NASA worried their launch pads could be underwater (B.S. politics as usual)

Why would NASA have built launch pads in a state with such violent weather? Hurricanes, torrential rain and thunderstorms. The extra cost due to scrubbed launches is in the billions. Politics. They should have built them in the desert. Now they're playing the global warming card. Does this nonsense EVER stop??

On Sat, 5 Sep 2015 23:16:53 -0700 (PDT), RichA
wrote:

Why would NASA have built launch pads in a state with such violent weather? Hurricanes, torrential rain and thunderstorms. The extra cost due to scrubbed launches is in the billions. Politics. They should have built them in the desert. Now they're playing the global warming card. Does this nonsense EVER stop??

NASA is justifiably worried, since that region will be underwater in a
few decades.

They chose that location because it's as far south as they could get
in the continental U.S., and it is very useful to have your primary
launch site as close to the equator as possible. It is also a good
choice because nobody lives downrange (since it's over the ocean).
This provides safety from failed launches as well as the opportunity
for ocean recoveries of rocket stages.

On Sunday, 6 September 2015 09:35:15 UTC-4, Chris L Peterson wrote:
On Sat, 5 Sep 2015 23:16:53 -0700 (PDT), RichA
wrote:

Why would NASA have built launch pads in a state with such violent weather? Hurricanes, torrential rain and thunderstorms. The extra cost due to scrubbed launches is in the billions. Politics. They should have built them in the desert. Now they're playing the global warming card. Does this nonsense EVER stop??

NASA is justifiably worried, since that region will be underwater in a
few decades.

We've heard dire predictions like this a decade ago, didn't come to pass. Also, they never thought twice about shooting off hundreds of atomic bombs in the desert, despite them being "land-locked" and not as far south as Florida.

On 9/6/15 1:23 PM, RichA wrote:

Also, they never thought twice about shooting off hundreds of atomic bombs in the desert, despite them being "land-locked" and not as far south as Florida.

What are you talking about?

On Sunday, 6 September 2015 20:33:37 UTC-4, lal_truckee wrote:
On 9/6/15 1:23 PM, RichA wrote:

Also, they never thought twice about shooting off hundreds of atomic bombs in the desert, despite them being "land-locked" and not as far south as Florida.

What are you talking about?

Meaning they were more worried about failed rockets falling than fall-out.

On Sunday, September 6, 2015 at 7:22:06 PM UTC-7, RichA wrote:
On Sunday, 6 September 2015 20:33:37 UTC-4, lal_truckee wrote:
On 9/6/15 1:23 PM, RichA wrote:

Also, they never thought twice about shooting off hundreds of atomic bombs in the desert, despite them being "land-locked" and not as far south as Florida.

What are you talking about?

Meaning they were more worried about failed rockets falling than fall-out.

You started out bitching about NASA. Are you still talking about NASA, or have you moved on to the nebulous "they"?

On Sunday, September 6, 2015 at 8:22:06 PM UTC-6, RichA wrote:

Meaning they were more worried about failed rockets falling than fall-out.

How would atomic bomb testing be made safer by doing it in Florida? Atomic bombs
don't have a preferred direction of causing problems, so the middle of the desert
is the safest place for them.

John Savard

On Sun, 6 Sep 2015 13:23:57 -0700 (PDT), RichA
wrote:

Also, they never thought twice about shooting off hundreds of atomic bombs in the desert, despite them being "land-locked" and not as far south as Florida.

Total non sequitur there.

You know, they don't launch nuclear weapons into space from that
desert. There is no "downrange" to worry about.

Florida was chosen for launching _orbital_ spacecraft because it is as
close to the equator as it's possible to get in the continental U.S.
and because of the safety and convenience afforded by making those
launches (which are almost always towards the east) from a place with
a large ocean on the east.

On Sunday, September 6, 2015 at 12:17:01 AM UTC-6, RichA wrote:
Why would NASA have built launch pads in a state with such violent weather?

1) The Sun rises in the East. That means the Earth rotates so as to put an extra push behind rockets launched into orbit in an Eastward direction.

Thus, if you put the launching pad on the East Coast, if the rocket malfunctions, at least it won't crash on top of somebody.

2) The further south your launching pad is, the less inclined your orbit has to be, which reduces the amount of fuel you need if you want to leave orbit for some other destination on the Ecliptic, like Mars.

So that's basically why they picked Florida. Maybe Hawaii or Puerto Rico would have worked out even better, but transportation of rockets to the launch site would be more complicated.

John Savard

On Sunday, September 6, 2015 at 11:56:07 PM UTC-4, Quadibloc wrote:
On Sunday, September 6, 2015 at 12:17:01 AM UTC-6, RichA wrote:
Why would NASA have built launch pads in a state with such violent weather?

1) The Sun rises in the East. That means the Earth rotates so as to put an extra push behind rockets launched into orbit in an Eastward direction.

Thus, if you put the launching pad on the East Coast, if the rocket malfunctions, at least it won't crash on top of somebody.

2) The further south your launching pad is, the less inclined your orbit has to be, which reduces the amount of fuel you need if you want to leave orbit for some other destination on the Ecliptic, like Mars.

So that's basically why they picked Florida. Maybe Hawaii or Puerto Rico would have worked out even better, but transportation of rockets to the launch site would be more complicated.

Cape Canaveral has not been hit by a category 3 or higher hurricane since well before they started launching missiles there.