Slashdot Mirror
One REALLY Long Runway for Rent
DarkNemesis618 writes "NASA is looking into putting its 15,000 foot runway up for rent at the Kennedy Space Center. The runway, which is used for Space Shuttle landings, will soon be used less and less as the Shuttle fleet is set to be retired in 2010. The first private venture was seen last month when Steve Fossett took off at KSC in Virgin Atlantic's experimental plane. One promising deal in the works comes from Zero Gravity Corp. which offers customers a few seconds of weightlessness on a Boeing 727-200. The shuttle runway, built in the 1970s never got the use it was expected to, and with the next generation of space vehicles using parachutes to land, the runway is going to have even less use."
Perhaps a bunch of us could get together, and rent it out once a year -- ala Burningman, Xday, and the like. Perhaps us Science geeks, and Sci-Fi freaks could show-up for a weekend of partying, to celebrate spacetravel, and the persuits to get there. Me, I just want another excuse to party.
Zhrodague.net - I do projects and stuff too.
KSC's runway is 300ft wide. 13R/31L at KJFK is 150ft wide.
Just checked that out, it's pretty cool (just type area 51 into google maps). What's interesting is that the "map" feature shows nothing, and there's actually a really large area that seems "blacked out". On the other hand, the satellite view shows area 51 with pretty good precision.
Anthropic principle: We see the universe the way it is because if it were different we would not be here to see it.
I remember when i was younger the excitement of thinking that with the shuttles the potential of space flight would only grow from point on. The pure simple idea that pretty much in my life time there would come a time when space flight would become routine. When there would be a spacecraft lifting off once or even twice in the same week.
Unfortunately the shuttles never got there. The reasons are many and varied, and ultimately stupid. The ramp up the potential never happened. I can remember a time when NASA was considering the possibility of many many more shuttles.
Its sad really.
We (humanity as a whole) should by now have a much greater presense in space. The technology should have advanced to a far greater state than it has at time time. We are pretty much still stuck in the same place as we were in the late 1970's. The shuttles tech has seen little change from the 1970's tech that was in place when they were first drawn up.
The really comical part is at this point we are planning to more forward, by going backwards to tech that predates the shuttle program. Admittedly the shuttles didn't work out, they were probably to for4ward thinking when they were first developed. We are now in a place where we do not have the time, or perhaps even the desire to back to the drawing board and bring to bear the full weight of out current technology.
The End result we will continue in space, however it will continue as a lackluster effort.
Power Corrupts,Absolute Power Corrupts Absolutely, leaving one person(group)in charge is absolutely corrupt.
As somewhat pointed out, the 2 most important things about the KSC are its width (2-3 times the width of a standard, large, commercial runway), and its flatness.
The KSC runway varies no more the 1in vertically along its length. Its so flat, it was specifically designed to properly follow the curvature of the earth. Most commecial runways are very very not flat, they usually have long period (1 or 2 over the length) undulations in them.
That's also a very good point. However, with the current crop of commercial space vehicles, this probably doesn't matter quite as much. Once these vehicles start obtaining footprints similar to that of the Space Shuttle, then the width of the runway will probably matter a lot more.
Javascript + Nintendo DSi = DSiCade
You could fit a lot of astronomers, their RVs and vendors on that strip. The light pollution wouldn't be too bad there either since it's not in the center of the Cape.
Nearly three miles of empty pavement sounds like a lot of (pretty safe) fun.
Pick One: http://www-rohan.sdsu.edu/~stremler/sigs/sigs.html (Note - disable Javascript first!)
This would be awesome to fly at. Considering so many clubs are being closed due to urban encroachment and noise they should allow R/C airplanes on this runway a couple of days a week. I know - but just dreaming....
Despite being one really huge runway there is something else I learned while visiting the Kennedy Space Center. The entire runway complete in a single pouring Essentially it is one gigantic slab of concrete with no cracks in it.
The speeds they could reach on a circuit like that would be hair-raising, the overtaking opportunities would be superb, and you'd be able to get more spectators in. If NASA got a percent cut on the ticket sales, they'd be able to fund all of their real work, and so everyone would be happy.
It's a small world and it smells funny; I'd buy another if it wasn't for the money; Take back what I paid (SoM)
Along with it being 15000 feet long and 300 ft wide, the shuttle runway has other special characteristics. For example, the surface roughness is so great that it can handle an incredible amount of rain (~4 inches per hour, IIRC) before requiring a landing scrub due to a hydroplaning landing. Of course, the Shuttle can't handle rain anyways, since it would damage those cursed tiles. The result is that the really really expensive Shuttle tires are replaced after every landing because so much rubber is worn away.
Also, the macroscopic flatness (ie: delta elevation/foot of runway) is an order of magnitude better than typical airport runways.
If you ever get the chance to have an escorted tour around the Johnson Space Center (students: find alumni working there!), make sure to check out the test landing strip there. It is beyond cool. They accelerate a multi-ton carriage at 30 g's to simulate a landing... and then dump copious amounts of water in front of it.
IWARS.
People, in general, disappoint me. Politicians even more so.
Don't forget that the KSC runway is built to some serious specs---probably a bit more so than a typical commercial runway. The shuttle itself isn't so horrible (flying brick) when landing. Maximum landing weight is 230,000 pounds---about twice the maximum landing weight of a Boeing 767 (which, depending on model, ranges from 112,000 to 150,000)---about the same as that of a Boeing 747. But here's the catch. In a pinch, the strip at KSC had to be able to handle landings of a modified 747 WITH FUEL, with an orbiter strapped to its back---all 713,000 (total) pounds of it....
At the time, that seemed like a lot. It still does.
Check out my sci-fi/humor trilogy at PatriotsBooks.
This is probably too late to be read, but here goes anyway...
Yes, SLC-6 (pronounced slick-6) was expensive and never used for a shuttle launch. After the Challenger disaster, shuttle operations went from expanding to contracting, and despite what they will tell you publicly, it never recovered. Not only was SLC-6 built, but rather extensive work was done at Vandenberg AFB to allow for moving the shuttle. Hills were flattened, and certain roads still have short road signs, so they fit under the wings when it was to be driven to/from SLC-6.
When Challenger happened, NASA needed an excuse, and found one. They claimed that the hills near SLC-6 would reflect the thrust from the shuttle back on it, shaking it apart before it ever took off. And they can't knock the hills down, because they could be seen from a public beach, so Californian law says they can't be touched. It was basically a convienent way to slim down the shuttle program.
As a side note, the runway at Vandenberg was also expanded, and is still an alternate landing site for the shuttle. I assume it is the same size as KSC. I remember a private pilot telling me the thing was so wide you could land a cessna on it sideways. It was so long, you could do 3 touch and go's in one pass