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."
KSC's runway is 300ft wide. 13R/31L at KJFK is 150ft wide.
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.
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!)
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.
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