Path: utzoo!utgpu!jarvis.csri.toronto.edu!cs.utexas.edu!wuarchive!texbell!bigtex!milano!pp!lot!ables From: ables@lot.ACA.MCC.COM (King Ables) Newsgroups: sci.space.shuttle Subject: Re: Hawaii as a launching site Message-ID: <445@lot.ACA.MCC.COM> Date: 19 Dec 89 15:50:54 GMT References: <3831@orion.cf.uci.edu> Organization: MCC, Austin, TX Lines: 37 From article <3831@orion.cf.uci.edu>, by dkrause@orion.oac.uci.edu (Doug Krause): > In article IA80024@MAINE.BITNET (Nicholas C. Hester) writes: > #of using Hawaii. > > Could a shuttle-loaded 747 make it to Hawaii? The closest mainland city > is probably San Francisco and that's about 2200? miles away. So put it on a boat (I know, "but it's too slow"). I suspect much of why they use KSC is historical (all the stuff is there, it's already built and paid for, staffed, etc.). Now *originally* why didn't they put it in Hawaii is another question. That probably had to do with the little amount of expertise we had in what kinds of things could go wrong with a launch (and just not wanting to chance it). In Hawaii, a path to orbit will cross over the United States or at least Canada, probably before orbit is achieved. While an accident like Challenger would have "safely" (for everyone else) happened over water if launched from Hawaii, an accident further along in the mission but still before orbital insertion could be disasterous to a populated area. Is orbital insertion achieved before the shuttle passes over Europe? Does anybody know an average figure for miles downrange when orbit is achieved? (and please, in *real* miles, not nautical! ;-) I know, I could convert it). King Ables ables@mcc.com Microelectronics and Computer Technology Corporation (MCC) 3500 West Balcones Center Drive Austin, TX 78759 (512) 338-3749 (office) (512) 343-0978 (switchboard) "George Bush has been in the presence of other Soviet leaders. But that was at their funerals." - Bernard Shaw, CNN