2006-12-22 08:11:05 · 10 answers · asked by Ruben M 1 in Science & Mathematics ➔ Astronomy & Space
All the above answers are good. The facilities are all built and paid for at the cape (they were adapted from Apollo facilities).
It would not be safe in the Houston area because there are too many populated areas for wreckage to fall on in a disaster, like the Challenger disaster.
2006-12-22 08:24:45 · answer #1 · answered by campbelp2002 7 · 2⤊ 0⤋
there are several reasons why the space shuttle does not land or take off from Houston, TX. for one. dont you think that it would be better off to have the solid rocket boosters (SRBs) land into the ocean instead of ontop of someone's house, especially since the SRBs weigh around 200,000 lbs. another is because of the fact that Kennedy Space Centre is closer to the equator than Houston is. and a final reason is that Houston is heavily populated whereas the area around Kennedy Space Centre is not. i am not sure if the space shuttle makes too much noise (except for the twin sonic booms) when coming in for a landing. but on launch, the noise, especially combined with the hustle and bustle of regular airplane traffic would be overwhelming.
2006-12-22 21:02:38 · answer #2 · answered by mcdonaldcj 6 · 2⤊ 0⤋
There's no facility there that supports landing or take off. Houston was chosen as mission control for political reasons. Lyndon Johnson was a backer of the space program and he was from Texas.
2006-12-22 16:16:13 · answer #3 · answered by Gene 7 · 2⤊ 0⤋
because there's no actual advantage to having the facilities together. also they weren't planned together, and LBJ was one of the major forces behind putting mission control in houston, because he was from texas. the reasons for putting mission control there were really just political
2006-12-22 16:24:41 · answer #4 · answered by C_Millionaire 5 · 2⤊ 0⤋
Because Cape Canaveral in FL has better quality equipment for launch. If they had to, they would launch from Houston.
2006-12-22 16:14:14 · answer #5 · answered by Anonymous 2 · 0⤊ 1⤋
Probably because if there was a problem on launch (like with the Challenger), the debris would fall in the ocean instead of on populated areas.
2006-12-22 16:14:24 · answer #6 · answered by Anonymous · 3⤊ 1⤋
It would cost too much to keep replacing all the windows that get broken by the loud noise!
2006-12-22 17:52:54 · answer #7 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 0⤋
Nobody wants a Solid rocket booster landing on their house.
2006-12-22 16:19:37 · answer #8 · answered by Need Flow 2 · 2⤊ 1⤋
Launching from Florida has a better safety margin in case of catastrophic mechanical failure.
2006-12-22 16:20:07 · answer #9 · answered by S.A.M. Gunner 7212 6 · 3⤊ 1⤋
The runway isn't long enough and there is too much residential and commercial property nearby.
2006-12-22 16:13:51 · answer #10 · answered by QWERTY 6 · 1⤊ 0⤋