Path: utzoo!utgpu!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!cs.utexas.edu!wuarchive!udel!lydick
From: lydick@freezer.it.udel.edu (William Lydick)
Newsgroups: sci.space.shuttle
Subject: Re: Shuttle question
Message-ID: <37200@nigel.ee.udel.edu>
Date: 26 Nov 90 02:29:47 GMT
References: <1990Nov19.140100@alazif.cxo.dec.com> <3795@cuisun.unige.ch> <40040@ut-emx.uucp>
Sender: usenet@ee.udel.edu
Organization: University of Delaware -- ACIT Sun Lab
Lines: 30
Nntp-Posting-Host: peppermint.it.udel.edu

In article <40040@ut-emx.uucp> aoab314@ut-emx.uucp (Srinivas Bettadpur) writes:

>
>Anyway, that brings me to my next question.  Would some kind soul 
>provide some info on the selection of alternative landing sites for
>the shuttle ?  Somehow, I never knew Florida was an alternative.
>Don't they need stupendous ground facilities (like a huge runway
>and so on) for the shuttle to be able land there ?
>Thanks, in advance
>Srinivas Bettadpur

Now, I'm not about to claim to be an expert on this (I'm not...:-), but I seem
to remember alternate sites being discussed around the first or second launch.
if the problem occurs VERY early in the flight, the shuttle could turn around
and land at KSC.  If the problem occurs after the KSC window, there are/were two
sites in Africa(?) for an emergency landing.  If the shuttle were too far into
the launch for Africa, I think that they just let it go into orbit for a few
minutes and land it in the western US.

Now, Is there anybody out there who can either:
	A)  Confirm my recollections and add some more detail, or
	B)  Send out the men in white coats for me.

							WML

<SIG IN CONSTRUCTION  (Like I-95...ALL of it!)>
"I was driving down the road the other day, and I saw a guy leaning on one
 of those orange
		MEN AT WORK
 signs." -- Unknown