Space shuttle

[The Gaijin]

Why does the space shuttle take off from a humid and thunderstorm prone region of the Florida coast? Don't mention hurricanes.

Considering the problems with delayed flights and ice damage - would not some dry lake bed in CA/NM/AZ be better?

Otherwise, space exploration excites me and I think it is tax money well spent.

[Nostril Cheese]

Latitude

[GH85Carrera]

The biggest single reason is the launch goes right over ocean. If something blows up or drops off it lands in the ocean not on land.

[Netspeed]

They were originally going to fly and land them out of Vandenburg Air Force base but after the first shuttle disaster, they decided to fly all missions out of Florida.

[Jim Richards]

from Wiki:

Cape Canaveral was chosen for rocket launches to take advantage of the earth's rotation. The linear velocity of the Earth's surface is greatest towards the equator; the relatively southerly location of the Cape allows rockets to take advantage of this by launching eastward, in the same direction as the earth's rotation. It is also highly desirable to have the downrange area sparsely populated, in case of accidents; an ocean is ideal for this. Although the United States has sites closer to the equator with expanses of ocean to the east of them (e.g. Hawaii, Puerto Rico), the east coast of Florida has substantial logistical advantages over these island locations. The tip of the cape is at LC-46 in Cape Canaveral Air Force Station.

[JeremyD]

and when it was built - it was not very populated. Summer sucks - but wintertime in Florida is is pretty awesome.

[red-beard]

Originally Posted by Netspeed

They were originally going to fly and land them out of Vandenburg Air Force base but after the first shuttle disaster, they decided to fly all missions out of Florida.

Which one would that be? Challenger was 5 years into the program.

The closer to the equator, the better. The rotational speed cuts lots of mile-seconds off the fuel. We'd be better off still in the Marshall Islands, or even Hawaii.

ONE of these days, we'll use electric catapult.

[Porsche-O-Phile]

Vandenburg was going to be used for polar orbits, not equatorial orbits.

[red-beard]

Originally Posted by Porsche-O-Phile

Vandenburg was going to be used for polar orbits, not equatorial orbits.

It was also supposed to be home to the Military missions. I remember a few early in the life of the shuttle program. I haven't heard of one since 1990.

[Rick Lee]

I saw a show on tv the other day that predicted we will one day use a cable/tether that anchors the space station to the Earth and is kept tight by the centripetal force and then we can use it like an elevator to send supplies up there.

[tcar]

Space Elevator.

Proposed by Arthur C. Clarke (2001 - Space Odyssey).

Google it. Carbon nanotubes, maybe?

It won't happen anytime soon.

[Super_Dave_D]

I just heard that the grounded the fleet again due to debris. There are only 7 or so more flights before the shuttle will be retired. I took the family on a road trip yesterday for the first time. Its something we in Florida take for granted and very few people will ever see. I caught myself with my jaw hanging open while I watched it launch! It was a truly moving thing to watch.

Here is a pic I took, not bad for an amateur at 7 miles out.

[Super_Dave_D]

Here is another - not that great though.

[Rick Lee]

This is one of those things I absolutely must see before I die.

[porsche4life]

You only have till December Rick. At least if you want to see this type of shuttle launch.

[red-beard]

Originally Posted by Rick Lee

I saw a show on tv the other day that predicted we will one day use a cable/tether that anchors the space station to the Earth and is kept tight by the centripetal force and then we can use it like an elevator to send supplies up there.

The only way the "bean stalk" works, is to have the anchor in Geo-Sync orbit. Can you imagine a cable that is connected from the earth, up to a sat, that is 32,000 miles long?

And for the orbit not to very with changes in mass, the mass in orbit needs to be very very large. Asteroid large.

Our manned space program is a joke. We have not been out farther than 1000 miles in orbit, since 1972. We should have put the space station in Geo-Sync, or maybe L4 or L5. The Space shuttle is a joke. A bad joke. We need a system to move people to low earth orbit. Everything else should be unmanned. Why pay to shove a shuttle into orbit, which carries a payload that is a fraction of the weight of the shuttle?

Early in the shuttle program, there was short lived program to take an external tank, make it a payload unit, attach a set of shuttle engines to it, external tank, SRBs. It would deliver to orbit weight equal to the shuttle. We need a "mini" shuttle, for people only. Everything else should be on non-reusable equipment. Eventually, we need to get catapults going, which can throw small items into orbit.

[Porsche-O-Phile]

A thought that the orbital design limit of the shuttle (about 690 miles) was due to the Van Allen radiation belts. The highest orbit for the shuttle, carrying full OMS fuel (and resulting reduced payload capacity) supposedly is just inside the lower boundary of the inner Van Allen belt.

I have a book somewhere called "The Space Shuttle Operator's Manual" (blue cover, here it is on Amazon - http://www.amazon.com/Space-Shuttle-Operators-Manual-Revised/dp/0345341813 ) which gets into a lot of this stuff. Great read and worth picking up if you get the chance - I got my copy back in 1981 or 1982 I think.

[Mr.Puff]

Originally Posted by Porsche-O-Phile

A thought that the orbital design limit of the shuttle (about 690 miles) was due to the Van Allen radiation belts. The highest orbit for the shuttle, carrying full OMS fuel (and resulting reduced payload capacity) supposedly is just inside the lower boundary of the inner Van Allen belt.

I have a book somewhere called "The Space Shuttle Operator's Manual" (blue cover, here it is on Amazon - http://www.amazon.com/Space-Shuttle-Operators-Manual-Revised/dp/0345341813 ) which gets into a lot of this stuff. Great read and worth picking up if you get the chance - I got my copy back in 1981 or 1982 I think.

I think it's due to radiation too.

[masraum]

Originally Posted by Porsche-O-Phile

A thought that the orbital design limit of the shuttle (about 690 miles) was due to the Van Allen radiation belts. The highest orbit for the shuttle, carrying full OMS fuel (and resulting reduced payload capacity) supposedly is just inside the lower boundary of the inner Van Allen belt.

I have a book somewhere called "The Space Shuttle Operator's Manual" (blue cover, here it is on Amazon - http://www.amazon.com/Space-Shuttle-Operators-Manual-Revised/dp/0345341813 ) which gets into a lot of this stuff. Great read and worth picking up if you get the chance - I got my copy back in 1981 or 1982 I think.

You should see some of the books that show up in the "Half Price Books" store that's about a mile from NASA here in Houston. Some cool stuff.

[Tervuren]

Originally Posted by The Gaijin

Why does the space shuttle take off from a humid and thunderstorm prone region of the Florida coast? Don't mention hurricanes.

Considering the problems with delayed flights and ice damage - would not some dry lake bed in CA/NM/AZ be better?

Otherwise, space exploration excites me and I think it is tax money well spent.

You left out Texas.

Ever read the book from the earth to the moon by Jules Verne? It possesses a quite funny answer to your question.