Why Are All NASA Launch Sites Near The Sea?

darrenw5O94

All the NASA launch sites are along the coastline. Are theses 'Rockets' just falling into the ocean 10 mins after takeoff or are they actually going into space?

Dohnjoe

Near the sea for safety. There are over 2,000 satellites currently in orbit, so the vast majority of rockets launched from all over the world make it up.

Overheal

Because if this



Had happened over a populated area...

From Wikipedia:

"Cape Canaveral was chosen for rocket launches to take advantage of the Earth's rotation. The linear velocity of the Earth's surface is greatest towards the equator; the relatively southerly location of the cape allows rockets to take advantage of this by launching eastward, in the same direction as the Earth's rotation. It is also highly desirable to have the downrange area sparsely populated, in case of accidents; an ocean is ideal for this.[22] The east coast of Florida has the logistical advantages over potential competing sites.[19] The Spaceport Florida Launch Complex 46 of the Cape Canaveral Air Force Station is the easternmost near the tip of the cape.[22]"

darrenw5O94

Overheal wrote: »

Because if this



Had happened over a populated area...

From Wikipedia:

"Cape Canaveral was chosen for rocket launches to take advantage of the Earth's rotation. The linear velocity of the Earth's surface is greatest towards the equator; the relatively southerly location of the cape allows rockets to take advantage of this by launching eastward, in the same direction as the Earth's rotation. It is also highly desirable to have the downrange area sparsely populated, in case of accidents; an ocean is ideal for this.[22] The east coast of Florida has the logistical advantages over potential competing sites.[19] The Spaceport Florida Launch Complex 46 of the Cape Canaveral Air Force Station is the easternmost near the tip of the cape.[22]"

Anyone actually in that exposion?

darrenw5O94

Dohnjoe wrote: »

Near the sea for safety. There are over 2,000 satellites currently in orbit, so the vast majority of rockets launched from all over the world make it up.

Well the touted number is over 20,000, wherever they are

Timberrrrrrrr

darrenw5O94 wrote: »

Anyone actually in that exposion?

7 dead.

Dohnjoe

darrenw5O94 wrote: »

Well the touted number is over 20,000, wherever they are

Not sure where you are getting that number from. Maybe you are referring to tracked debris above 5 cm in size which is currently about 21,000. Functioning satellites is about 1,000, total sent up since the 50's about 8,000

Overheal

darrenw5O94 wrote: »

Anyone actually in that exposion?

Yeah that's the iconic stock photo of the Challenger Disaster. Ultimately caused because NASA ignored all warnings that it was not safe to launch in cold temperatures in favor of pushing ahead, fearing the air force would start taking over future launches of satellites and such. As a result, o-rings critical to the liquid fuel boosters did not seal, resulting in the horrific explosion. At the time, a highly publicized, televised launch that included the first would-be woman in space, a school teacher, that then became a highly televised disaster and then a highly publicized committee investigation.

Challenger comes up a lot for me: it comes up in engineering ethics discussions as a case study, and is frequently referred to just about any time mentions o-rings at cold temps around work. O-rings and potential leak paths are a common feature in fluids. There is a really good film adaptation of the investigation (The Challenger (2013)).

weisses

Can someone please please share the conspiracy? .......

Overheal

weisses wrote: »

Can someone please please share the conspiracy? .......

It seems implied the question was about whether launches were all basically fake. Which - I completely disagree with. Sidenote, there was a real conspiracy that surrounded the Challenger Disaster. Politics of the Cold war, the Air Force, NASA, and the investigation commission.

namloc1980

darrenw5O94 wrote: »

All the NASA launch sites are along the coastline. Are theses 'Rockets' just falling into the ocean 10 mins after takeoff or are they actually going into space?

How bizarre. Why would even pose this question?

degrassinoel

namloc1980 wrote: »

How bizarre. Why would even pose this question?

nature of the forum tbh

nokia69

darrenw5O94 wrote: »

All the NASA launch sites are along the coastline. Are theses 'Rockets' just falling into the ocean 10 mins after takeoff or are they actually going into space?

yes the rockets do fall into the ocean, for now

however the payload reaches LEO or beyond, if everything goes to plan

Taylor365

degrassinoel wrote: »

nature of the forum tbh

More of an ELI5 (Explain Like I'm 5) question to me.

Like asking: Submarines only submerge in water. Do they go somewhere or do they just surface when no ones looking?

amen

Overheal wrote: »

At the time, a highly publicized, televised launch that included the first would-be woman in space, a school teacher, that then became a highly televised disaster and then a highly publicized committee investigation. .

First women in space, 1963

First american women in space, 1983

Overheal

Listen. You know we don't care what the rest of the world does. Women in space: invented by America

Guy:Incognito

I visited the Kennedy Space Centre 2 weeks ago. Its an awesome trip. Highly recommended for anyone interested in the subject or looking for answers. The guide on our bus (we did the tour part that brings you around the roads and launch sites etc ) knew everything about NASA . He mentioned the subject of this thread (without prompting from me ) as a safety thing.

The Atlantis exhibition is absolutely jaw dropping (wont go in to too much detail, anyone planning on going, go in blind, its great)

_Tombstone_

Guy:Incognito wrote: »

I visited the Kennedy Space Centre 2 weeks ago. Its an awesome trip. Highly recommended for anyone interested in the subject or looking for answers. The guide on our bus (we did the tour part that brings you around the roads and launch sites etc ) knew everything about NASA . He mentioned the subject of this thread (without prompting from me ) as a safety thing.

The Atlantis exhibition is absolutely jaw dropping (wont go in to too much detail, anyone planning on going, go in blind, its great)

How much it cost outta curiosity guy?

Soyokakano

Don't they have parts of the launch gear fall off after take off. So its better they fall into the sea than on top of a city or town

Guy:Incognito

_Tombstone_ wrote: »

How much it cost outta curiosity guy?

I'm going to be honest and say I don't know. The missus brother in law organised all the various attraction tickets and the missus paid him.

Whatever it was it was worth it. We got the dinner with an astronaut thing then the bus tour around (you don't have to do those) as extra. That took about 3 hours iirc. In hindsight I'd have gotten there earlier if I'd known that. Dinner (nice buffet) was at 12 and he astronaut spoke for about half an hour and took questions (mostly from kids), then off on the bus at 1.

If I'd known that would take up a good chunk and that there was so much to see I'd have been there at 9 for it opening to see all the stuff near the entrance first before the tour . Theres all the old rockets in the plaza , guided tour there, Atlantis building with take off simulator, an Imax theatre in another building. After the tour they drop you at the Saturn Building. I'd have wanted about an hour and a half there, had to make do with just under an hour to rush back to get to Atlantis and the other shuttle stuff.

Guy:Incognito

_Tombstone_ wrote: »

How much it cost outta curiosity guy?

https://www.kennedyspacecenter.com/tickets.aspx

The $75 package at the top left sounds like what we did. Well worth it

omnithanos

weisses wrote: »

Can someone please please share the conspiracy? .......

The Flat Earth Society claim that it's impossible to break through the Earths theromsphere and therefore all NASA images from space are faked.

weisses

omnithanos wrote: »

The Flat Earth Society claim that it's impossible to break through the Earths theromsphere and therefore all NASA images from space are faked.

And therefore launch sites needs to be near the Sea ?

omnithanos

weisses wrote: »

And therefore launch sites needs to be near the Sea ?

...so they can fall into the water after blast off.

weisses

omnithanos wrote: »

...so they can fall into the water after blast off.

And the conspiracy regarding that would be ?

omnithanos

weisses wrote: »

And the conspiracy regarding that would be ?

That space flight isn't real.

Funny how the only time the US went to the moon was when Nixon was in charge.

Stanley Kubrick left multiple clues in his film the Shining that he actually filmed the moon landing in a studio. That's why Stephen King was so annoyed with him for changing his book so much.

pmasterson95

omnithanos wrote: »

That space flight isn't real.

Funny how the only time the US went to the moon was when Nixon was in charge.

Stanley Kubrick left multiple clues in his film the Shining that he actually filmed the moon landing in a studio. That's why Stephen King was so annoyed with him for changing his book so much.

What clues?

cml387

pmasterson95 wrote: »

What clues?

Thin stuff TBH

omnithanos

pmasterson95 wrote: »

What clues?

ScumLord

omnithanos wrote: »

That space flight isn't real.

They don't fall into the sea. I've seen the rocket fly over Ireland. I watched it take off on the internet, then went outside and watched it zip over my town a little while later. The speed of it crossing the sky was incredible.

How does GPS work if we can't put satellites in space? What are all the satellites we can see in the nights sky? How do people communicate across the planet on mobiles phones that don't have access to telephone masts?

GreatDefector

darrenw5O94 wrote: »

All the NASA launch sites are along the coastline. Are theses 'Rockets' just falling into the ocean 10 mins after takeoff or are they actually going into space?

I assume your talking about the booster rockets. They do fall into the sea shortly after takeoff. NASA send out a crew to recover them and they're re-used for other launches

No point wasting them, they only work for a short period to boost main craft until its ready to go solo

No conspiracy

nokia69

GreatDefector wrote: »

I assume your talking about the booster rockets. They do fall into the sea shortly after takeoff. NASA send out a crew to recover them and they're re-used for other launches

No point wasting them, they only work for a short period to boost main craft until its ready to go solo

No conspiracy

I'm not sure if recovering the boosters was a good idea it may have been cheeper just to build new ones each time

video below of an SRB fallen into the sea

the video below shows the falcon 9 almost landing on a drone ship

FISMA.

darrenw5O94 wrote: »

All the NASA launch sites are along the coastline. Are theses 'Rockets' just falling into the ocean 10 mins after takeoff or are they actually going into space?

Launch sites are located as close to the equator as possible. Hence NASA sites in Fl, TX, Ca.

(1) Points at the equator have a higher tangential speed than more northern or southern points. Thus, less fuel is required to get objects in to orbit.

(2) Objects weigh less at the equator. Again, fuel savings.

Rockets will take off in the direction of the Earth's rotation to make use of relative velocity. Again, fuel savings.

Lift off occurs from Fl as the rocket can get roughly 2/3 the way in to space before it is back over land. Should something go wrong on lift-off, the ocean is a far better debris field than populated areas.

After a final burn and returning to Earth, the space shuttle was effectively a glider. When the space shuttle was in our atmosphere, it HAD to land. There was no way for the space shuttle to power up, like an airplane, and circle around. So your best bet is to get a landing strip on a coast.

That's why landing preference started in the West and progressed East. If the site in the West was problematic, like say Edward's AFB in Ca, the shuttle could glide on to White Sands, NM and so on.

After 10 minutes, you are most definitely in space.

nokia69

FISMA. wrote: »

Launch sites are located as close to the equator as possible. Hence NASA sites in Fl, TX, Ca.

(1) Points at the equator have a higher tangential speed than more northern or southern points. Thus, less fuel is required to get objects in to orbit.

(2) Objects weigh less at the equator. Again, fuel savings.

Rockets will take off in the direction of the Earth's rotation to make use of relative velocity. Again, fuel savings.

its not to save fuel that they launch at the equator its for the payload boost, fuel makes up a tiny % of launch cost

Jawgap

Early rockets were very unreliable - if they are going to fail / fall / explode - it's to have that happen over water.

Rockets are also big, especially the Saturn 5 birds, and need lots of fuel - easier to deliver that by sea either by barge or boat, rather than road or air.

Launch sites tend to be close to the equator to lessen the amount of energy (and fuel) required to achieve orbit.

H3llR4iser

ScumLord wrote: »

They don't fall into the sea. I've seen the rocket fly over Ireland. I watched it take off on the internet, then went outside and watched it zip over my town a little while later. The speed of it crossing the sky was incredible.

How does GPS work if we can't put satellites in space? What are all the satellites we can see in the nights sky? How do people communicate across the planet on mobiles phones that don't have access to telephone masts?

Or that you can quite often take a look at the ISS with a pair of binoculars...what do they say about that, it's NASA drawing the picture on your lens? :D:D

Jawgap

H3llR4iser wrote: »

Or that you can quite often take a look at the ISS with a pair of binoculars...what do they say about that, it's NASA drawing the picture on your lens? :D:D

If you know where and when to look you can also see Iridium flares - they're cause by reflections from the Iridium sattelites.