Path: utzoo!utgpu!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!cs.utexas.edu!wuarchive!zaphod.mps.ohio-state.edu!ncar!gatech!usenet.ins.cwru.edu!eagle!bones!fsfrick
From: fsfrick@bones.lerc.nasa.gov (David Fricker)
Newsgroups: sci.space.shuttle
Subject: Re: Edwards as primary site
Message-ID: <1991May13.172439.13053@eagle.lerc.nasa.gov>
Date: 13 May 91 17:24:39 GMT
References: <72189@microsoft.UUCP> <1991May12.182355.13384@elroy.jpl.nasa.gov> <32809@usc>
Sender: news@eagle.lerc.nasa.gov
Reply-To: fsfrick@bones.UUCP (David Fricker)
Organization: NASA/Lewis Research Center, Cleveland
Lines: 28

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??
>

The scuttlebutt I heard is that the space shuttle launch pad at
Vandenburg was not approved by NASA.  Vandenburg has a setup
allowing covering up the shuttle payload bay, etc., for security.
For some reason, this includes a confined rocket exhaust deflector.
The U.S. Air Force couldn't convince NASA that a buildup of hydrogen
would not occur in case of a failed rocket ignition.  Naturally, NASA
was worried about an 'overpressure' behind the shuttle.  So, now the 
Air Force has a full-blown (no pun intended) space shuttle launch pad
with a sophisticated exhaust deflector system sitting there doing
nothing.

Again, this is scuttlebutt, NOT official NASA policy/comments/etc.
I was just talking with someone who happened to be in on the committee
reviewing the exhaust deflector system.  Any garbling of the facts is 
mine & mine alone.

--
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
David Fricker			|     phone: 216-433-5960
NASA Lewis Research Center     	|     M.S. 5-11
Cleveland, Ohio  44135         	|     email: fsfrick@bones.lerc.nasa.gov