Path: utzoo!utgpu!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!cs.utexas.edu!wuarchive!zaphod.mps.ohio-state.edu!pacific.mps.ohio-state.edu!linac!att!ucbvax!agate!lightning.Berkeley.EDU!fcrary
From: fcrary@lightning.Berkeley.EDU (Frank Crary)
Newsgroups: sci.space.shuttle
Subject: Re: Edwards as primary site
Message-ID: <1991May15.205516.6284@agate.berkeley.edu>
Date: 15 May 91 20:55:16 GMT
References: <72189@microsoft.UUCP> <1991May12.182355.13384@elroy.jpl.nasa.gov> <32809@usc>
Sender: root@agate.berkeley.edu (Charlie Root)
Organization: ucb
Lines: 12

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??

Unless you don't mind dropping an solid rocket booster on an inhabited
area (and giving up re-using the SRB's) shuttles may only be launched
into polar orbits from Vandenberg. 

				  Frank Crary
				  UC Berkeley