Path: utzoo!utgpu!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!cs.utexas.edu!swrinde!zaphod.mps.ohio-state.edu!magnus.acs.ohio-state.edu!mboone
From: mboone@magnus.acs.ohio-state.edu (Michael B Boone)
Newsgroups: sci.space.shuttle
Subject: Re: Edwards as primary site
Message-ID: <1991May13.172442.18185@magnus.acs.ohio-state.edu>
Date: 13 May 91 17:24:42 GMT
References: <72189@microsoft.UUCP> <1991May12.182355.13384@elroy.jpl.nasa.gov> <32809@usc>
Sender: news@magnus.acs.ohio-state.edu
Organization: The Ohio State University (GO BUCKS!)
Lines: 22
Nntp-Posting-Host: bottom.magnus.acs.ohio-state.edu

In article <32809@usc> sharp@mizar.usc.edu (Malcolm Sharp) writes:
>If Edwards then is the best landing site, why not use Vandenberg
>is the space port?   Is it because of the obvious things:  no
>port there, infrastructure in place at KSC,  no $$ savings,
>launches would take place over land mass??
>
Well, because it would be dangerous to launch over the continental US,
Vandenburg is only good for launching into polar orbit which cuts down on
the applications you can do.  Also, I think that the Vandenburg launch site
has been mothballed anyway, and judging from pictures I have seen of it, it
is a poor complex compared to Kennedy anyway.
Also, I don't have a map of California but Edwards and Vandenburg aren't
exactly next door, either, so you'd still have transporation problems, too.

Just my $0.02 worth.

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
---------------------------------------------------------------------------