Why did NASA build Kennedy Space Center in Florida

Status
Not open for further replies.
T

tyminski

Guest
Hi. I am curious and have not been able to find anywhere WHy NASA build the Kennedy Space Center in Florida. The weather and thunderstorms seem to often delay missions --- would not there have been other more suitable places in the US?
 
T

Testing

Guest
Earths rotation, available land and a clear downrange trajectory. Pax River and Wallops Island were also on the East coast <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>
 
U

usn_skwerl

Guest
yep what testing said.--a 950+ mph boost from earths rotation when kicked out of KSC helps a lot, compared to further north, or on the west coast.<br /><br />pax river's a great place to be if you're into aviation too...its essentially the naval aviation toybox. all kinds of R&D going on there. <img src="/images/icons/smile.gif" /> i was based at Andrews AFB, and we had some prototype birds come in for gas. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>
 
J

jschaef5

Guest
Also I believe the available inclinations for orbit without a plane change is your latitude or higher so the the closer to the equator the more orbits you can choose from. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>
 
D

drwayne

Guest
I took my first trip to Pax River this past spring.<br /><br />Some long days and hard work, but it was a lot of fun. Folks I worked with from there were very professional and very cool too...<br /><br />Wayne <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p>"1) Give no quarter; 2) Take no prisoners; 3) Sink everything."  Admiral Jackie Fisher</p> </div>
 
J

jimfromnsf

Guest
NASA built KSC in Florida because the AFETR* was already there and land was available. Earth's rotation had little to do with it. Sites in Texas and Georgia were considered.<br /><br />* also know as JLRPG, AFMTC, ETR, ER
 
T

tyminski

Guest
Thanks for the quick replies. Wow -- I was thinking that it had to do more with politics and money than science!! I am a confessed but curious novice on this all -- so the earth's rotation say in the Mohave dessert -- would be less than at KSC - why? I would then assume that in landings - the rotation factor is not as pertinent since the landings are sometimes in the Mohave? Thanks for the education!!
 
D

drwayne

Guest
The Earth goes around as a solid body once a day - so the parts at the fat part, the equator, have to move at a higher speed to get around the longer distance than those further north. <br /><br />Wayne <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p>"1) Give no quarter; 2) Take no prisoners; 3) Sink everything."  Admiral Jackie Fisher</p> </div>
 
T

Testing

Guest
Boring stuff huh, right. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>
 
C

comga

Guest
The Earth's rotation is pretty much the same in Mojave as it is in Florida. The East coast offers a much wider range of inclinations into which you can launch than say, Texas, without flying over land and cities. Water downrange is preferable for dumping stages. The latitude of the launch site sets the minimum inclination of the orbit that can be achieved without an energetic plane change. Existing military installations, particularly Air Force stations, represented pre-existing infrastructure and restricted land and air space.
 
T

tyminski

Guest
Thanks -- starting to make sense. Would this not mean that Hawaii would also be a plausible site? (Closer to the equator, wide range of inclinations/water downrange, existing military installations?)
 
D

drwayne

Guest
Not at all.<br /><br />Its amazing the stuff that you realize looking at a globe or a celestial sphere.<br /><br />Under the category of me being somewhat slow, I was in college when an astronomy professor showed me for the first time the trick of using a rubber band to get shortest distances between points on the globe, and in so doing showed me that the idea of a "great circle" route being the shortest route between points - and involved going north of a line of lattitude for two points on the same line of latitude.<br /><br />I knew that, but I never really got it until then. Yes, I am slow.<br /><br />Wayne <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p>"1) Give no quarter; 2) Take no prisoners; 3) Sink everything."  Admiral Jackie Fisher</p> </div>
 
U

usn_skwerl

Guest
KPNE. Northeast Philly Airport. i live in NE philly, and work at that aiport, 6 miles away <img src="/images/icons/smile.gif" /> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>
 
T

Testing

Guest
I have to say I don't miss working the ramp, did it for 8 years before I gained altitude. Frostbite in Wyoming in January trackin down an oil leak. Damn near sunstroke in California desert lookin for a hydraulic leak in August. Have not touched an aircraft for a living in 20 years but it was an excellent traing ground for complex systems. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>
 
P

PistolPete

Guest
As much as it has to do with all of the reasons stated before, it also has to do with orbital mechanics and the specific latitude of the Cape.<br /><br />The Moon orbits the Earth at an inclination of 28.58 degrees to Earth's equator. Incidentally this is also the latitude of the Cape which means that a mission can be launched to the Moon without an orbital plane change. A Moon shot can only occur when the Moon (or where the Moon will be in three days) is directly overhead of the launch site. Because the orbital incination of the Moon and the latitude of the Cape are the same, this means that a moon shot can occur once per sidereal month.<br /><br />BTW it is also possible for a Moon shot to be launched from above 28 degrees latitude, you just have to do an orbital plane change. This, however, burns a lot of fuel and will thus cost you payload. This is the main problem the Soviets had with Baikonur at 46 degrees latitude. On top of the fact that the N-1 rocket didn't have as much payload capacity as the Saturn V, it also had to spend precious fuel to do a plane change.<br /><br />As another side note, below 28 degrees latitude, you can also get two launch windows per sidereal month which get farther apart the closer you get to the equator. At an equitorial launch site like Kourou, the windows are about 14 days apart. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p> </p><p><em>So, again we are defeated. This victory belongs to the farmers, not us.</em></p><p><strong>-Kambei Shimada from the movie Seven Samurai</strong></p> </div>
 
P

PistolPete

Guest
<blockquote><font class="small">In reply to:</font><hr /><p>Would this not mean that Hawaii would also be a plausible site? (Closer to the equator, wide range of inclinations/water downrange, existing military installations?) <p><hr /></p></p></blockquote><br /><br />IIRC, for a brief time Johnson Atoll was considered as an alternative to the Cape, but was ultimately rejected because getting the heavy rocket stages to a remote island over 3,000 miles from the continental US was deemed not worth it. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p> </p><p><em>So, again we are defeated. This victory belongs to the farmers, not us.</em></p><p><strong>-Kambei Shimada from the movie Seven Samurai</strong></p> </div>
 
J

jimfromnsf

Guest
"As much as it has to do with all of the reasons stated before, it also has to do with orbital mechanics and the specific latitude of the Cape. "<br /><br />the specifc latitude had nothing to do with it and never entered the decision. Read "Moonport" and "KSC History". It was just luck, since the AFETR was long established and "colocation" was the driving factor.
 
J

jimfromnsf

Guest
"Would this not mean that Hawaii would also be a plausible site?" <br /><br />The US is due east and closer than Africa
 
C

centsworth_II

Guest
<font color="yellow">"...the specifc latitude had nothing to do with it..."</font><br /><br /><br />I guess the ESA has got it all wrong then.<br /><br />"ESA's spaceport is the Guiana Space Centre in Kourou, French Guiana, <br />a site chosen because it is close to the equator from which commercially <br />important orbits are easier to access." <br />http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/European_Space_Agency<br /><br /> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>
 
D

davf

Guest
He's simply saying that the historical record shows that a favourable latitude didn't enter into THEIR decision making process. Should it have? Absolutely, in hindsight. But not at the time. Afterall, the initial Bumper launches and nearly 10 years of testing after that had nothing to do with orbital launches and thus had no benefit at all.
 
P

PistolPete

Guest
Actually, both of our posts are correct. There were many currently existing missile ranges at the time, but Cape Canaveral was the only currently existing range on or below the 28th parallel. If the Air Force had its range in Texas or Puerto Rico instead of Florida, then NASA would have probably put the new launch site there. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p> </p><p><em>So, again we are defeated. This victory belongs to the farmers, not us.</em></p><p><strong>-Kambei Shimada from the movie Seven Samurai</strong></p> </div>
 
D

dragon04

Guest
<font color="yellow">Would this not mean that Hawaii would also be a plausible site? (Closer to the equator, wide range of inclinations/water downrange, existing military installations?)</font><br /><br />Again, the issue of proximity to component manufacturers and transport methods come into play.<br /><br />As things stand, the Shuttle's SRB's are assembled and shipped (economically) by rail from Utah to Florida.<br /><br />The same thing goes for the external tank. Built in New Orleans and a relatively safe and short train ride to KSC.<br /><br />My guess would be that the relative cost-effectiveness of a mainland launch facility outweighs any geographical advantage a launch site in Hawaii might give.<br /><br />Not to mention volcanoes and potential seismic activity. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <em>"2012.. Year of the Dragon!! Get on the Dragon Wagon!".</em> </div>
 
U

usn_skwerl

Guest
lets not forget that jules verne even made a mention of using florida as the primary launch site<br /><br />from http://www.astronautix.com/lvs/julongun.htm<br /><br /><blockquote><font class="small">In reply to:</font><hr /><p>As a result, at the time of Apollo 8 and 11 missions it was noted that Verne had made a number of correct predictions about the actual missions....<br /><br />For example: <br /><br /><br />The United States would launch the first manned vehicle to circumnavigate the moon. <br /> <br />After considering 12 sites in Texas and Florida, Stone Hill, south of Tampa, Florida is selected in Verne's novel. One hundred years later NASA considered 7 launch sites and selecting Merritt Island, Florida. In both cases Brownsville, Texas was rejected as a site; politics played a major role in the site selection; and site criteria included a latitude below 28 degrees north and good access to the sea. <p><hr /></p></p></blockquote> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>
 
D

davf

Guest
Incidentally, the first American military missile test site was White Sands in New Mexico. V2s and Bumpers were initially tested at White Sands but the realization that they had to change to a more benign site hit pretty hard when a V2 guidance system malfunctioned in 1947 and the rocket headed south to El Paso. It crossed into Mexico and crashed into a cemetary just over a mile south of Juarez. It was a miracle that no one was hurt. <br /><br />One other interesting point is that Peenemunde and Cape Canaveral are very similar in geography, the biggest difference being lattitude and the size of the body of water.<br /><br />Finally, the balance of missile testing in Cape Canaveral's early days had little to nothing to do with anything orbit related. Spaceflight was very low on the priority list. Mace, Redstone, Jupiter, Navaho, Snark, Bomarc, Thor, Lark, Polaris and Blue Scout are but some of the missiles tested there.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Latest posts