One REALLY Long Runway for Rent 211
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."
Big Space Party Pad? (Score:4, Interesting)
Re:Runway Lengths (Score:5, Interesting)
Re:Runway Lengths (Score:3, Interesting)
It's sad really, shuttles never meet potential (Score:4, Interesting)
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:Runway Lengths (Score:5, Interesting)
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 (Score:3, Interesting)
Make a good location for a public star party (Score:2, Interesting)
Can I rent it for a day? (Score:5, Interesting)
Nearly three miles of empty pavement sounds like a lot of (pretty safe) fun.
R/C airplane club's dream (Score:2, Interesting)
Giant Slab (Score:5, Interesting)
Re:Can I rent it for a day? (Score:1, Interesting)
your WRX will not do much cince it's a teensey little wanna be sports car. Call me when you have something that can do 180+
Perfect for Formula 1 (Score:4, Interesting)
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.
Re:Can I rent it for a day? (Score:3, Interesting)
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.
Not your typical runway (Score:3, Interesting)
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:Runway Lengths (Score:5, Interesting)
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.
Re:Even sadder... (Score:5, Interesting)
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