 |
 | 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 / June 2007NASA Announces Space Shuttle Atlantis Landing Times for June 22
June 21, 2007 John Yembrick Headquarters, Washington 202-358-0602 George Diller Kennedy Space Center, Fla. 321-867-2468 MEDIA ADVISORY: M07-71 NASA ANNOUNCES SPACE SHUTTLE ATLANTIS LANDING TIMES FOR FRIDAY CAPE CANAVERAL, Fla. -- Space shuttle Atlantis' crew members are spending an extra day in orbit after weather Thursday at the prime landing site at NASA's Kennedy Space Center, Fla., prevented them from coming home. The crew will have several opportunities to land Atlantis on Friday: two at Kennedy and three at Edwards Air Force Base, Calif. The landing times are approximate and subject to change. All times are EDT: Primary landing site: Kennedy Space Center 2:18 p.m. landing (de-orbit burn at 1:16 p.m.) 3:54 p.m. landing (de-orbit burn at 2:52 p.m.) Backup landing site: Edwards Air Force Base 3:49 p.m. landing (de-orbit burn at 2:46 p.m.) 5:24 p.m. landing (de-orbit burn at 4:21 p.m.) 6:59 p.m. landing (de-orbit burn at 5:58 p.m.) If needed, there are additional landing opportunities Saturday at all three of the space shuttle's landing sites: Kennedy, Edwards and White Sands Space Harbor, N.M. For more on the STS-117 mission, visit: http://www.nasa.gov/shuttle -end- > The crew will have several opportunities to land Atlantis on Friday: > two at Kennedy and three at Edwards Air Force Base, Calif. Can anyone explain why there would be 2 at KSC and 3 at Edwards ? Is it because they would allow a north-west to south-east re-entry for Edwards which they don't for KSC ? If they allow the descending node re-entries would't there be 4 opportinuties during the 2 orbits ? I imagine its due to the elliptical orbit they made for themselves on Thursday. Brian  SignatureBrian Gaff....Note, this account does not accept Bcc: email. graphics are great, but the blind can't hear them Email: briang1@blueyonder.co.uk ______________________________________________________________________________________________________________ >> The crew will have several opportunities to land Atlantis on Friday: >> two at Kennedy and three at Edwards Air Force Base, Calif. [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > If they allow the descending node re-entries would't there be 4 > opportinuties during the 2 orbits ? >> The crew will have several opportunities to land Atlantis on Friday: >> two at Kennedy and three at Edwards Air Force Base, Calif. [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > Is it because they would allow a north-west to south-east re-entry for > Edwards which they don't for KSC ? I don't think so because all the landing opportunities at each site are about an hour and a half (one orbit) apart. 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) > June 21, 2007 > [quoted text clipped - 14 lines] > landing site at NASA's Kennedy Space Center, Fla., prevented them > from coming home. Presumably an afternoon KSC landing in the summer is always likely to be waved off if the rule is no showers within 30nm of the runway. Historically, why was the main space facility built in Florida anyway - wouldn't it have been better to have it in the better climate of the west? MichaelJP stelde de volgende uitleg voor : >> June 21, 2007 >> [quoted text clipped - 20 lines] > Historically, why was the main space facility built in Florida anyway - > wouldn't it have been better to have it in the better climate of the west? It's a money and time thing. If you can land the shuttle withing 10nm of the OPF/VAB/Launch pads, the return time will be a lot shorter. When the shuttle needs to land in California, is has to be transported back to Florida, this can take up to a week. André > MichaelJP stelde de volgende uitleg voor : >>> June 21, 2007 [quoted text clipped - 27 lines] > When the shuttle needs to land in California, is has to be transported > back to Florida, this can take up to a week. Exactly - that's why I was wondering about why the shuttle launch facility is in Florida, given that on any given day you're much more likely to be able to land in California. >Exactly - that's why I was wondering about why the shuttle launch facility >is in Florida, First answer... because the Cape was already there. Why was the Cape in Florida? Because the early rockets outgrew the missile range at White Sands and started falling on Mexico, which was none too pleased. The Cape was chosen because it has a lot of open water downrange for wayward rockets to come crashing down without endangering the public, a lot of conveniently-spaced islands on which to build tracking stations, is about as far south as you can get in the Continental U.S., which gives better payload performance for a due-east launch. NASA did consider alternatives after Apollo, but the money to start from scratch elsewhere didn't exist. >given that on any given day you're much more likely to be >able to land in California. Technical answer: too many limitations on launch azimuths due to population centers downrange from likely California launch sites for the favored due-East, geosynchronous, and interplanetary orbits which were to be the Shuttle's bread-and-butter. And it would be a real bear for the SRB recovery ships to get to Nevada.... :-) Brian >>Exactly - that's why I was wondering about why the shuttle launch facility >>is in Florida, [quoted text clipped - 17 lines] > the favored due-East, geosynchronous, and interplanetary orbits which > were to be the Shuttle's bread-and-butter. > And it would be a real bear for the SRB recovery ships to get to > Nevada.... :-) > > Brian Yes, the SRBs may become a little damaged landing on the desert! BTW, is there much money saved from recovering/refurbishing the SRB segments or is it largely to show as much re-usability as possible? >>> Exactly - that's why I was wondering about why the shuttle launch facility >>> is in Florida, [quoted text clipped - 25 lines] > BTW, is there much money saved from recovering/refurbishing the SRB segments > or is it largely to show as much re-usability as possible? This has been answered many times before, but economically SRB reuse is pretty much a wash. It's done for safety - it gives the opportunity to inspect the SRBs post-flight. > BTW, is there much money saved from recovering/refurbishing the SRB > segments or is it largely to show as much re-usability as possible? From past discussions, the consensus seems to be that it's largely to show as much reusability as possible since they're not saving much money from reusing them. However, from a safety perspective, it's nice to be able to recover and inspect the SRB's, even if you're not going to use them again. It lets you track anomalies, like the partial o-ring burn throughs which happened before Challenger. But it's notable that SRB's are still test fired (on the ground) somewhat routinely, even though the flown casings are inspected after each flight, so reuse doesn't seem to let you get away with zero static test firings. 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) > Exactly - that's why I was wondering about why the shuttle launch facility > is in Florida, given that on any given day you're much more likely to be > able to land in California. When space program was started, there wasn't the concept of landing. Capsules would splash down in some ocean on the planet with a US military aircraft carrier nearby to rescue them. And I believe launch windows to the moon are far wider than the 10 minutes for the station, so you could ride out a quick thunderstorm. >And I believe launch windows to the moon are far wider than the 10 >minutes for the station, so you could ride out a quick thunderstorm. They were longer each day, but only open a couple of days each month. Brian |
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.