Politics.
Putting it there created jobs in Houston and generated political support for NASA from the Texas politicians (LBJ in particular).
2006-07-07 05:03:31
·
answer #1
·
answered by campbelp2002 7
·
0⤊
0⤋
This situation evolved quite naturally from logical beginnings because that was the most economic and efficient way for each development stage.
When NASA, in the early days (some 37 years ago), began to build the sprawling facilities network required to support President Kennedy’s assignment to "land a man on the moon and return him safely to Earth", the existing missile range at Cape Canaveral was a "natural" to launch crewed missions into space because, among else, it was southernmost missile range in the CONUS (continental USA) with an ocean to its east. For getting the most out of Earth’s west-to-east rotation, a spaceport should be as close to the equator as possible, and toward the east it must provide safe impact zones for empty rocket stages when they come down after eastward launches.
While launch (countdown) operations require their own specialized control center at the site, mission control deals with operations of spacecraft from post-launch to reentry and landing. There is no technical reason for having mission control facilities physically located at the place of final assembly, launch preparations, and liftoff. Thus, NASA built its Mission Control Center (MCC) at the Manned Spacecraft Center (today: Johnson Space Center) at Houston, Texas, because all the mission planners, timeliners, in fact, most of the engineering staff (other than personnel at distant contractor sites) for the early manned spacecraft programs Mercury, Gemini and Apollo were there, as were the Astronaut Office, the medical staff, etc., and their presence was required in "real-time" for many facets of mission control. Moreover, the available infrastructure -- academic, transportation, housing, and so forth -- was already quite attractive to newcomers while the marshlands around Merritt Island, Cape Canaveral and Cocoa Beach weren’t developed yet as they are today.
2006-07-07 04:39:57
·
answer #2
·
answered by knightest 2
·
0⤊
0⤋
Just combine Eric L, Knightest, and Campbelp 200's answers.
Plus there is also an emergency mission control and landing facility on the California coast, just in case.
2006-07-07 06:48:28
·
answer #3
·
answered by leehoustonjr@prodigy.net 5
·
0⤊
0⤋
Just before he became Vice President, Lyndon Johnson was one of the greatest champions of NASA and the Space Project. However, he was a bigger proponent for getting government projects in his state for pleasing voters and getting campaign donation.
Get the picture?
2006-07-07 04:37:42
·
answer #4
·
answered by eric l 6
·
0⤊
0⤋
location location
2006-07-07 04:34:08
·
answer #5
·
answered by idontkno 7
·
0⤊
0⤋
Just in case if it crashes upon launching, it won't fall and hit the ground control.
2006-07-07 04:39:06
·
answer #6
·
answered by mr_tight_butt_4u 1
·
0⤊
0⤋
Ya' know what I wish I knew but i didn't.I guess "Houston We have a problem" sounds cooler.
2006-07-07 05:09:51
·
answer #7
·
answered by J.D.S 1
·
0⤊
0⤋
it makes for good movie dialogue.."Houston, we have a problem!"
2006-07-07 04:48:39
·
answer #8
·
answered by luckyprimez 1
·
0⤊
0⤋
pork barrel spending
2006-07-07 04:43:32
·
answer #9
·
answered by Anonymous
·
0⤊
0⤋
They have really really excellent Bar-B-Que there.
2006-07-07 04:35:58
·
answer #10
·
answered by sam21462 5
·
0⤊
0⤋