Path: utzoo!utgpu!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!rpi!usc!wuarchive!uunet!mdisea!mitchell
From: mitchell@MDI.COM (Bill Mitchell)
Newsgroups: sci.space.shuttle
Subject: Vandenberg (was Re: Edwards as primary site)
Message-ID: <1991May16.141235.13747@MDI.COM>
Date: 16 May 91 14:12:35 GMT
References: <72189@microsoft.UUCP> <1991May12.182355.13384@elroy.jpl.nasa.gov> <32809@usc>
Sender: news@MDI.COM
Organization: Motorola, Mobile Data Division - Seattle, WA
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??
>
>-- 

I recall some discussion a couple of years back about how the
construction of the Vandenberg facility had been botched so as
to make it unusable for shuttle launches.  I don't know how much
stock to put in the story, but what I remember of it is that
supposedly something like $6 Billion of taxpayer money was
spent making a military shuttle-capable facility there and then
it was found that the runway or pad or something was structurally
unsound and would likely suffer major damage if stressed with shuttle
operations.
 
Anybody remember more than that?  Can anybody confirm, refute, or
add detail to this?


-- 
mitchell@mdi.com (Bill Mitchell)