Path: utzoo!utgpu!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!cs.utexas.edu!wuarchive!zaphod.mps.ohio-state.edu!uwm.edu!bionet!agate!eos!aio!aio.jsc.nasa.gov!mll
From: mll@aio.jsc.nasa.gov (Mark Littlefield)
Newsgroups: sci.space.shuttle
Subject: Re: Edwards as primary site
Message-ID: <1991May15.223539.19440@aio.jsc.nasa.gov>
Date: 15 May 91 22:35:39 GMT
References: <72189@microsoft.UUCP> <1991May12.182355.13384@elroy.jpl.nasa.gov> <32809@usc>
Sender: news@aio.jsc.nasa.gov (USENET News System)
Reply-To: mll@aio.jesnet.jsc.nasa.gov
Organization: Lockheed ESC/NASA JSC
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??
|> 
|> -- 
|> -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-
|> Malcolm Sharp
|> Coordinator, Instructional/Technical Support
|> University of Southern California

All these things, and more.  The closer you are to the equator, the
more rotational velocity you have from the earth's rotation.  That
translates to a "jump-start" of sorts.  And KSC is somewhat closer to
the equator than Vandenberg is.

=====================================================================
Mark L. Littlefield               Automation and Robotics Division
internet: mll@aio.jsc.nasa.gov       Intelligent Systems Branch
USsnail:  Lockheed Engineering and Sciences 
          2400 Nasa Rd 1 / MS 19            
          Houston, TX 77258                 
====================================================================