Talk:Kennedy Space Center

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Kennedy Space Center article.
Article policies
This article is within the scope of the following WikiProjects:

Contents

[edit] Removal of the reference to Jules Verne

This is a comment on the edit I performed, dated 08:48, 27 July 2005 which removed the following from the "History" section:

"In 1865 Jules Verne first described in his novel From the Earth to the Moon the launch of a rocket from Cape Canaveral."

The reason for this edit is that the Columbiad (the name of the giant cannon used to fire a crewed canon shell to the moon) was not based in Cape Canaveral. It was indeed based in florida, in a fictional location called stone hill, just south of Lake Okeechobee. An illustration from the original edition shows its location, and can be found on the following page:

http://www.fourmilab.ch/etexts/www/talune/talune_chap11.html

The idea that Jules Verne based his fictional moon expedition in the same location that would be used a century later in the Apollo programme is very seductive but nonetheless inaccurate. It is in the interest of factual accuracy that this scentence was edited from the article.

[edit] Requested move

John F. Kennedy Space Center → Kennedy Space Center – Although it is officially named John F. Kennedy Space Center, by far the most commonly used name is Kennedy Space Center. Naming conventions state that the most common usage should be used, so this page should be moved to comply. GW_SimulationsUser Page | Talk 21:17, 2 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Survey

  • Support Its been a while since I lived in Orlando, but I seem to recall that even the people workin at the Space Center called it the Kennedy Space Center. TomStar81 22:59, 2 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Weak Oppose I believe that the official name might be more appropriate. "Kennedy Space Center" redirects here so people can't miss the page.--Húsönd 00:50, 3 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Oppose - as the common name is just a shortening of the full name, it is better to use the full name here. -- Beardo 03:26, 3 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Support: use common name. Bubba ditto 00:25, 6 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Support: Per nom. Even the map picture at the top of the article says "Kennedy Space Center". —Wknight94 (talk) 03:22, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Discussion

  • I could go either way, but it's usually abbreviated as KSC, and sometimes referred to as Cape Canaveral. 132.205.44.134 04:12, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] "Beans are Go!" at KSC

I would like to see someone do a section on the human touch to the operations at KSC. For example, see this article: http://enterfiringroom.ksc.nasa.gov/funFactBeans.htm

[edit] Why Cape Canaveral?

I'd like to see it explained why Cape Canaveral was chosen for the Kennedy Space Center. --Criticalthinker 06:09, 26 December 2006 (UTC)

KSC is there because CCAFS was there. That article says,

The area had been used by the government since 1949 when President Harry S. Truman established the Joint Long Range Proving Grounds at Cape Canaveral to test missiles. The location was among the best in continental USA for this purpose as it allowed for launches out toward the Atlantic Ocean, and it was closer to the equator than most other parts of the United States allowing for rockets to get a boost from the earth's rotation.

(sdsds - talk) 16:07, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Why is Cape Canaveral not a perfect location

The rotation velocity of the earth at equator is 465.11 m/s. There is a trigonometric relation between the latitude of an area on earth and the rotation velocity of this area. Rotation velocity of a point on earth = 465.11 * cos latitude of that point. For a latitude of 28° as in Cape Canaveral the factor cos 28° is about 88%. For a latitude of 5° as in Kourou the factor cos 5° is about 99.6%. This tranlates in a rotation velocity eastward of about 405 m/s in Cape Canaveral and about 465 m/s in Kourou. Sending satellites to geostationary transfer orbit (GTO) requests less adjustement in the course if the launching site is near the equator. I have no recent numbers but a few years ago Arianespace held more than 50 percent of the world market for boosting satellites to GTO. Russian built Soyuz rockets are to be launched from Kourou in late 2008. --Ridow 10:00, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

Great math! Unfortunately in Wikipedia 2+2 does not = 4, unless an editor can find a reference which says so! Sorry. Student7 12:20, 9 July 2007 (UTC)
Great job to be done! There is a couple of milions of formulations in WP without a reference. Please warm up with all the parts in the Kennedy Space Center article without a reference.--Ridow 15:17, 9 July 2007 (UTC)
I agree (a bit late here, sorry). It does seem unfair to us later editors to make us put references on stuff when the original editors got away with placing a couple of references at the bottom. The best thing to do is to be an originator of an article! Get away with more! :) I do mostly place references on all my stuff, particularly when I'm inserting one-liners. I really do try with new articles, too (seeing what happened in the bad old days). Please help maintain the credibility of Wikipedia articles by (in turn) challenging other editors. This is why and how I started. Other editors challenged my statements! Thanks for your contribution (even though it got moved). Student7 16:25, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

Most of this belongs in the CCAFS article, not the KSC article. The only orbits currently of interest for KSC are ISS rendezvous and Hubble rendezvous. That's because currently only the Shuttle launches from KSC, and those are the only two destinations for any of the remaining Shuttle flights. Discussion of the site's characteristics for launching into equatorial geostationary orbit is not pertinent to the article. (Perhaps starting a ==Future use== section, where it could have some pertinence, makes sense?) Also, although the math is logical, it isn't iron-clad, e.g. it does not include potential atmospheric effects. In any case the desirability of low latitudes and east-facing coastlines for geostationary launch sites should be easy to reference. Maybe the spaceport article would be a good place for it? (sdsds - talk) 16:00, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

Hi Sdsds. The name of the section was Current use so maybe my contribution is not at the right place. But I think that the absence of such launches from KSC is in part explained by the advantage of the geographic location of Kourou over KSC. That why I see these small formulations as part of the KSC article. (The other explanation is the abscence of a US launcher able to match the offering of Arianespace but it's an other problem). What do you think?--Ridow 16:23, 9 July 2007 (UTC)
By the way, I've put a reference with American measurements to please the readers. --Ridow 16:27, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

As the articles on Cape Canaveral and Cape Canaveral Air Force Station note, the US wanted a location on the mainland US for logistics reasons. South Florida was already well-populated (Miami - Palm Beach). Cape Canaveral offered a large area of undeveloped or lightly-developed and -populated land, with the Cape ("projection of land into the ocean") offering less risk to populated areas. Perhaps not perfect, but everything is a trade-off. It was the best balance of factors. Unimaginative Username (talk) 01:23, 30 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] WikiProject class rating

This article was automatically assessed because at least one WikiProject had rated the article as start, and the rating on other projects was brought up to start class. BetacommandBot 16:46, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Shorter names in Spaceport template

Regarding the template {{Spaceport}} used on this page, please join the discussion at Template talk:Spaceport#Shorter names.
(sdsds - talk) 23:20, 22 November 2007 (UTC)


[edit] Budget

We have nothing about budget in here. Fl Today, 1/23/08 had editorial with $70,000 ave per worker, $600 million payroll. $4 billion economic impact on Florida. Doesn't seem to fit neatly in article. These factoids seema a bit too jerky for "prime time." Need something more cohesive. Student7 (talk) 17:01, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

  • I'm not sure, but it might be difficult to get a KSC specific budget. Consider adding an economic impact sentence(s) for the area instead. Just an idea. -Fnlayson (talk) 17:14, 23 January 2008 (UTC)