Why are the two in such seprate and far off (from each other) locations? Why not closer together--at least in the same city? Doesn't it make communication harder? why? why? why?
2006-07-04 19:19:23 · 8 answers · asked by LaydeeBird 1 in Science & Mathematics ➔ Astronomy & Space
it's a political thing. during the space race L.B.J. was president and from Texas. he had to put money there. Florida was selected for location.
2006-07-04 19:26:02 · answer #1 · answered by biggun4570 4 · 4⤊ 1⤋
For least amount of energy required in a launch, it is better to have the launch facility as close to the equator as possible. The surface of the earth is moving along at the equator at something like 1,900mph. So, a rocket launched from there has a better head start over one launched from further north or south by having an initial velocity closer to the escape velocity needed to attain orbit. The closest place available at the beginning of the space era was Cape Canaveral FL. It was sparsely populated (FL wasn't the retiree magnate it is now). Plus, the rocket will go up and east because of the momentum of earth's spin imparted to it. Where if an easterly bound rocket, if it has to be aborted and destroyed will it be safe to have debris fall? In the ocean sounds good, right? So, eastern seaboard, available land, sparse population, southern location: all equals Cape Canaveral. The support facility of Houston and Johnson Space Center I personally think was similar reasons except for launching aspects, and for something else to give Texans and especially LBJ to boast about.
Yes, there are other facilities that can launch rockets like Vandenberg, but that was an already established AFB. And, it does take more energy to launch rockets from there than in FL since it is further North (latitude wise).
2006-07-04 19:56:53 · answer #2 · answered by quntmphys238 6 · 0⤊ 0⤋
Cape Canaveral, Florida has been chosen as the launch because as you know that the solid rocket boosters separate within few seconds of the lift off and they have to be recovered & reused so a luanch site near a water body ensures a smooth 'landing' of the the solid rocket boosters which are then recovered by ships in the atlantic ocean
2006-07-04 19:46:55 · answer #3 · answered by mridul 2 · 0⤊ 0⤋
The "Johnson Space Center" in Houston is in Texas because , when he was congressman ad later VP, Lyndon Baynes Johnson waned it there --and was powerful enough to get that VERY lucrative installation located in Texas. In short , good old American political dealing. As for the rest--pretty much the same thing, except the political players ad winners are different, of course. Kennedy Space Cener is about the only one that is where it is for rational reasons: a) it has very good weather most of the time; b) it is nearer the equator than most o f the US (there are technical reasons why you want to launch close to the equator) and c) you have a nice big ocean to the east for things to fall into when things go wrong (or, as in the case of the shuttle, you want to drop 55,000 lb steel casings from rocket boosers into the water.
2016-03-27 04:21:58 · answer #4 · answered by Erika 4 · 0⤊ 0⤋
It's easier to launch from Florida due to it's geographical location.
2006-07-04 19:42:57 · answer #5 · answered by Appalachian Arbiter 2 · 0⤊ 0⤋
So if a space shuttle has a malfunction and is trying to crash land on the landing site, it won't acidentally hit misson control and blow it up.
2006-07-04 19:34:54 · answer #6 · answered by MagnificentOne 2 · 0⤊ 1⤋
Political favors.
2006-07-04 19:24:36 · answer #7 · answered by hpisfun 3 · 0⤊ 0⤋
Well, why not? Two different locations, two different specializations.
2006-07-04 19:22:32 · answer #8 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 1⤋