It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.


Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.


Sell off Cape Canaveral

page: 1

log in


posted on Jun, 9 2005 @ 10:04 PM
50 Years ago when the space age was beginning, an infrastructure of assembly buildings, launch pads and fuel manufacture was necessary to support the building and launching of rockets into orbit and beyond.
Because of its’ location, Cape Canaveral was chosen. It is as close to the equator as could be found in the continental U.S., and boosters could drop harmlessly into the Atlantic ocean after launch.
The 6000 acres of the Kennedy Space Center, including the Vehicle Assembly building, an army of support and security staff is, now however, obsolete.
Non-fixed-site space launch from the ocean is now a well-practiced reality: medium size payloads using a Russian booster
has put dozens of satellites into GTO for years now.
A heavy lift concept employing a pressure fed motor could be built using the same idea:
For manned space flight, the air launch method seems to offer a number of advantages. Current use is limited to small payloads
But larger scale plans seem to make sense as well:
The value of the under utilized land that composes the KSC is, literally, astronomical. Billions could be made developing it into a habitable piece of real estate.

posted on Jun, 10 2005 @ 02:06 AM
This should be a "World Heritage Site". So I think I'll pass on a KSC Condo.

I did read through your links though.... I always thought the idea of the carrier aircraft was a great way to go for manned missions to LEO. If you have your carrier take the rocket to 80,000 ft. and have a second plane do the fueling at altitude you would be able to lift that much more. And for a lot less money than a shuttle launch. But that would be just people and very limited cargo (please stow your carry on bag in the overhead bin).

I'd like to see the current stack used for the shuttle converted to an unmanned cargo carrier, and that would be used as a space station componant once it was docked and unloaded. You could just jetison the engine pack into the Pacific and keep the container and maybe even the big fuel tank. NASA seems to waste so much hardware that they paid good money for, only to have it plunge back to Earth in a fiery reentry.

Anyway, interesting post. We'll see what the rest of the rabble have to say...

posted on Jun, 10 2005 @ 05:56 AM
It is also possible that the sale of land that rightfully belongs to N.A.S.A. may be a liability to that agencey. I also think that after last year's multiple storms that hit the surrounding areas, N.A.S.A. could be looking to dump the land. Why invest anymore money into programs that continue to be torn up due to massive storms in the area concerned? It does sit right in the middle of a flood plain.

posted on Jun, 10 2005 @ 08:15 AM

Why would you want to put me out of a job? That isn't very nice...

posted on Jun, 10 2005 @ 08:51 PM
Don't worry, T.J., I think your job is safe:

posted on Jun, 12 2005 @ 08:33 PM
Florida state and local legislatures are hard at work on keeping Americas space program right where it's at. The high paying high tech jobs are important to the economy. As a resident of central Florida I know how important those jobs are. Whatever the future of NASA launch vehicals is, it is very enticing for any locale to vie for that distinction as being "Americas Gateway To Space". Just because the shuttle is in it's sunset years doesn't mean we should abandon the enormous national investment that has been made in the Kennedy Space Center and Canaveral Air station. I say build all the new advanced spacecraft you want, keep the Cape!!!!!

posted on Jun, 12 2005 @ 09:00 PM
When I visited Cape Canaveral (I have several time), I was told that its programs and the Visitor Center are actually moneymaker. It's a wonderful educational and research facility and to scrap it would be terribly shortsighted.

posted on Jun, 12 2005 @ 09:17 PM
Oooh, yea I want to buy real estate on marsh scrub land that floods my basement everytime it rains with a veiw outside my widows of my neighbors aluminum siding right next to me.

why couldn't it be converted into a nature conservatory instead? or museum?

*shakes head* never will happen

posted on Jun, 12 2005 @ 09:17 PM
Yes, NASA is making money.

It is in fact a vast welfare scheme.
Here's hoping Griffen is changing things.
Don't hold your breath.

The thousands of acres of mangrove swamp are not a part of KSC.
Are you seriously saying 6 miles of Florida coastline aren't worth serious bucks?

[edit on 12-6-2005 by Realist05]

posted on Jun, 13 2005 @ 08:48 AM

Originally posted by Realist05

Are you seriously saying 6 miles of Florida coastline aren't worth serious bucks?

Well consider how much toxic rocket fuel has been spilled, dumped, burnt on those launch pads. Can you imagine if they actually did try to sell it how much clean up costs would be?

The entire Cape area is actually already a wildlife refuge anyway, it's The Canaveral National Seashore Wildlife Refuge. Since it's a national park and protected by Federal law I think the idea of selling it is a moot point anyway.

new topics

top topics


log in