Path: utzoo!utgpu!attcan!uunet!lll-winken!lll-tis!helios.ee.lbl.gov!pasteur!agate!bionet!apple!bloom-beacon!tut.cis.ohio-state.edu!rutgers!uwvax!oddjob!tank!uxc!uxc.cso.uiuc.edu!a.cs.uiuc.edu!m.cs.uiuc.edu!kenny
From: kenny@m.cs.uiuc.edu
Newsgroups: sci.space.shuttle
Subject: Re: Vandenburg never to used?
Message-ID: <22000007@m.cs.uiuc.edu>
Date: 10 Oct 88 02:46:00 GMT
References: <41680@pyramid.pyramid.com>
Lines: 23
Nf-ID: #R:pyramid.pyramid.com:41680:m.cs.uiuc.edu:22000007:000:1268
Nf-From: m.cs.uiuc.edu!kenny    Oct  9 21:46:00 1988


/* Written  6:34 pm  Oct  8, 1988 by henry@utzoo.uucp in m.cs.uiuc.edu:sci.space.shuttle */
In article <22000004@m.cs.uiuc.edu> kenny@m.cs.uiuc.edu writes:
>No, the risks were with the possibility of the polar ground track
>presenting a risk to populated areas, even from Vandenberg (Can't
>*anyone* spell Vandenberg?)

Say what?  Care to elaborate?  Downrange from Vandenberg there is
*nothing* but lots and lots and lots of empty ocean, so empty that the
choice of emergency landing sites is extremely limited.

/* End of text from m.cs.uiuc.edu:sci.space.shuttle */

True for the retrograde sun-synchronous orbits that we use for most
polar-orbiting satellites.  (And I don't like Isla de Pascua as a
contingency landing site any more than you do.)  If you work out the
azimuth for the anterograde sun-synchronous orbit that one of the
earlier postings was describing, or for an anterograde Molniya orbit,
there *is* a problem with the ground track coming too close to Pacific
Coast cities.  That's why, if you look at the elements for metsats,
for instance, Meteor and NOAA, you'll see that ours all cluster around
inclination 99 degrees, while the Soviet ones (which don't have the
constraint) cluster around 82.5 degrees; the Soviets can use the
cheaper orbit.