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."
Sell it piecemeal. (Score:5, Funny)
Google Maps link (Score:4, Informative)
Re:Google Maps link (Score:2)
Zoom out and take a look at it from really high up. The shuttle crew could spot this thing from orbit with a small pair of binoculars. Pity they have to circle around and come screaming in at 9 miles a second (or so) to get anywhere near it.
Re:Google Maps link (Score:2)
Re:Sell it piecemeal. (Score:4, Insightful)
For those of you wondering what I mean seee: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Meigs_Field [wikipedia.org]
Re:Sell it piecemeal. (Score:2)
No cash, bad credit? No problem. Liquidate that infrastructure you won't be needing and turn it into ready cash! And we'll pay a bounty for the brains of engineering students!
Re:Sell it piecemeal. (Score:2)
Re:Sell it piecemeal. (Score:2)
Speed-scating, dance-scating, olympic-scating, musical-scating, gator-scating, downhill-scating (during nights when Earth is upside-down) - all off this could be accomodated. And the best thing is that the Shuttles could land and the Ruthan crafts could still take off - the only required modification would be in the landing gear.
Runway Lengths (Score:5, Informative)
Re:Runway Lengths (Score:4, Funny)
Re:Runway Lengths (Score:3, Interesting)
Re:Runway Lengths (Score:3, Informative)
Re:Runway Lengths (Score:4, Informative)
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 (Score:2)
Re:Runway Lengths (Score:5, Informative)
Re:Runway Lengths (Score:2)
Re:Runway Lengths (Score:5, Interesting)
Re:Runway Lengths (Score:3, Interesting)
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:2)
Re:Runway Lengths (Score:4, Informative)
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. [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 (Score:2)
Re:Runway Lengths (Score:2)
Re:Runway Lengths (Score:2)
The 16,000ft runway at KDEN (16R/32L) is relatively new; you may have flown in before it was completed. Aren't landing fees at KDEN pretty high as well?
Re:Runway Lengths (Score:2)
http://www.airnav.com/airport/48U [airnav.com]
Re:Runway Lengths (Score:3, Funny)
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
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:Runway Lengths (Score:2)
I don't know where you got your 767s from, but our Max Landing Weight is 300,000 lbs. for the -200 and 350,000 lbs. for the -400. Did you mistake kgs. for lbs. or did you forget a main gear strut somewhere?
Re:Runway Lengths (Score:2)
Either way, the shuttle on a 747 is still freaking heavy.
Re:Runway Lengths (Score:2)
The was a Discovery Channel program on this last week (Mardern Marvel's?) They spefically mention how rough the surface was intentionally made, a set of tires will conceivably only last 4 landing (though to be safe they change them every landing). Its very likely not usable for much of anything besides shuttle landings...
Big Space Party Pad? (Score:4, Interesting)
Re:Big Space Party Pad? (Score:2)
Re:Big Space Party Pad? (Score:2)
NASA's moms basement would probably be a better place to hold this "party".
Oh yes! (Score:5, Funny)
You mean the musical? (Score:3, Funny)
Maybe I could Land on that (Score:3, Funny)
Re:Maybe I could Land on that (Score:2)
World's largest (Score:3, Funny)
I know you want to.
For the metric crew: (Score:4, Informative)
Re:For the metric crew: (Score:2)
Re:For the metric crew: (Score:2)
For the curious among you... That's about 10 feet/gallon... almost as good as an M5 Abrams. :-/
Re:For the metric crew: (Score:2)
and for the really old people, that's 22.7272727 furlongs,
and for the elitist MIT snobs, that's 2686.56716 smoots.
There, I hope I didn't leave anybody out.
Re:For the metric crew: (Score:2)
Make it the official U.S. (Score:3, Funny)
Heh, UFO landing pads.. (Score:2)
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:It's sad really, shuttles never meet potential (Score:3, Insightful)
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
Re:It's sad really, shuttles never meet potential (Score:2)
Make that "routine" in quotation marks. It never truly became routine, but by the time of Apollo 13, the general public was already treating it as such. Marylin Lovell was shocked to see the low press turn out at press briefings held before her husband's launch. Nobody cared.
The sad part is that only nerds get truly excited about earning second place in space. When Armstrong and Aldrin walked on the moon, it was, to parap
Re:It's sad really, shuttles never meet potential (Score:2)
Fiber Optics are really much better at carrying fixed point to fixed point communications than are satellites are. The throw in Moore`s law and the idea of repairing a satellite really makes less and less sense. By the time they fail technology is so much better that it better to replace it than to bring it back and fix it. The total number of launches are lower then expected and while the idea of repai
Re:It's sad really, shuttles never meet potential (Score:2)
One of the reasons we continue to stagnate is the insistence that we need some (always unspecified and handwaving) technology to make acess to space routine.
Re:It's sad really, shuttles never meet potential (Score:2)
Care to flesh that comment out...?
I see potential in the space elevator concept...A.C. Clarke Proposed it years before anyone took it seriously, and lets just say thus far his hard science fiction tends to be rather prophetic...but since that doesn't yet exist...how do we get t
Advertising (Score:3, Insightful)
Just my 2c...
Re:Advertising (Score:2)
It simply wouldn't be cost effective.
Re:Advertising (Score:2)
Re:Advertising (Score:2)
Re:Advertising (Score:2)
Example:
The Dell Kid
The "Can you Hear me Know?" Guy
Make 7*Up Yours
Make a good location for a public star party (Score:2, Interesting)
I wonder... (Score:4, Funny)
I'm sure there's something cool that Adam & Jamie could test there.
Something dangerous.
one of my favorite pix (Score:2)
http://www.motorcycledaily.com/15october02vincent
Can I rent it for a day? (Score:5, Interesting)
Nearly three miles of empty pavement sounds like a lot of (pretty safe) fun.
Re:Can I rent it for a day? (Score:2)
Re:Can I rent it for a day? (Score:2)
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.
Re:Can I rent it for a day? (Score:2)
Re:Can I rent it for a day? (Score:3, Informative)
Re:Can I rent it for a day? (Score:2)
Ohhhh..... My 2000 Suzuki Hayabusa has 199.1HP at the rear wheel and weighs around 450 pounds. Funny thing is that in custom bike circles my bike is considered "kinda fas
R/C airplane club's dream (Score:2, Interesting)
Re:R/C airplane club's dream (Score:2)
Land masses next to water typically always have strong winds because of the temperature differences. a Giant piece of pavement like that during a sunny day next to water like that will pretty much guarentee that every RC plane and copter flown there will die a horrible death. with the massive updrafts and fast crosswinds from the colder water coming in.
RC needs light wind, a large field surrounded by trees is best as it really slows down any winds and makes life easier for the RC pilot.
Giant Slab (Score:5, Interesting)
Re:Giant Slab (Score:2)
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.
NASA-CAR Raceway!!! (Score:2)
Difference is... (Score:2)
Re:Difference is... (Score:2)
Because maximum speed already has to be limited by course design, the runsway is to narrow for any kind of courves with suitabl runoff area, and a straight "high speed" course would probably kill a driver each race at least...
Dupe! (Score:2)
Drag Racing? (Score:2)
More info about the runway (Score:3, Informative)
Even sadder... (Score:5, Informative)
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
Re:Even sadder... (Score:2)
Whatever the real story, I think you're seeing conspiracies where there aren't any. By the time they decided to close down SLC-6, it was obvious that the original shuttle concept wasn't wo
Wait... Virgin ATLANTIC? (Score:2)
Because if Virgin Atlantic have bought SS1-derived spaceplanes, then there's an opportunity for a hell of a fast trip to Europe. There's a runway in Spain capable of taking the Space Shuttle; though it's never been used, it's a factor in various abort scenarios.
Lifting off from Canaveral in a SpaceShip 2 and landing in Spain would make the old Concorde record time look pretty pathetic.
Re:Wait... Virgin ATLANTIC? (Score:2)
Re:Wait... Virgin ATLANTIC? (Score:2)
It would be about the same market as there is for a suborbital spaceflight, I imagine. In fact, this might even add to the attraction: you take off in a rocket, go ballistic over the ocean, leave the atmosphere, see the stars, experience weightlessness - and as a bonus, you come down in Europe. You've got to admit it would be a hell of a way to begin your holiday.
Re:Wait... Virgin ATLANTIC? (Score:3, Insightful)
Actually, Branson has mentioned [floridatoday.com] 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.
Re:Wait... Virgin ATLANTIC? (Score:2)
The Man Who Sold the Moon (Score:4, Insightful)
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 [answers.com] to the stars!
Re:The Man Who Sold the Moon (Score:2)
Coincidentally, NASA recently announced plans to create Red Planet Capital [spaceref.com], a venture capital fund for private spaceflight startups. Hopefully it won't be killed off by overzealous congresscritters.
A description from NASA's page:
In order for NASA to specifically focus on entrep
Re:The Man Who Sold the Moon (Score:2)
Dragway. (Score:2, Funny)
Come see renegade Slashdot nerds pilot their rocket-powered, case-modded FUNNYCAAARRRS!!!!
More Detail on KTTS (Titusville) (Score:3, Informative)
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 (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:Not your typical runway (Score:2)
They were worried about cross winds and such, and not knowing how the shuttle would handle on it, so they made it basically the most aggressive runway surface made. It was so abrasive, that after a single landing, the rubber would be worn of all the way down to the structural cording in the tire (the material behind that tred/outer layers of rubber)
With the runway as it is now, the tires are actually rated for 3 (or maybe 4)
Touch and goes! (Score:3, Funny)
Runways used for racecar testing (Score:2)
Anyways, I have seen some engineers using the runway to test C6-R Corvettes [corvetteracing.com]. I would guess they worked for a private team, since GM has test facilities. Every once and awhile a fire truck and ambulance would park near the runway and a car would come out do a few passes down the runway.
Re:An offer has been proposed by Ford (Score:2, Funny)
Re:Hee (Score:2)
of secret and non-existent airplanes.
Are you kidding? If Dan Brown says it, it must be true!
Just look here [danbrown.com] for your proof! See, see, see? Dan Brown says it's true!
I'll bet you want to take your words back now, don't you Mr. Smartypants?
Re:Use As an Observation Location? (Score:2)
Re:Who owns the Spruce Goose now? (Score:2)
I don't think the spruce goose has landing gear.
Re:Who owns the Spruce Goose now? (Score:2)
I don't think the spruce goose has landing gear.
It was a flying boat. Its hull is its landing gear.
Re:Who owns the Spruce Goose now? (Score:2)
So that pretty much makes it useless for a giant runway, doesn't it?