|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
#1
|
|||
|
|||
Shuttle cross-range Q.
This article about the X-37B:
http://www.theregister.co.uk/2012/12...unch_tomorrow/ reminds me of something I've been meaning to ask. Much has been made (by some) of the military-mandated cross- range capability of the STS which (according to some) essentially crippled the Shuttle as a civilian transport due to the excesssively expensive and fragile TPS. The given scenario is always a single polar orbit launched from and returning to Vandenberg. But why not just launch from, say, White Sands, and land at Vandenberg? |
#2
|
|||
|
|||
Shuttle cross-range Q.
"Fevric J. Glandules" wrote in message ...
This article about the X-37B: http://www.theregister.co.uk/2012/12...unch_tomorrow/ reminds me of something I've been meaning to ask. Much has been made (by some) of the military-mandated cross- range capability of the STS which (according to some) essentially crippled the Shuttle as a civilian transport due to the excesssively expensive and fragile TPS. The given scenario is always a single polar orbit launched from and returning to Vandenberg. But why not just launch from, say, White Sands, and land at Vandenberg? White Sands didn't have the launch complex and there was a real desire to not launch over land (in this case Mexico). -- Greg D. Moore http://greenmountainsoftware.wordpress.com/ CEO QuiCR: Quick, Crowdsourced Responses. http://www.quicr.net |
#3
|
|||
|
|||
Shuttle cross-range Q.
In sci.space.history message McGdnSkVV8Rm51rNnZ2dnUVZ_oCdnZ2d@earthlink
..com, Tue, 11 Dec 2012 13:27:07, "Greg (Strider) Moore" mooregr@ignore thisgreenms.com posted: White Sands didn't have the launch complex and there was a real desire to not launch over land (in this case Mexico). Then launch to the North. There's plenty of distance before Canada is reached. -- (c) John Stockton, nr London, UK. Mail via homepage. Turnpike v6.05 MIME. Web http://www.merlyn.demon.co.uk/ - FAQqish topics, acronyms and links; Astro stuff via astron-1.htm, gravity0.htm ; quotings.htm, pascal.htm, etc. No Encoding. Quotes before replies. Snip well. Write clearly. Don't Mail News. |
#4
|
|||
|
|||
Shuttle cross-range Q.
"Dr J R Stockton" wrote in message
nvalid... In sci.space.history message McGdnSkVV8Rm51rNnZ2dnUVZ_oCdnZ2d@earthlink .com, Tue, 11 Dec 2012 13:27:07, "Greg (Strider) Moore" mooregr@ignore thisgreenms.com posted: White Sands didn't have the launch complex and there was a real desire to not launch over land (in this case Mexico). Then launch to the North. There's plenty of distance before Canada is reached. Yes, but you're still launching over land. (and now you're almost certainly going to drop SRBs over Canada.) -- Greg D. Moore http://greenmountainsoftware.wordpress.com/ CEO QuiCR: Quick, Crowdsourced Responses. http://www.quicr.net |
#5
|
|||
|
|||
Shuttle cross-range Q.
On Wed, 12 Dec 2012 20:08:21 -0500, "Greg \(Strider\) Moore"
wrote: Then launch to the North. There's plenty of distance before Canada is reached. Yes, but you're still launching over land. (and now you're almost certainly going to drop SRBs over Canada.) No, the SRBs came down about 150 miles offshore Cape Canaveral. That would equate to somewhere between Albuquerque and Santa Fe, NM, depending on where in the huge White Sands base you launch. Brian |
#6
|
|||
|
|||
Shuttle cross-range Q.
On Tue, 11 Dec 2012 16:56:10 +0000 (UTC), "Fevric J. Glandules"
wrote: This article about the X-37B: http://www.theregister.co.uk/2012/12...unch_tomorrow/ reminds me of something I've been meaning to ask. Much has been made (by some) of the military-mandated cross- range capability of the STS which (according to some) essentially crippled the Shuttle as a civilian transport due to the excesssively expensive and fragile TPS. The given scenario is always a single polar orbit launched from and returning to Vandenberg. But why not just launch from, say, White Sands, and land at Vandenberg? The reason the rocket launch site was moved to Cape Canaveral in the first place was to prevent spent rocket stages, or rockets destroyed by range safety, from coming down on land... especially populated areas. China and Russia might not think twice about evicting people from their homes below the intended flight path, and China clearly doesn't give a hoot if a stage full of toxic propellant does a swan dive into some remote village (it happened in the 1990s), but the U.S. does. Other than that philosophical reason against inland launch sites, the Shuttle's SRBs could not be recovered from a land landing, they'd be junk afterwards. There might also be issues with where the remains of the ET would come down. If you weren't concerned about reusing the SRBs, you could probably launch the Shuttle from White Sands and be reasonably sure that in a normal launch the SRBs would impact in a particular area that could be zoned off. The problem of course, is that you have to prepare for an abnormal launch, i.e., Challenger raining debris on Santa Fe. Never gonna happen. Brian |
#7
|
|||
|
|||
Shuttle cross-range Q.
"Brian Thorn" wrote in message ... On Wed, 12 Dec 2012 20:08:21 -0500, "Greg \(Strider\) Moore" wrote: Then launch to the North. There's plenty of distance before Canada is reached. Yes, but you're still launching over land. (and now you're almost certainly going to drop SRBs over Canada.) No, the SRBs came down about 150 miles offshore Cape Canaveral. That would equate to somewhere between Albuquerque and Santa Fe, NM, depending on where in the huge White Sands base you launch. You are of course right. Ignore my comment. Thanks. Brian -- Greg D. Moore http://greenmountainsoftware.wordpress.com/ CEO QuiCR: Quick, Crowdsourced Responses. http://www.quicr.net |
#8
|
|||
|
|||
Shuttle cross-range Q.
On Thursday, December 13, 2012 12:02:59 AM UTC-5, Brian Thorn wrote:
Other than that philosophical reason against inland launch sites, the Shuttle's SRBs could not be recovered from a land landing, they'd be junk afterwards. There might also be issues with where the remains of the ET would come down. Polar flights were already going to use non-reusable SRB's, the Filament Wound Case design, to try and improve the payload fraction a bit. So recovery didn't matter so much, it was really only the philosophical objections to launching over land that forced polar launches to VAFB. Chris Manteuffel |
#9
|
|||
|
|||
Shuttle cross-range Q.
Brian Thorn wrote:
Other than that philosophical reason against inland launch sites, the Shuttle's SRBs could not be recovered from a land landing, they'd be junk afterwards. There might also be issues with where the remains of the ET would come down. Thanks (and to other respondees). A lot clearer now. JOOI can anyone remember how far down-range the SRBs landed? |
#10
|
|||
|
|||
Shuttle cross-range Q.
On Dec 13, 1:02*pm, wrote:
On Thursday, December 13, 2012 12:02:59 AM UTC-5, Brian Thorn wrote: Other than that philosophical reason against inland launch sites, the Shuttle's SRBs could not be recovered from a land landing, they'd be junk afterwards. There might also be issues with where the remains of the ET would come down. Polar flights were already going to use non-reusable SRB's, the Filament Wound Case design, to try and improve the payload fraction a bit. So recovery didn't matter so much, it was really only the philosophical objections to launching over land that forced polar launches to VAFB. Not true. Not all flights were going to use the FWC SRM's. And they were to be reusable and besides, non-reusable does not mean non- retrieval ( for inspection). |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
radio range calculator | Eric[_29_] | Amateur Astronomy | 0 | February 3rd 08 01:10 AM |
Range of STA (747) ? | John Doe | Space Shuttle | 17 | January 4th 07 07:21 AM |
Range violation | JoKudabada | Space Shuttle | 2 | July 2nd 06 02:40 AM |
Down range thunderstorm | Craig Fink | Space Shuttle | 2 | July 1st 06 09:24 PM |
Why is Einstein's Cross a cross? | Robin Leadbeater | UK Astronomy | 1 | November 4th 03 11:17 AM |