Path: utzoo!utgpu!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!rpi!zaphod.mps.ohio-state.edu!swrinde!cs.utexas.edu!sun-barr!newstop!jethro!male!geoffm
From: geoffm@purplehaze.EBay.Sun.COM (Geoff Miller)
Newsgroups: sci.space.shuttle
Subject: Re: Edwards as primary site
Message-ID: <6796@male.EBay.Sun.COM>
Date: 14 May 91 14:51:23 GMT
References: <72189@microsoft.UUCP> <1991May12.182355.13384@elroy.jpl.nasa.gov> <32809@usc>
Sender: news@male.EBay.Sun.COM
Followup-To: rec.aviation
Organization: Sun Microsystems, Mt. View, Ca.
Lines: 24


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??


	There might be other factors, but I'm certain the primary
	one is that since the Cape is closer to the equator than 
	Vandenberg, less energy is required to boost a given mass
	into orbit because of the assistance given by the Earth's
	rotation.


Geoff



-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-
Geoff Miller                    + + + + + + + +        Sun Microsystems
geoffm@purplehaze.EBay.sun.com  + + + + + + + +       Milpitas, California
-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-