shuttle coming in over LA today (maybe)

Slot Pilot

New Member
They havne't made the official call yet, but weather in Florida doesn't appear to be cooperating; excellent chance of landing at Edwards AFB today at 5:53pm (Pacific time)
The ground track http://www.nasa.gov/mission_pages/shuttle/shuttlemissions/sts128/news/landing.html
scroll down to Deorbit to Edwards Orbit 219

You can see it'll come in directly over the LA area.. so anyone in the area can expect to get some good sonic booms a few minutes before landing...
 
LOL
well now it's official: so if any LA area folks are here, listen for the double-sonic boom.. i'm guessing 10-15 min b4 touchdown. Or take a drive out that way and try to catch a glimpse.. I'm not familiar w/the area but I believe there's a rest area long Hwy 58 near Boron that's supposed to provide a decent view...
 
I heard the booms.
Had no idea what they were though :p
Once mom told me, though, I got frustrated for not figuring it out myself.
 
Why not launch the Shuttle from California and land it in California with Florida as the alternate landing site. How many times have I heard them having to piggyback the Shuttle back to Florida, at a huge cost, because they couldn't make the landing in Florida.

Does anyone know why this isn't done.
Seems lots of tax dollars being wasted.
 
Why not launch the Shuttle from California and land it in California with Florida as the alternate landing site. How many times have I heard them having to piggyback the Shuttle back to Florida at a huge cost because they couldn't make the landing in Florida.

Does anyone know why this isn't done.
Seems lots of tax dollars being wasted.

Launches go east. Launches, have a nasty tendancy to have problems, on occasion. Thus, if you launched from California, you'd have the entire country for debris to fall on. Launch from Florida, and its nothing but open water for the debris to fall on. I could understand launching from Kwalajein, but not California. Now, if you want to launch from Vandenburg for polar orbits, that would work, but NASA never finished the project up out there.
 
Why not launch the Shuttle from California and land it in California with Florida as the alternate landing site. How many times have I heard them having to piggyback the Shuttle back to Florida, at a huge cost, because they couldn't make the landing in Florida.

Does anyone know why this isn't done.
Seems lots of tax dollars being wasted.

I wonder what the cost of building a similar facility would be...
 
They launch from Florida for several reasons: In no particular order:
1. year-round launch capability
2. launching over the ocean allows safe drop-zone for the Solid-Rocket Boosters.
3. launching as near to the equator as possible gives best fuel economy.
4. launching to the east gives you approx. 1500 mph for free, so only need enough fuel to accelerate to 16,000mph or so, getting to 17,500mph for orbital velocity.

They did consider launching from Vandenburg AFB in the mid-80s. Those would've been for launches into a Polar-orbit - launching do the south would gave a safety-zone for the SRBs when they're dropped and avoid launching over land. They even had missions planned, crews named, etc.. but months away from the first launch from there, the Challenger accident occured, and that was the end of that plan.
54 flights out of 128 have landed in California.. considering how fickle Florida weather is, that's not too bad I don't think!




Why not launch the Shuttle from California and land it in California with Florida as the alternate landing site. How many times have I heard them having to piggyback the Shuttle back to Florida, at a huge cost, because they couldn't make the landing in Florida.

Does anyone know why this isn't done.
Seems lots of tax dollars being wasted.
 
I wonder what the cost of building a similar facility would be...
Tax dollars WASTED?????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????
:confused: :mad:
You obviously have NO idea how invaluable America's Space Program is to our everyday lives, our future, and our technological dominance in the world.
You know how many tax dollars go from each American to the Space Program?? Any idea?? huh??
Yeah. Didn't think so. About 1/4 of a PENNY per person.
No tax dollars are WASTED.
 
Tax dollars WASTED?????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????
:confused: :mad:
You obviously have NO idea how invaluable America's Space Program is to our everyday lives, our future, and our technological dominance in the world.
You know how many tax dollars go from each American to the Space Program?? Any idea?? huh??
Yeah. Didn't think so. About 1/4 of a PENNY per person.
No tax dollars are WASTED.

They built your California facility. They spent tons of money, then after Challenger had its incident, decided not to use the facility. Turns out they wasted all kinds of money. At least they do use it for some Delta launches now.
 
They built your California facility. They spent tons of money, then after Challenger had its incident, decided not to use the facility. Turns out they wasted all kinds of money. At least they do use it for some Delta launches now.

MY California facility? No idea what you mean by that:
This is a breakdown I found ("do a search, people") do illustrate my point:

Health & Human Services: $68.5B (3.9 x NASA's budget)
Department of Energy: $25.0B (1.4 x NASA's budget)
Department of Education: $59.2B (3.4 x NASA's budget)
Department of Transportation: $63.4B (3.6 x NASA's budget)
Department of Housing & Urban Development: $38.5B (2.2 x NASA's budget)
Department of Defense: $515.4B (29.3 x NASA's budget)
Global War on Terrorism: $189.3B (10.8 x NASA's budget)
National Debt Payment: $10.2T (580 x NASA's budget)
 
MY California facility? No idea what you mean by that:
This is a breakdown I found ("do a search, people") do illustrate my point:

Health & Human Services: $68.5B (3.9 x NASA's budget)
Department of Energy: $25.0B (1.4 x NASA's budget)
Department of Education: $59.2B (3.4 x NASA's budget)
Department of Transportation: $63.4B (3.6 x NASA's budget)
Department of Housing & Urban Development: $38.5B (2.2 x NASA's budget)
Department of Defense: $515.4B (29.3 x NASA's budget)
Global War on Terrorism: $189.3B (10.8 x NASA's budget)
National Debt Payment: $10.2T (580 x NASA's budget)

Sorry about calling it your facility, I got a couple people confused. I apologize for that sir. Those are great numbers and all, and I'm glad you took time to research it. I hate lots of ways the federal government spends money, but, until you can show me a way that something that really isn't that useful is better than allowing people to have housing or food or education, I don't think NASA needs more money.

Really, what's to be learned from a new program to the moon? We've been there, and, unless I missed something, nothing has changed on the moon since Cernan and Schmitt walked up there on Apollo 17 in 1972. Sure, it'd be cool to go back there, but is the return on investment high enough to make it worth it? Probably not, unless you want to go to Mars, and have the funding to go to Mars, and you're using the moon as a learning step.
 
Thanks for the reasons behind the launch from Florida.
Previously, I was inclined to believe it was some political BS that Florida wouldn't want to lose the launches to California. Guess I'm a little untrusting in how money is spent at times.
 
I heard the boom, my mother called me to ask me if I "felt" the "earthquake" too. How she gets shaking confused with sound I'll never know.
 
They launch from Florida for several reasons: In no particular order:
1. year-round launch capability
2. launching over the ocean allows safe drop-zone for the Solid-Rocket Boosters.
3. launching as near to the equator as possible gives best fuel economy.
4. launching to the east gives you approx. 1500 mph for free, so only need enough fuel to accelerate to 16,000mph or so, getting to 17,500mph for orbital velocity.

They did consider launching from Vandenburg AFB in the mid-80s. Those would've been for launches into a Polar-orbit - launching do the south would gave a safety-zone for the SRBs when they're dropped and avoid launching over land. They even had missions planned, crews named, etc.. but months away from the first launch from there, the Challenger accident occured, and that was the end of that plan.
54 flights out of 128 have landed in California.. considering how fickle Florida weather is, that's not too bad I don't think!

They should launch from Hawaii then.

1. year-round launch capability
The wx is pretty much always good

2. launching over the ocean allows safe drop-zone for the Solid-Rocket Boosters.

Hawaii is an island

3. launching as near to the equator as possible gives best fuel economy.

Even closer to the equator

4. launching to the east gives you approx. 1500 mph for free, so only need enough fuel to accelerate to 16,000mph or so, getting to 17,500mph for orbital velocity.

Again closer to the equator.
 
They should launch from Hawaii then.

1. year-round launch capability
The wx is pretty much always good

2. launching over the ocean allows safe drop-zone for the Solid-Rocket Boosters.

Hawaii is an island

3. launching as near to the equator as possible gives best fuel economy.

Even closer to the equator

4. launching to the east gives you approx. 1500 mph for free, so only need enough fuel to accelerate to 16,000mph or so, getting to 17,500mph for orbital velocity.

Again closer to the equator.
I don't think the Shuttle carrier has the range with that dead weight on it's back! Besides, it's being retired in a few years, so who cares?
 
Back
Top