A Space & astronomy forum. SpaceBanter.com

Go Back   Home » SpaceBanter.com forum » Space Science » History
Site Map Home Authors List Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read Web Partners

Shuttle cross-range Q.



 
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #1  
Old December 11th 12, 05:56 PM posted to sci.space.history
Fevric J. Glandules
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 181
Default 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  
Old December 11th 12, 07:27 PM posted to sci.space.history
Greg \(Strider\) Moore
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 790
Default 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  
Old December 12th 12, 11:37 PM posted to sci.space.history
Dr J R Stockton[_190_]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 6
Default 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  
Old December 13th 12, 02:08 AM posted to sci.space.history
Greg \(Strider\) Moore
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 790
Default 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  
Old December 13th 12, 05:50 AM posted to sci.space.history
Brian Thorn[_2_]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 2,266
Default 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  
Old December 13th 12, 06:02 AM posted to sci.space.history
Brian Thorn[_2_]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 2,266
Default 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  
Old December 13th 12, 04:44 PM posted to sci.space.history
Greg \(Strider\) Moore
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 790
Default 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  
Old December 13th 12, 07:02 PM posted to sci.space.history
[email protected]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 6
Default 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  
Old December 14th 12, 01:55 AM posted to sci.space.history
Fevric J. Glandules
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 181
Default 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  
Old December 14th 12, 11:38 PM posted to sci.space.history
Me
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 489
Default 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

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

vB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump

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


All times are GMT +1. The time now is 12:08 PM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.6.4
Copyright ©2000 - 2024, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright ©2004-2024 SpaceBanter.com.
The comments are property of their posters.