort, and on the far side of the Atlantic for sub-orbital
aborts.
Not even to mention all the Shuttle returns that were delayed in landing
at KSC or went to Edwards as a alternate landing site due to weather
problems at KSC.

One would have to wonder how much those rules could have been relaxed
without jeoperdizing safety.

For instance, was RTLS really required if TAL was available ? (or vice
versa). Realistically speaking, if something bad happened during first 2
minutes of flights, was RTLS realistic ?

If the Shuttle gained sufficient energy to go TAL, then was RTLS ever
going to be used ?

Remember that TAL is much more like a conventional landing, whereas RTLS
required manoeuvers that were never attempted in real life.


When you have just a handful of flights per year, you can afford to wait
for good weather. But even with low shuttle flight rate, scheduling
becomes a concern when you consider Progress/Soyuz/HTV/ATV traffic
to/from the station.


Soyuz seems to have the right formula for dependable launch and return
schedules. Perhaps this has more to do with management philosophy
(accepting greater risks), perhaps it is inherent to the simple design
of the Soyuz and its launch location.

Has there been any debate on whether KSC remains the best possible
launch location ?

How about southern California on the Baja peninsula ? Could this allow
both ascending and descending node launches ? Seems to me that weather
is also more cooperative there than in Florida (fewer hurricanes for
instance)