[oasis-members] A question: How could this have been prevented?

[Weston, Daniel J]

Unfortunately, one of the major drivers of launch pad locations is
safety.  The most hazardous phase of a mission is launch to orbit and
when an ELV blows 2 minutes into flight you really want it to be over an
unpopulated area which is why the East coast made such a great location
when they started looking for a launch site.

Probably the best place to launch from would be the Australian desert if
you make sure you don't fly over any population masses on ascent.
Someplace where they don't have sand storms.

Another great place is SeaLaunch - the weather at the equator is usually
pretty nice, but you really pay a penalty if you aren't going to a GEO
orbit. 

FYI - Delta IV also has a mobile service tower (MST) at the cape on
LC-37 that can roll up and enclose the stacked vehicle in minutes and
can protect her from some pretty hard huricane force winds:

http://www.capcomespace.net/dossiers/espace_US/lanceurs_US/delta/SLC37%2
005pd2398.jpg

Dan

-----Original Message-----
From: DRh9811850 at aol.com [mailto:DRh9811850 at aol.com] 
Sent: Tuesday, March 06, 2007 10:45 PM
To: oasis-members at oasis-nss.org
Subject: Re: [oasis-members] A question: How could this have been
prevented?

In a message dated 3/6/07 7:31:06 PM Pacific Standard Time,
rivercoon at netzero.com writes:

> That would be a good way to test turbo pumps.  Trying to keep a below 
> sea level pit that size dry in Florida!
> 

No, not Florida, California. We'd like the business here.

But maybe in New Mexico, they've got a lot of empty terrain...no
hurricanes, and just the occasionally pesky bahada-chubasco. Come to
think of it, those have massive hail sometimes, as an added
feature...found that out firsthand around Socorro a long time ago, in a
tiny little Fiat. :-/

Well, where *would* be the least problematical place for a launch area? 
Keeping in mind that a lot of the launch vehicles in the private sector
aren't going to be mammoth shuttles...

Diane