Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Posting-Version: version B 2.10.2 9/5/84; site ssc-vax.UUCP
Path: utzoo!watmath!clyde!burl!ulysses!mhuxr!ihnp4!houxm!vax135!cornell!uw-beaver!ssc-vax!eder
From: eder@ssc-vax.UUCP (Dani Eder)
Newsgroups: net.columbia
Subject: Re: Shuttle Landing Sitesg)
Message-ID: <279@ssc-vax.UUCP>
Date: Mon, 17-Dec-84 23:18:26 EST
Article-I.D.: ssc-vax.279
Posted: Mon Dec 17 23:18:26 1984
Date-Received: Wed, 19-Dec-84 02:32:39 EST
Organization: Boeing Aerospace Co., Seattle, WA
Lines: 28

> 
> When I was at Cape Canaveral, the guide said that the shuttle could land at
> most major airports, since the runways would be long enough.  So in case of an
> emergency, there would be *lots* of landing sites.
> 
> 					Evelyn C. Leeper

     While the guide was correct from a physical standpoint, safety would be
compomised.  The Space Shuttle is a glider, and cannot make up having too
little energy on approach.  While it has taken about 8-9000 feet to roll out,
which is shorter than the length of many airport runways, you would like to
have an extra mile or so of length and 100-150 feet of width to miss in.

     The Shuttle also uses specialized approach and landing equipment, and
requires specialized equipment to make sure no hazardous leaks are occuring
after landing.  The designated landing sites outside the US have that equipment
pre-positioned, and there are people who know how to use it there.  

     The next level of backup would be large military airfields.  Military
ground crews are more familiar with handling hazardous materials (like bombs),
the field could be closed without messing up air traffic schedules all over
the place.  Remember that the most likely reason to land at Dakar, Senegal
is an aborted launch.  Would you want to land a vehicle full of high
explosives, with something definitely BROKEN, at a busy, unprepared
airport?

Dani Eder / Boeing Aerospace Company / "Tommorrow, you can be anywhere" /
uw-beaver!ssc-vax!eder / (206)773-4545