Path: utzoo!utgpu!watserv1!watmath!att!pacbell!pacbell.com!mips!zaphod.mps.ohio-state.edu!samsung!uunet!pilchuck!seahcx!phred!petej
From: petej@phred.UUCP (Pete Jarvis)
Newsgroups: sci.space.shuttle
Subject: Re: Dumb question #652
Message-ID: <3116@phred.UUCP>
Date: 4 Jun 90 14:44:48 GMT
References: <376.26477BB6@ofa123.FIDONET.ORG> <24785@netnews.upenn.edu> <	<3286@rodan.acs.syr.edu> > <SHAFER.90May14220318@skipper.dfrf.nasa.gov> <1990Jun2.014849.287@ultra.com> <967@swan.ulowell.edu>
Reply-To: petej@phred.UUCP (Pete Jarvis)
Organization: <967@swan.ulowell.edu>o
Lines: 14

In article <967@swan.ulowell.edu> rlevasse@hawk.ulowell.edu (Roger Levasseur) writes:
>#>
>After the shuttle landed at White Sands in 1982, the SCA reportedly
>used 12,000 feet of runway before getting airborne.  Friends in
>Alamogordo at the time said it was still flying pretty low when
>it flew over the city.

The length of runway used for takeoff depends alot on airport altitude,
(how high above sea-level is White Sands?), and "density altitude". The 
warmer the air, the less dense it is making it harder to get airborn.
So given the combination of weight, and density altitude, I'm not
surprised it took 12,000 feet.        

Peter Jarvis.......Physio-Control....Redmond, WA.