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."

Comments

Sell it piecemeal.

[Anonymous Coward]

They should smash it and auction off the pieces. It'd probably pay for itself.

Re:Sell it piecemeal.

[PPGMD]

I didn't know you read slashdot Mayor Daley.

For those of you wondering what I mean seee: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Meigs_Field

Runway Lengths

[AKAImBatman]

15,000 feet may seem like a lot, but it often helps to put things into perspective. For example, O'Hare International Airport has 6 paved runways with the following stats:

Direction Length Surface
14R/32L 13,001 Paved
14L/32R 10,301 Paved
09R/27L 10,144 Paved
04R/22L 8.071 Paved
09L/27R 7,969 Paved
04L/22R 7,500 Paved

John F. Kennedy International Airport has 4 runways with the following stats:

Direction Length Surface
4L/22R 11,351 Asphalt/Concrete
4R/22L 8,400 Asphalt
13L/31R 10,000 Asphalt
13R/31L 14,572 Asphalt/Concrete

So this runway is only about 428 feet longer than the longest runway at JFK International. (13R/31L - 14,572ft) Given that 14,000+ feet is already a huge amount of space, we can conclude that the KSC runway would be more interesting to new space ventures because of its location and lack of commercial traffic rather than its outright length.

Re:Runway Lengths

[epgandalf]

Area 51 also has a really long runway. You can check it out on Google Maps or wikipedia. If you need a long runway, I'm sure the military wouldn't mind letting you use it.

Re:Runway Lengths

[iamlucky13]

...and Edwards Airforce Base has a paved runway about 15,000 feet long, but there is an additional 10 miles or so of marked dry lake bed suitable for landing a wide range of aircraft on and considered part of the runway. Bottom line: this is a long runway, possibly even a really long runway, but not a REALLY long runway.

Re:Runway Lengths

[Xandu]

In fact, the higher you go in elevation, the longer runway planes need. The longest runway at Denver, for example, is 16,000 feet.

Re:Runway Lengths

[nharmon]

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

Re:Runway Lengths

[CastrTroy]

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.

Re:Runway Lengths

[AKAImBatman]

Edwards Airforce Base has a paved runway about 15,000 feet long, but there is an additional 10 miles or so of marked dry lake bed suitable for landing a wide range of aircraft

Good point. I used to use that runway in X-Plane to take off custom spaceplanes. The extra runway was extremely helpful in getting the vehicle off the ground. Especially when I equipped the craft with ejectable JATO bottles in lieu of a proper Solid Rocket Booster. :-)

(In case anyone is wondering: No, I never made it to orbit. As soon as I hit Mach 5, I overstress the frame and lose a wing or somesuch. If I don't hit Mach 5, I run out of fuel before I obtain orbit. Even in the simulated NASP craft that is supposed to be able to make it to orbit. Guess I better let a real pilot at the controls.)

Re:Runway Lengths

[emerrill]

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.

Re:Runway Lengths

[AKAImBatman]

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.

Re:Runway Lengths

[Thud457]

And alligators. Don't forget it's designed to shed alligators. That's very important down in the pest-ridden swamps of Florididia!

True story:
We went on one of the bus tours at KSC. The bus had the usual complement, about half foreign tourists. We'd been around to see all the derelict technological wonders of the Apollo program and were headed back to the main visitor's center. The tour driver pointed out an common American Alligator in a run-off ditch alongside the road and stopped so the out-of-towners could get a good look. Those Nikon-toting tourists just about tipped the bus over trying to get a look at the scaley nuisance.

Re:Runway Lengths

[badasscat]

So this runway is only about 428 feet longer than the longest runway at JFK International. (13R/31L - 14,572ft)

Well, to put THAT into perspective, 13R/31L is one of the longest runways in the United States. There are only a few longer:

# Denver Intl Airport (DEN) in Denver, CO has a 16,000' x 200' runway.
# Southern California Logistics Airport (VCV) in Victorville, CA has a 15,050' x 150' runway.
# Edwards AFB Airport (EDW) in Edwards, CA has a 15,013' x 300' runway.
# Nasa Shuttle Landing Facility Airport (X68) in Titusville, FL has a 15,000' x 300' runway.
# Vandenberg AFB Airport (VBG) in Lompoc, CA has a 15,000' x 200' runway.

That's from MyAFD.com.

So, still a pretty long runway by any standard. I mean that's nearly three miles, or about 50% longer than the runways at most major airports. (LaGuardia's runways, for example, are only 7,500 feet long, and yes, widebodies can and do use this airport.)

Re:Runway Lengths

[dgatwood]

Last I heard, they ran Jeeps up and down the runway continuously for a few hours before the shuttle landing to scare the gators off.

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.

Big Space Party Pad?

[drewzhrodague]

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.

Oh yes!

[plopez]

Who's up for getting a '75 Chevy Nova and some RATO packs!

You mean the musical?

[suso]

15 thousand 0 0 0 feet. How long does....

Maybe I could Land on that

[QBasicer]

Maybe with a runway that size I could actually land on it. Heck, all runways should be that long, so that planes won't "overshoot" the runway like you see in the news.

World's largest

[Anonymous Coward]

hopscotch tournament?

I know you want to.

For the metric crew:

[b4stard]

15 000 feet = 4 572 meter

Re:An offer has been proposed by Ford

[yaroze32]

Probably not long enough

Make it the official U.S.

[ch-chuck]

Alien landing strip.

It's sad really, shuttles never meet potential

[haplo21112]

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.

Re:It's sad really, shuttles never meet potential

[onetwentyone]

I thought about leaving a nice long addendum to your post but instead I'll go for the short version. The drive to do great things in space ended when going to the moon became routine. People stopped paying attention to what was happening.

The want from NASA to reclaim some of this old glory and expand on it still exists but its rather difficult to do so when your budget is cut year after year. The Apollo program had the benefit of having a near limitless budget whereas all the missions since then have had to make do with what they can afford. Granted this has led to some really remarkable advances from NASA with their robotic missions but nothing can really compare to sending humans to these distant places.

Really want to support NASA? Write your Congressmen/women and tell them to fight for space research and exploration funding.

Advertising

[Mr Wrinkle]

Along similar lines, I reckon that NASA should sell advertising space on the side of launch vehicles, etc, to help cover costs of launch. How much would (e.g.) McDonalds be willing to pay for a frickin' huge yellow 'M' on the side of a rocket? I'd bet a million or three $'s, at least. (After all, companies pay millions for 30s during superbowl commercials...) To a small science mission on a budget of a couple of hundred million, this would be a really big deal, IMO.
Just my 2c...

Google Maps link

[woah]

Google Maps link

Make a good location for a public star party

[Average_Joe_Sixpack]

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.

I wonder...

[jon.wolf]

I wonder if the Mythbusters could afford to rent it for a month or so.

I'm sure there's something cool that Adam & Jamie could test there.

Something dangerous.

Can I rent it for a day?

[SJS]

I want to rent it for an hour or three to take my WRX out to play where there's nothing to hit. Parking lots often have light poles, or security guards who get irate. Taking my car to an SCCA event voids my warranty. An empty stretch of highway might not be so empty, and tickets obtained while "seeing how fast my car can go" tend to be REALLY expensive.

Nearly three miles of empty pavement sounds like a lot of (pretty safe) fun.

Re:Can I rent it for a day?

[hwyengr]

Okay, I'll bite.

1500 lbs! With the 350! HA! The 350 alone almost weighs 600 lbs. The curb weight of the Fiero was a hair under 2600 lbs, and that was with the aluminum (?) block V6. The cast-iron 350 surely would have added to that, not to mention throwing off the weight distribution, mid-engine or not.

I suppose that if the Viper is the benchmark for the pinnacle of handling prowess, there are many, many cars that out-handle it.

Re:Can I rent it for a day?

[modecx]

Any potential merit you had as a car guy went right out the window when you suggested that the viper's handling as a track car is any better than mediocre... And that's despite your ludicrous claims on the Fierro *cough*bullshit*cough*... Every race prepared Fiero I've ever seen weighed in right at 2000lbs, and that was with the aluminum V6, and an 8 point roll cage! Furthermore, NASCAR circuit tracks are boring as hell unless they've got a road course in the middle, and not all of them do, and most are just average as road tracks go anyway. Yay for left hand turns? NO, damnit!

My advice to the GP: look up some tracks in your area. In the US, there are places with lots of tracks, and places devoid of them (mostly in the middle), and some have open track days. Most will rent out a day, so if you can get enough people together to make it worthwhile that's an option... Maybe there's a Subaru club that rents a day at the track, which can cost upwards of $8000 depending on the track. So, the more people you've got, the cheaper it will be. Open track days can cost anywhere from $100 to $300 to attend, but it's worth it... But unless you've got an STI, I wouldn't push your car too hard, the plain WRX transmissions are pretty weak as far as sports car transmissions, they shafts and case can flex tear up a bunch of gears if you're not careful, or worse yet, you could break the case. Ouch. I've seen it happen!

Other than that, I think the best investment you can make as far as going fast and enjoying it is in performance driving school. There's lots of schools around the country and tracks can often get you headed in the right direction. If you've got money to blow, and some space to work on and store your cars, you could get a wrecked WRX, and turn that into a semi-dedicated, but still road legal car.

R/C airplane club's dream

[IflyRC]

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....

Giant Slab

[FiberOpPraise]

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.

More info about the runway

[heli0]

From NASA: http://www-pao.ksc.nasa.gov/kscpao/nasafact/landin gfac.htm

Even sadder...

[fm6]

... than underused shuttle facilities at KSC is the Air Force shuttle facility on the west coast, which cost $6 billion, and was never used at all.

Re:Even sadder...

[Gen-GNU]

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

The Man Who Sold the Moon

[Doc Ruby]

Finally the government operating a natural role as the infrastructure monopoly investing in the startup of private American industry. NASA overall has produced probably the best ROI on any US government investment in the 20th Century. And the US space industry is at the crossroads for going live, both positioned to deliver services and facing foreign competition.

Let's spend hundreds of billions of the dollars that we currently mostly waste on Pentagon corporate welfare that makes the US feared around the world instead spent on NASA investment in infrastructure to support private corporations. Let's get the US aerospace industry to compete by raising private investment to fund competitions for achieving goals like Lunar power stations and manned Martian research bases. Let's get NASA to become solely a policy, design, testing and certification agency, and subsidize American corporations to pass our highest criteria ahead of foreign ones.

Let's take it to the stars!

Perfect for Formula 1

[jd]

I've got the ultimate answer. The guys with the money to do this are the F1 high-fliers. What you'd do is use this as an extremely long straight, then widen a whole bunch of service roads to give you the rest of the circuit (the same way that Silverstone was built, essentially).

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.

Dragway.

[0m3gaMan]

SUNDAY! SUNDAY! SUNDAYYY!!!

Come see renegade Slashdot nerds pilot their rocket-powered, case-modded FUNNYCAAARRRS!!!!

More Detail on KTTS (Titusville)

[AceyMan]

KTTS "NASA Shuttle Landing Facility" details here:

Runway Information
Runway 15/33
Dimensions: 15000 x 300 ft. / 4572 x 91 m
Surface: concrete/grooved, in good condition
Weight bearing capacity:
Single wheel: 120000 lbs
Double wheel: 220000 lbs
Double tandem: 500000 lbs
Dual double tandem: 800000 lbs
Runway edge lights: non-standard
NSTD HIRL; 85' FR RWY EDGE.
        RUNWAY 15 RUNWAY 33
Gradient: 0.0 0.0
Traffic pattern: left left
Markings: precision, in good condition precision, in good condition
Approach lights: ALSF2: standard 2,400 foot high intensity approach lighting system with centerline sequenced flashers (category II or III) ALSF2: standard 2,400 foot high intensity approach lighting system with centerline sequenced flashers (category II or III)
Centerline lights: yes
CL RWY 15-33 NSTD, 10,000'. yes
.
.
cribbed from airnav.com [sweet site]

Not your typical runway

[carambola5]

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.

Re:Wait... Virgin ATLANTIC?

[FleaPlus]

Lifting off from Canaveral in a SpaceShip 2 and landing in Spain would make the old Concorde record time look pretty pathetic.

Actually, Branson has mentioned that even though his first spaceport will be in New Mexico, they're considering building a spaceport at Cape Canaveral later on. The shuttle runway would be an ideal place for WhiteKnightTwo and SpaceShipTwo to operate from.

Touch and goes!

[ptomblin]

I'd like to go and do about a dozen touch and goes without having to turn.