Why is Nasa in Florida

[JustStuit]

We were discussing this with my Uncle today. Why was Florida chosen to house Nasa. Is there any scientific reason that it should be in Florida? He thinks that Florida had some political influence (senators, money, etc), i.e. politics got it here. Other speculations included being near the ocean, near the equator, and cheaper land.

[Aardvark]

Being nearer the equator is an important factor. There may have been a degree of pork barrel politics involved, but Florida does seem a relatively logical place for Nasa.

[pcs]

Close to the equator (higher tangential velocity at launch), it's on the Atlantic, and that's where we used to test our first missiles.

[Cap'n Refsmmat]

Being near the equator gives it the advantage of giving the rockets launched there a 800mph boost in speed. It's also on the coast, which means if the rocket blows up it falls into the water instead of killing civilians (NASA was going to build another launch site in California, but scrubbed it because of Challenger proving that the Shuttle could fall apart, and decreased speed boost from latitude).

[Pangloss]

Being near the equator gives it the advantage of giving the rockets launched there a 800mph boost in speed.

 

Not to take that too literally or anything, but is it actually an 800 mph boost over all other locations? I mean, Savannah (for example) would presumably be moving at some decent percentage of that, would it not?

 

 

(Breif mod note: As we see from the above the answer is not political in nature (no harm in asking the question, though), but if anybody would like to discuss the political aspects of NASA's continued existance in the Sunshine State, and the influence it has on politics, that might be interesting. If not I may go ahead and move it over to Physics or something.)

[JustStuit]

I am interested in the political side of this if anyone has anything to add.

[Cap'n Refsmmat]

Not to take that too literally or anything, but is it actually an 800 mph boost[/i'] over all other locations? I mean, Savannah (for example) would presumably be moving at some decent percentage of that, would it not?

Well, boost over what you'd get if the Earth didn't rotate at all. But the closer to the equator you are, the less fuel the rocket requires, which is certainly advantageous. When NASA was considering launching from California, they had to design fiberglass booster casings to reduce weight and make up for the lost rotational speed.

 

 

(Breif mod note: As we see from the above the answer is not political in nature (no harm in asking the question, though), but if anybody would like to discuss the political aspects of NASA's continued existance in the Sunshine State, and the influence it has on politics, that might be interesting. If not I may go ahead and move it over to Physics or something.)

The political bit would be Johnson Space Center in Houston. There's already a control facility in Cape Canaveral, so the Houston space center really wasn't worth it: just an extra few million in personnel and construction costs, plus shuttling astronauts back and forth. (Canaveral handles launches/landings, and Houston handles the rest... but both are capable of handling the entire thing). Johnson Space Center was mostly created because Lyndon Johnson is from Texas.

[Pangloss]

That's interesting. I think the Vandenburg site is only about 6 or 7 hundred miles north in latitude. I didn't realize it made that much of a difference. But of course I'm sure these things are calculated to the nth degree, so the difference was probably more one of payload capacity than actual "can we reach orbit" questions. But I digress. Very interesting, Cap'n, thanks.

[insane_alien]

The closer to the equator you go the better:

-already have rotational velocity

-slightly lower gravity(due to the earths bulge and the centrifuge effect)

-lots of sun to give your astronauts a nice tan.

 

the only political side i can think of is having to put it in your own country.

[Pangloss]

Lower gravity? Seriously?

 

How much lower?

[insane_alien]

not enough to be noticable by humans but it is measurable and its enough to affect fuel consumption. if you factor in the savings from the initial velocity you can get to orbit with roughly 30kg less fuel for the space shuttle. while this seems small it allows you to carry extra payload, more provisions for longer flights, greater flexibility with orbital manouvres, higher orbits etc. its the small things that count in space.

[Cap'n Refsmmat]

That's interesting. I think the Vandenburg site is only about 6 or 7 hundred miles north in latitude. I didn't realize it made that much of a difference. But of course I'm sure these things are calculated to the nth degree, so the difference was probably more one of payload capacity than actual "can we reach orbit" questions. But I digress. Very interesting, Cap'n, thanks.

Indeed. It's latitude that matters. At Kennedy Space Center (28.5 degrees north), there's a boost of around 911 mph. The French have a launch site in French Guiana, latitude 5 degrees, which lets them get closer to their 1035 mph possible boost. As insane_alien said, every little bit counts.

[CPL.Luke]

speaking of lower gravity, where does china make there launches from? its an interesting question because they have access to the tibetan plateu which is something like 5 miles above sea level.

[insane_alien]

speaking of lower gravity, where does china make there launches from? its an interesting question because they have access to the tibetan plateu which is something like 5 miles above sea level.

 

can't remember but isn't the tibetan platform a bit far north. i think you get a better fuel saving by launching at the southernmost part of the country. its rotation that is the major factor in space launches. the lower gravity is just a bit on the side.

[ecoli]

Close to cuba? For defense reseasons??

[JustStuit]

How often does China launch rockets?

[insane_alien]

How often does China launch rockets?

 

Not very.

[swansont]

Indeed. It's latitude that matters. At Kennedy Space Center (28.5 degrees north), there's a boost of around 911 mph. The French have a launch site in French Guiana, latitude 5 degrees, which lets them get closer to their 1035 mph possible boost. As insane_alien said, every little bit counts.

 

There also the desired orbit to consider. Some orbits are equatorial, like geostationary orbits for communications satellites, and some are polar, like spy satellites. The natural inclination of an orbit is the launch latitude. If you have a choice, you don't want to launch a polar orbit from an equatorial site, nor equatorial from high latitude, because then you waste fuel redirecting the payload. So equatorial orbits are launched from Canaveral, and polar from Vandenberg, which is further north.

[CPL.Luke]

isn't the main reason for launching off of vandenberg the fact taht the ocean is in more of an east west line than in other places, allowing launch to polar orbit over the ocean

[starbug1]

would weather have a factor in any of this?

[JustStuit]

would weather have a factor in any of this?

I don't think so. If you knew Florida weather....

Unless you mean climate - it is hot all the time.

[swansont]

isn't the main reason for launching off of vandenberg the fact taht the ocean is in more of an east west line than in other places, allowing launch to polar orbit over the ocean

 

Vandenberg is in California, and they launch to the east, so it doesn't go over the ocean. At least not for a little while.

 

If there was good weather in Maine, Minnesota or Alaska in the winter, they'd likely launch polar orbits from there.