Path: utzoo!utgpu!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!rpi!usc!elroy.jpl.nasa.gov!ncar!csn!magnus.acs.ohio-state.edu!mboone
From: mboone@magnus.acs.ohio-state.edu (Michael B Boone)
Newsgroups: sci.space.shuttle
Subject: Re: Why is Edwards the primary site?
Message-ID: <1991May10.135453.509@magnus.acs.ohio-state.edu>
Date: 10 May 91 13:54:53 GMT
References: <3218.282A166A@ofa123.fidonet.org> <32726@usc>
Sender: news@magnus.acs.ohio-state.edu
Organization: The Ohio State University (GO BUCKS!)
Lines: 22
Nntp-Posting-Host: top.magnus.acs.ohio-state.edu

In article <32726@usc> sharp@mizar.usc.edu (Malcolm Sharp) writes:
>I read that with the shuttle landing at KSC instead of Edwards it
>saves about $1million (plus time).  Why is Edwards used as the
>primary landing area?
>-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-
>Malcolm Sharp

I believe that it is because Kennedy often has strong crosswinds on the
landing strip, where Edwards doesn't.  I think that the commission that
reviewed the Challenger accident also recommended that Edwards be used to
cut down on any risk or landing difficulty.

I think that the Kennedy landing strip surface (concrete?) is harder than
that of Edward's lake bed, although I'm not sure what that would mean in
terms of the shuttle landing.  Anyone want to fill me in?

Mike.

---------------------------------------------------------------------------
mboone@magnus.acs.ohio-state.edu (Michael B. Boone)  Ohio State     //
The best way to accelerate a Mac is at 9.8 m/s^2     University   \X/ Amiga
---------------------------------------------------------------------------