Path: utzoo!utgpu!jarvis.csri.toronto.edu!mailrus!shadooby!samsung!cs.utexas.edu!sun-barr!rutgers!att!cbnewsl!sw
From: sw@cbnewsl.ATT.COM (Stuart Warmink)
Newsgroups: sci.space.shuttle
Subject: Re: Hawaii as a launching site
Summary: Why Florida in the first place
Message-ID: <3393@cbnewsl.ATT.COM>
Date: 21 Dec 89 14:38:17 GMT
References: <3831@orion.cf.uci.edu> <445@lot.ACA.MCC.COM>
Organization: Interface Systems @ AT&T Bell Labs
Lines: 19

In article <445@lot.ACA.MCC.COM>, ables@lot.ACA.MCC.COM (King Ables) writes:
> 
> 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.

Florida was originally chosen because of the benign climate and ice-free
ports. Easy access to barge traffic was a major consideration.
All the larger pieces of hardware (Saturn 1st stage, Shuttle ET) are delivered
in such a manner.

Also, downrange tracking stations are convenient from Florida: Bermuda and
Ascension (assuming 28 degree or so inclination orbits). There isn't much 
out there around Hawaii :-).

-- 
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Stuart Warmink, Whippany, NJ, USA  |  sw@cbnewsl.ATT.COM  |  Pretentious? Moi?
-------------------------> My opinions are just that <------------------------