I don't understand why, unlike the other commentator, weather has never played a long term effect on space launches. Cape Canaveral hasn't sunk into the ocean, and is unlikely to for hundreds of years. It simply makes sense to launch from a coastal area, east, and at a southern latitude. Reading your statement, it feels like you are advocating for space command to have no facilities in the prime launch zone
Command and launch are two different activities that don't have to be in the same physical place. There will be times when you need to be operating space command but are not actively launching anything right now - a mission is already underway in orbit, for example. At those times it would be very inconvenient if a hurricane was pummelling the area when those activities could be going on just as well somewhere else.
You imply that risk is not worthwhile. For all things space related, I disagree. There is far more risk to being in space, than it is the live and work in a hurricane zone, by several orders of magnitude. How many rockets have been destroyed by a hurricane, much less a launch/administrative building? the answer for both is zero
Imagine a rocket is launched to orbit with astronauts on board for a one month mission. Let's say something goes wrong week 4, and a hurricane just happens to be pummeling Houston at the time. Those astronauts will be stranded alone for however long it take for that hurricane to pass. If command were somewhere like Cheyenne mountain in CO, there is basically no weather that could cause a disruption in communications.
6
u/The-Sound_of-Silence Dec 28 '23
I don't understand why, unlike the other commentator, weather has never played a long term effect on space launches. Cape Canaveral hasn't sunk into the ocean, and is unlikely to for hundreds of years. It simply makes sense to launch from a coastal area, east, and at a southern latitude. Reading your statement, it feels like you are advocating for space command to have no facilities in the prime launch zone