Path: utzoo!utgpu!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!cs.utexas.edu!uunet!pilchuck!seahcx!phred!petej From: petej@phred.UUCP (Pete Jarvis) Newsgroups: sci.space.shuttle Subject: Re: Shuttle question Message-ID: <3290@phred.UUCP> Date: 29 Nov 90 13:37:46 GMT References: <3795@cuisun.unige.ch> <40040@ut-emx.uucp> <37200@nigel.ee.udel.edu> <1990Nov26.032232.14814@athena.mit.edu> Reply-To: petej@phred.UUCP (Pete Jarvis) Organization: <1990Nov26.032232.14814@athena.mit.edu>o Lines: 17 In article <1990Nov26.032232.14814@athena.mit.edu> cabruen@e40-008-11.MIT.EDU (Charles Alan Bruen) writes: > >The KSC landing would be used only in the case of a launch abort. It >would need to invovlve pretty serious conditions, due to the loads put >on the shuttle. I believe that payloads are not designed to withstand >the loads during lanuch abort and therefore very possible might be >damaged. >The second launch site is in Madrid, Spain, Other than that the shuttle >should be able to make it around to a Edwards landing. > There are other TAL (Trans-Atlantic landing sites). One is Dakar, Senegal. The abort modes other than pre-launch aborts (RSLS), are: RTLS (return to launch site), TAL, AOA (abort once around with landing at Edwards or White Sands), and ATO (abort to orbit). Peter Jarvis........Physio-Control Redmond, WA. Brought to you by Super Global Mega Corp .com