 |
 | Home | Contact Us | FAQ | Search & Site Map | Link to Us |
 | Sign In | Join | Other 45 Sites in Network |
| HomeDiscussion GroupsSpace ScienceAstronomyAmateur AstronomySpace FlightSpace StationShuttleSpace HistorySpace PolicySETI SpaceKB.com Contact UsLink To UsSearch & Site Map |
Space Forum / Shuttle / December 2006What about a 4th landing option - Denver International Airport?
Not this week, since we are in a blizzard, but I'm wondering if the new international runway at 16,000x200 feet would be a possible alternate for the shuttle in the future. It's at high altitude which does increase landing speed around 10% but it doesn't have sand problems. Has NASA considered this runway as a possible landing site (3rd or 4th)? Lee Jay I'd suspect that any commercial site would cost a lot to use, and anyway, how many of those support vehicles are there which purge things for safety after landing. Whatever you do though, be it two days or three, sooner or later there is going to be a situation where the weather does not co-operate, and I'd imagine anything long enough would be considered. :-) Brian  SignatureBrian Gaff - briang1@blueyonder.co.uk Note:- In order to reduce spam, any email without 'Brian Gaff' in the display name may be lost. > Not this week, since we are in a blizzard, but I'm wondering if the new > international runway at 16,000x200 feet would be a possible alternate [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > > Lee Jay > I'd suspect that any commercial site would cost a lot to use, and anyway, > how many of those support vehicles are there which purge things for safety > after landing. They aren't at White Sands either. Apparently all they've got is a shuttle-compatible tow-bar and ladder. > Whatever you do though, be it two days or three, sooner or later there is > going to be a situation where the weather does not co-operate, and I'd > imagine anything long enough would be considered. :-) Well, I'm sure they'd go for the TAL sites for this flight if all three US sites are down both days, but why not consider DIA in the future given this new runway that's even longer than the one in Florida? Lee Jay > > I'd suspect that any commercial site would cost a lot to use, and anyway, > > how many of those support vehicles are there which purge things for safety > > after landing. > > They aren't at White Sands either. Apparently all they've got is a > shuttle-compatible tow-bar and ladder. http://www.cbsnews.com/network/news/space/current.html Lee Jay > Not this week, since we are in a blizzard, but I'm wondering if the new > international runway at 16,000x200 feet would be a possible alternate > for the shuttle in the future. It's at high altitude which does > increase landing speed around 10% but it doesn't have sand problems. > Has NASA considered this runway as a possible landing site (3rd or > 4th)? In a dire emergency, anything with the right pavement is a possibility, but there are several other factors to consider if the situation is less dire than life-or-death. Public safety is an issue with the hydrazine thrusters, so they don't want to put it down in close proximity to large gatherings of people. Even in a nominal landing, the hydrazine is a problem, much more so if there's a landing accident. I suspect they'd prefer not to have the PR issue of shutting down the airline hub at Denver during the holiday travel season. There's a list of emergency landing sites at http://www.globalsecurity.org/space/facility/sts-els.htm I don't know how accurate or up to date the list is, but Denver is not on it. I notice that Lincoln Municipal airport in Lincoln, NE is listed, and its big runway is 12901x200. I suspect it has substantially less traffic than Denver. rcoch...@lanset.com wrote: > In a dire emergency, anything with the right pavement is a > possibility, but there are several other factors to consider if > the situation is less dire than life-or-death. Public safety is > an issue with the hydrazine thrusters, so they don't want to > put it down in close proximity to large gatherings of people. One of the nice things about DIA (the largest airport in the world), and about the international runway in particular, is that both are quite isolated. > There's a list of emergency landing sites at > http://www.globalsecurity.org/space/facility/sts-els.htm > I don't know how accurate or up to date the list is, but > Denver is not on it. I'm thinking for a 3rd or so primary, not only an emergency site. It's a big runway in a good spot, and it's brand new. Lee Jay > rcoch...@lanset.com wrote: > > In a dire emergency, anything with the right pavement is a [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > and about the international runway in particular, is that both are > quite isolated. Maybe not many people live there permanently, but DIA's website says they handle just under 4 million passengers per month. That's about 127,000 per day. If you assume the average passenger spends only an hour at or near the airport, that's 5,300 or so passengers there on average. Probably many more than that number during the peak daytime hours, and fewer in the wee hours of the morning. Their website also claims that nearly 30,000 people work at DIA. I don't know what fraction would be on duty at a given moment, but I'd guess somewhere around 1/4. Anyway, it's a nontrivial number of civilians around, and if you exposed a small fraction of them to even a minute concentration of hydrazine, it would mean the end of the shuttle program. > Maybe not many people live there permanently, but DIA's > website says they handle just under 4 million passengers per [quoted text clipped - 9 lines] > fraction of them to even a minute concentration of > hydrazine, it would mean the end of the shuttle program. The ends of the international runway are 3.9 miles and 1.2 miles away from the terminal. Lee Jay Beach in Hawaii or Snow Sking in Colorado? http://maps.google.com/maps?f=q&hl=en&q=denver+international+airport&ie=UTF8&z=1 3&ll=39.859023,-104.664001&spn=0.071552,0.215778&t=h&om=1&iwloc=addrThere isn't much out there. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Denver_International_Airport ...Elevation AMSL 5,431 ft (1,655 m) I heard some talk about the Beach after....during the Last mission. SignatureCraig Fink Courtesy E-Mail Welcome @ WeBeGood@GMail.Com On Wed, 20 Dec 2006 15:15:05 -0800, rcochran wrote: >> rcoch...@lanset.com wrote: >> > In a dire emergency, anything with the right pavement is a [quoted text clipped - 20 lines] > fraction of them to even a minute concentration of > hydrazine, it would mean the end of the shuttle program. SignatureCraig Fink Courtesy E-Mail Welcome @ WeBeGood@GMail.Com > Beach in Hawaii or Snow Sking in Colorado? > http://maps.google.com/maps?f=q&hl=en&q=denver+international+airport&ie=UTF8&z=1 3&ll=39.859023,-104.664001&spn=0.071552,0.215778&t=h&om=1&iwloc=addrThere > isn't much out there. The international runway is that partially-built long one on the upper left of the airport (it's fully-finished now). Lee Jay >> rcoch...@lanset.com wrote: >> > In a dire emergency, anything with the right pavement is a [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] >> and about the international runway in particular, is that both are >> quite isolated. >Maybe not many people live there permanently, but [...] >Anyway, it's a nontrivial >number of civilians around, and if you exposed a small >fraction of them to even a minute concentration of >hydrazine, it would mean the end of the shuttle program. On the other hand, Orlando's airport is already on the list. Surely Denver lets you get farther than the crowds then Orlando. On the third hand, maybe Orlando is there in case a rainstorm develops over the Cape when it's too late to make a major course change.... Lou Scheffer >>> rcoch...@lanset.com wrote: >>>> In a dire emergency, anything with the right pavement is a [quoted text clipped - 18 lines] > > Lou Scheffer I would like to ask a few questions if you don't mind. Can the shuttle land in the rain? Can it land using instruments, or does it require a visual landing? > > On the other hand, Orlando's airport is already on the list. Surely Denver > > lets you get farther than the crowds then Orlando. On the third hand, [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > Can the shuttle land in the rain? > Can it land using instruments, or does it require a visual landing? I'm not an expert, but I've heard it can land on instruments alone, at least at the sites with the right navigational aids (MLS if I recall right). Maybe at any airport, since it now has GPS, I think. Also, I recall it can probably land through the rain, though this has never been tested, or even seriously analyzed, since it would probably destroy the tiles. This would be a major re-building project at best. I'd assume any non-rainy airport would be selected over any rainy one. Lou Scheffer > I'd guess somewhere around 1/4. Anyway, it's a nontrivial > number of civilians around, and if you exposed a small > fraction of them to even a minute concentration of > hydrazine, it would mean the end of the shuttle program. If the shuttle lands at a commercial airport, one assumes it would be landing against the wind with some cross-wind component. As such, if you are in front of the shuttle, wouldn't it be safe since you would be upwind of the shuttle ? Also, would the airport fire department have hazmat suits they could use to get near the landing gear to hookup the tow ? And then the shuttle can be towed to the "penalty box" , usually some pad far away from actvities. I suspect a shuttle at JFK would be far less disruptive than Air Force One at any commercial airport. How long after landing are the dangers from hydrazine and ammonia no longer a threath ? >> Not this week, since we are in a blizzard, but I'm wondering if the new >> international runway at 16,000x200 feet would be a possible alternate [quoted text clipped - 21 lines] > and its big runway is 12901x200. I suspect it has substantially > less traffic than Denver. Someone (probably Jorge Frank) has posted in the past that there are MANY alternate landing sites in the deepest darkest depths of the landing/navigation software but that few if any of them are ever seriously considered for actual use. SignatureHerb Schaltegger "You can run on for a long time . . . sooner or later, God'll cut you down." - Johnny Cash <http://www.angryherb.net> > Someone (probably Jorge Frank) has posted in the past that there are > MANY alternate landing sites in the deepest darkest depths of the > landing/navigation software but that few if any of them are ever > seriously considered for actual use. Ayup. Jenkin's has a list (probably not up to date). Most likely if the top 3 are not used for some reason a military base (probably former SAC) I believe is higher up on the list than most commercial sites. >>Someone (probably Jorge Frank) has posted in the past that there are >>MANY alternate landing sites in the deepest darkest depths of the [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > (probably former SAC) I believe is higher up on the list than most > commercial sites. Like the former SAC base at Plattsburgh, NY with a 10K-ft runway. >>>Not this week, since we are in a blizzard, but I'm wondering if the new >>>international runway at 16,000x200 feet would be a possible alternate [quoted text clipped - 26 lines] > landing/navigation software but that few if any of them are ever > seriously considered for actual use. NORAD always posts the level of support they are providing a given Shuttle mission, including North American landing sites. http://www.norad.mil/newsroom/news_releases/2006/120606_e.html Would NASA consider landing opportunities on the descending node orbit pass ? (eg: re-entry over north pacific/alaska/canada) if it meant they could land at a much more convenient spot ? > Would NASA consider landing opportunities on the descending node orbit pass > ? (eg: re-entry over north pacific/alaska/canada) if it meant they could > land at a much more convenient spot ? It depends on attitudes at NASA about overflying densely populated areas. Seems to me NASA is still recovering from spreading Columbia all over Texas, but the pendulum is definitely swinging the opposite direction from the post-Columbia days. Has the pendulum swung that far? Probably not. >> Would NASA consider landing opportunities on the descending node orbit pass > It depends on attitudes at NASA about overflying densely populated areas. But of you land in canada or northern USA, you would not be overflying densely populated areas. Also, since NASA has to send the equipment to white sands by cargo aircraft, why bother with White Sands if it is such a problem with gypsum etc ? Why not simply choose some large military or commercial airport with good weather predictions and send the cargo aircraft there ? >Also, since NASA has to send the equipment to white sands by cargo >aircraft, why bother with White Sands if it is such a problem with gypsum >etc ? Why not simply choose some large military or commercial airport with >good weather predictions and send the cargo aircraft there ? One nice thing about places like White Sands is the natural runways point in all directions and go on and on for miles. At one time there was specialised equipment for the shuttle's automatic landing system but regular DoD / FAA equipment may be adequate now. Glen Overby John Doe beweerde : >>> Would NASA consider landing opportunities on the descending node orbit >>> pass [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] > simply choose some large military or commercial airport with good weather > predictions and send the cargo aircraft there ? Because of the length of the runway. 'Normal' runways are far to short for an orbiter to land, also AFAIK these runways do not have NASA version of TACAN available. The runways at Edwards, Kennedy, White-Sands and the TAL sites are equipped with shuttle landing equipment Also 'regular' airports can not be used, too crouwded (too much flying aircraft around) and will not be closed for a couple of hours for the shuttle to land. André > NORAD always posts the level of support they are providing a given Shuttle > mission, including North American landing sites. > http://www.norad.mil/newsroom/news_releases/2006/120606_e.html You'd think that NASA would prefer landing at a military base rather than a commercial airport if KSC, Edwards, and White Sands all have bad weather. Better security, less danger to the public, and etc. From the above site: Emergency Landing Sites: These locations are strategically located around the world in the flight path of STS-116. They have runways long enough for the shuttle and have compatible navigation aids. The following Emergency Landing Sites are located within the United States: Atlantic City International Airport, N.J. (ECALS) Cape Canaveral Air Force Station, Fla. China Lake Naval Air Weapons Station, Calif. Dover Air Force Base, Del. (ECALS) Dyess Air Force Base, Texas Ellsworth Air Force Base, S.D. Elmendorf Air Force Base, Alaska F.S. Gabreski Airport, N.Y. (ECALS) MCAS Cherry Point, N.C. (ECALS) McDill Air Force Base, Fla. Mountain Home Air Force Base, Idaho Oceana Naval Air Station, Va. (ECALS) Otis Air National Guard Base, Mass. (ECALS) Pease Air National Guard Base, N.H. (ECALS) Vandenberg Air Force Base, Calif. The emergency recovery sites only have the minimum number of people needed to assist the astronauts, and will respond to a shuttle landing as they would for any large aircraft emergency landing. Jeff Signature"They that can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety" - B. Franklin, Bartlett's Familiar Quotations (1919) > You'd think that NASA would prefer landing at a military base rather than a > commercial airport if KSC, Edwards, and White Sands all have bad weather. > Better security, less danger to the public, and etc. During a briefing yesterday, it was mentioned that NASA maintains an extensive list of suitable airports around the world in case of a major malfunction of the shuttle (such loss of pressure in cabin) would force it deorbit immediatly. >> You'd think that NASA would prefer landing at a military base rather than >> a commercial airport if KSC, Edwards, and White Sands all have bad [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > malfunction of the shuttle (such loss of pressure in cabin) would force it > deorbit immediatly. True, but that's a lot different than the situation right now. Barring some unforeseen urgent emergency, NASA has plenty of time to pick the best landing site. Jeff Signature"They that can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety" - B. Franklin, Bartlett's Familiar Quotations (1919) >> NORAD always posts the level of support they are providing a given Shuttle >> mission, including North American landing sites. [quoted text clipped - 10 lines] >the shuttle and have compatible navigation aids. The following Emergency >Landing Sites are located within the United States: [snip list] >The emergency recovery sites only have the minimum number of people needed >to assist the astronauts, and will respond to a shuttle landing as they >would for any large aircraft emergency landing. Does anyone know if Robins AFB, GA (former SAC base) has ever made the Emergency Landing Site list? There's lots of good Georgia swamp land nearby and the base has been used by the 747 with the Shuttle Piggyback to sit out storms on it's trip back to the Cape. IIRC, the Pave-Paws is no longer in operation so there's no worry about it blowing the pyro charges on landing aircraft, like there used to be. I don't know what kind of landing aids it has these days. It had GCA and VorTac in the 70's. OT: I once saw a news video of a B-52 landing there with hydraulic failure. You should have seen the way those wings flapped without the gears on the end of them down and with the B-52 bouncing back into the air a time or two. I think the wingtips touched the ground a couple of times. It was absolutely amazing to watch on the local news. I think the crew got medals for not bailing out and just letting it crash in the forest. The B-52 wing was removed a few years later so their planes could replace OLDER B-52s at Guam, IIRC. -- David snip > NORAD always posts the level of support they are providing a given Shuttle > mission, including North American landing sites. > http://www.norad.mil/newsroom/news_releases/2006/120606_e.html Nice site -- thanks. Danny Deger > snip > [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > > Nice site -- thanks. Did you find the cameras number and orbital parameters? > Not this week, since we are in a blizzard, but I'm wondering if the new > international runway at 16,000x200 feet would be a possible alternate [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > > Lee Jay There are MANY commercial runways in the world that are EMERGENCY ONLY landing sites. Lack of support equipment used right after landings is a big problem. Getting the shuttle back out is another. Danny Deger > There are MANY commercial runways in the world that are EMERGENCY ONLY > landing sites. I know that. I'm suggesting having this one as a primary - after Edwards, before White Sands. > Lack of support equipment used right after landings is a big > problem. Same as White Sands but without the gypsum. > Getting the shuttle back out is another. This runway was designed for full-loaded 747s going to Europe. Lee Jay >> There are MANY commercial runways in the world that are EMERGENCY ONLY >> landing sites. [quoted text clipped - 10 lines] > > This runway was designed for full-loaded 747s going to Europe. Yes, but can it handle a fully loaded STA with a 747 on top? Keep in mind the STA already flies lower than most 747s. Taking off could be problematic. Again, there's not a whole lot to recommend DIA over other sites. (other than I'm guessing it's close to your home? :-) > Lee Jay > Again, there's not a whole lot to recommend DIA over other sites. (other > than I'm guessing it's close to your home? :-) Since the Shuttle Landing Facility is so long, I was thinking that 16,000 feet of brand new concrete would be attractive compared to other commercial or military facilities. Plus, DIA is quite isolated and supported by a great deal of emergency and securty equipment and personnel. Lee Jay >> Again, there's not a whole lot to recommend DIA over other sites. (other >> than I'm guessing it's close to your home? :-) [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > > Lee Jay The shuttle can land comfortably on about 10K feet. I would think shutting down a major airport to support the landing would be a major draw back. The TAL sites and Guam are high on the list because they have MLS. Danny Deger >> Again, there's not a whole lot to recommend DIA over other sites. (other >> than I'm guessing it's close to your home? :-) [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > supported by a great deal of emergency and securty equipment and > personnel. And military bases are more secure and former SAC ones also have runways just as long. And given the weather in Colorado, I wouldn't hold your breath. (though gotta admit them navigating the downdraft coming over the Rockies could be interesting...) > Lee Jay > And military bases are more secure and former SAC ones also have runways > just as long. Then why don't they pick one not covered in gypsum? > And given the weather in Colorado, I wouldn't hold your breath. We have more days of sunshine than they do in Florida (over 300). > (though gotta admit them navigating the downdraft coming over the Rockies > could be interesting...) The high-wing loading of the Shuttle should make that totally irrelevant. Lee Jay [...] > We have more days of sunshine than they do in Florida (over 300). The glare off the snowdrifts will be a problem for a few days to come. /dps > [...] >> We have more days of sunshine than they do in Florida (over 300). > > The glare off the snowdrifts will be a problem for a few days to come Skiing during a white out can be fun too. Skiers in front of you appear to be floating in white space. Bouncing around with no visible means of support. But you never know, after a Blizzard there might be few days of sunshine so the astronauts can get a skiers tan. A good set of polarized sunglasses helps a bunch with the glare. Or, just let the computer land it, it doesn't have eyes yet. >> Again, there's not a whole lot to recommend DIA over other sites. (other >> than I'm guessing it's close to your home? :-) [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > supported by a great deal of emergency and securty equipment and > personnel. The runway isn't as long as it appears, the altitude makes it equivalent to a shorter runway at sealevel. > >> Again, there's not a whole lot to recommend DIA over other sites. (other > >> than I'm guessing it's close to your home? :-) [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > The runway isn't as long as it appears, the altitude makes it equivalent > to a shorter runway at sealevel. Right...10% higher landing speed is kind of like 10% shorter runway. Still 14,400. Lee Jay >> >> Again, there's not a whole lot to recommend DIA over other sites. (other >> >> than I'm guessing it's close to your home? :-) [quoted text clipped - 10 lines] > Right...10% higher landing speed is kind of like 10% shorter runway. > Still 14,400. That's 10% additional on the upper end, s = vt, so time spent at the higher speed also enters the equation. The 16,000 might be more like a 12,000 at sea level. > Right...10% higher landing speed is kind of like 10% shorter runway. > Still 14,400. No, to a first approximation, given a constant deceleration, stopping distance is proportional to the square of the speed. A 10% higher speed requires about a 21% longer runway, so that 16000 runway is more like a 13,200 at sea level. And if you go beyond the first approximation, it's actually a little worse than that, because the aerodynamic drag is less at high density altitude, and that aerodynamic drag, both on the chutes and on the body, contributes a large part of the stopping force. There's a reason that runway is long. It has to be, in order to accommodate a fully fueled jumbo jet on a hot day at that high altitude with appropriate safety margins. Large international airports at sea level have shorter runways not because they're inferior, but because the required runway for a similarly loaded plane is much less. > > Right...10% higher landing speed is kind of like 10% shorter runway. > > Still 14,400. > > No, to a first approximation, given a constant deceleration, stopping > distance is proportional to the square of the speed. You're correct, I remembered to take the square root of the density to get velocity, but forgot to square velocity to get distance. Incidentally, the main reason that runway is so long if for those few super-high density-altitude days in the summer (over 9000 feet). Most of the year, the density altitude is much lower. Another interesting bit of trivia is that, the main limitation on how much a 747 can weigh when taking off of that runway is not acceleration distance, it's tires. Apparently, the gap between maximum tire velocity and minimum takeoff velocity is very small, and can go negative with too much liftoff mass. Lee Jay It's cold there, that might help a little bit. http://www.crh.noaa.gov/ifps/ifps.php?site=bou Wind look good, but cloudy. SignatureCraig Fink Courtesy E-Mail Welcome @ WeBeGood@GMail.Com -- >> Not this week, since we are in a blizzard, but I'm wondering if the new >> international runway at 16,000x200 feet would be a possible alternate [quoted text clipped - 10 lines] > > Danny Deger > It's cold there, that might help a little bit. > http://www.crh.noaa.gov/ifps/ifps.php?site=bou > Wind look good, but cloudy. Not now - it's a blizzard here! I-25 is closed state-wide! I'm talking about in the future making DIA's international runway the replacement for White Sands as 3rd primary. Lee Jay I was looking at tomorrow afternoon, but probably should have checked Saturday or Sunday. Both are currently in the future;-) It certainly would be cleaner as the 3rd primary, and fresh powder is great Skiing. I wonder if they would have time to transport the minimum equipment there from a closed runway. SignatureCraig Fink Courtesy E-Mail Welcome @ WeBeGood@GMail.Com -- >> It's cold there, that might help a little bit. >> http://www.crh.noaa.gov/ifps/ifps.php?site=bou [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] > > Lee Jay > I was looking at tomorrow afternoon, but probably should have checked > Saturday or Sunday. Both are currently in the future;-) > > It certainly would be cleaner as the 3rd primary, and fresh powder is > great Skiing. I wonder if they would have time to transport the minimum > equipment there from a closed runway. They said in the briefing that 2 C17s were on the way to White Sands so I'm sure the same could be done just about anywhere the shuttle could land. Lee Jay Cross (Country) Snow Skiing (at DIA) off the list. You weren't kiding when you said there was a Blizzard going on. Latest reports are that some travelers may be stuck till Christmas. I thought Denver had lots of good snow removal equipment. Maybe FEMA will lend NASA some of those Blue Tarps to cover the Orbiter with at White Sands. SignatureCraig Fink Courtesy E-Mail Welcome @ WeBeGood@GMail.Com -- >> I was looking at tomorrow afternoon, but probably should have checked >> Saturday or Sunday. Both are currently in the future;-) [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] > > Lee Jay > Not this week, since we are in a blizzard, but I'm wondering if the new > international runway at 16,000x200 feet would be a possible alternate > for the shuttle in the future. It's at high altitude which does > increase landing speed around 10% but it doesn't have sand problems. > Has NASA considered this runway as a possible landing site (3rd or > 4th)? And we're all forgetting the OBVIOUS choice.... The LA Canal system! We know it can be done. It was in a movie once! > Lee Jay To operate over highly populated areas, an aircraft must have a valid airworthiness certificate. Even a Piper Cub has a "standard certificate", but a Space Shuttle might be or should be considered "Experimental" that would limit its legal operation to sparsely populated areas, such as deserts or open waters. The FAA can allow any operational parameters in case of an emergency, but I doubt a routine landing of a Space Shuttle would fall into that catagory. Just image the "arrivals" displays: Flight From Gate STS-116 L-1 ISS 1 AA462 EWR 5 UA857 JFK 7 :-) |
Reply to this Message |
 Sign In
 Join
 My Latest Posts My Monitored Threads My Blog My Photo Gallery My Profile My Homepage Start New Thread Enable EMail Alerts Rate this Thread
|
©2008 Advenet LLC Privacy Policy - Terms of Use
This website includes both content owned or controlled by Advenet as well as content owned or controlled by third parties.