Path: utzoo!utgpu!water!watmath!clyde!att!osu-cis!tut.cis.ohio-state.edu!mailrus!wasatch!utah-gr!uplherc!sp7040!obie!wes
From: wes@obie.UUCP (Barnacle Wes)
Newsgroups: sci.space.shuttle
Subject: Re: Vandenburg never to used?
Summary: No risk to populated areas for polar launches at VAFB
Message-ID: <221@obie.UUCP>
Date: 10 Oct 88 15:38:35 GMT
References: <41680@pyramid.pyramid.com> <22000004@m.cs.uiuc.edu>
Organization: the Well of Souls
Lines: 23

/* Written 10:57 am  Oct  4, 1988 by nixon@cisunx.UUCP in m.cs.uiuc.edu:sci.space.shuttle */
/* ---------- "Re: Vandenburg never to used?" ---------- */
> I thought I heard after Challenger, that Vandenburg was too risky a
> launch site.  Didn't they have to modify the Shuttle Main engines in
> Discovery (or maybe Atlantis) to even attempt a launch from Vandenburgh?

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?)  The SSME's would be standard.

Actually, a launch to the south from VAFB would not encounter any
populated areas until the second orbit, which *should* be enough time to
get the orbiter under control :-).  The problem with SLC-6 at Vandenberg
is that the welds in the launch complex itself are unsafe; it has
nothing to do with geography.  (And yes, I *can* spell Vandenberg; you
kind of have to when you live in the Vandenberg Inn at Vandenberg
Village for months at a time :-).
-- 
                     {hpda, uwmcsd1}!sp7040!obie!wes

         "How do you make the boat go when there's no wind?"
                                 -- Me --