JSC is evacuating the Mission Control Center in anticipation of the monster storm that may be about to hit them. One wonders what would happen if there was an Orbiter in orbit right now--I don't think they could just hand that off to the Russians. It makes one question the wisdom of putting a supposedly vital function in such a vulnerable area. There are good geographic reasons for the location of KSC, and Michoud, but having the manned spaceflight center in Houston is an historical accident, because they got a donation from Rice for the land (and it probably didn't hurt that LBJ happened to be from Texas).

There is a reason, after all, that NORAD is inside the Mountain, and it might make sense for NASA mission control to be in a similarly-secure place.

On the other hand, it also begs the question of whether or not mission control, sixties style, is really needed, or if it's just a relic of the way we happened to do it then. That space systems are still designed to require the support of hundreds of people on the ground says that maybe there's something wrong with the way we design them. And it's not obvious that the new architecture is going to address that.

I don't know of course but .. surely there is a backup location manned during a launch.

Mission Control for Spaceship One was a few guys with laptops. The military is moving in the same direction--there was a Command Vehicle planned in the 90s with all kinds of specialized computers, that was cancelled as part of downsizing. However, some of the vehicles had already been built, and just didn't have any computers in them. So, when OIF came up, some commanders scrounging around found them, grabbed them, and put staff with laptops in them--worked even better than the originally planned system would have.

Mission Control is ultimately about data and comms; you don't need a multi-million dollar facility for that. You just need something with survivable (read: reliable and redundant) comms to the mission package. Build a nice conference room with plenty of jacks, and fill it with people as needed.

Well, one could do worse than Colorado Springs for a backup site. The Federal government already has plenty of property there on which NASA could be a subtenant. Alternatively one could use Dryden, which only has earthquakes to worry about.

If a regional ATC center goes out, the FAA simply hot-switches over to the other nearby regional ATCs. Perhaps it's time to start setting up Space Traffic Control centers.

OTOH, I wonder what the old Looking Glass planes are doing these days...

- Eric.

Interestingly, Bigelow looks like he's going to follow NASA by putting his mission operations in Houston.

"OTOH, I wonder what the old Looking Glass planes are doing these days..."

http://www.fas.org/nuke/guide/usa/c3i/n19980922_981443.html

Looking Glass passes torch
Released: 22 Sep 1998

by Navy Journalist Second Class Michael J. Meridith
U.S. Strategic Command Public Affairs

OFFUTT AIR FORCE BASE, Neb. (AFNS) -- The nuclear threat that spawned the Looking Glass mission may seem to many a distant memory in a world without dueling superpowers. That mission began more than 37 years ago, with the Air Force's EC-135 aircraft and its task of being an airborne nuclear command post.

In the event the Strategic Air Command (now U.S. Strategic Command) underground Command Center was destroyed or became disabled, Looking Glass would take over. In fact, the term "Looking Glass" refers to the EC-135's ability to mirror all the capabilities of that command center.

Although the Cold War is over, a radically changing world environment, proliferation of weapons of mass destruction, and political uncertainty in countries possessing nuclear weapons are just a few reasons why the Looking Glass mission remains as vital today as when it began in 1961. That mission however, will soon be undergoing a change of "platform."

On Sept. 25, the Air Force's venerable EC-135 aircraft will hand over its Looking Glass mission of command, control, and communications of the nation's strategic nuclear forces to the Navy's E-6B "Take Charge and Move Out" aircraft.

*********************

http://www.stratcom.mil/organization-tf.html

Airborne Communications
The Navy's E-6B Mercury aircraft provide a survivable communications link between national decision-makers and the nation's strategic forces. An airborne command post, the E-6B enables the President and the Secretary of Defense to directly contact crews on the nation's ballistic missile submarines, land-based intercontinental ballistic missiles and long-range bombers. E-6B aircraft are assigned to Strategic Communications Wing One, Tinker AFB, Okla.

When I was living in Cambridge, MA in the 1980s, there was a large plot of undeveloped land owned by the Federal Government near Kendall Square. I was told that plot was the intended spot for Mission Control. Then Kennedy was shot, Johnson became president, and for some reason, Mission Control was moved to Houston.

If anyone has any real information about this, I'ld love to hear it.

Larry has the basics right, though the politics was even more of a driver. NASA actually built at least one building here (I walk past it every day) that is now used by DOT (the Volpe Center). It is literally on the edge of the MIT campus.

The manned spaceflight center was originally intended to be in Cambridge to take advantage of MIT, Draper Labs (who performed much of the trajectory analysis and GN&C work) and Lincoln Labs. Being JFK's home state probably didn't hurt, either. Spacecraft development was to be managed at the NACA Langley facility.

LBJ pushed hard for putting the facilities in the South, and after JFK was assassinated, had a free hand. This was all detailed in an MIT press book "Hidden Agenda: The Apollo Program and the Re-industrialization of the South", probably long out of print.

There is NO backup for the JSC MCC. A duplicate "Blue MCC" was built at (IIRC) Cheyenne Mountain, but it was disassembled long ago.

While it is true that Rutan's MCC for Spaceship 1 was orders of magnitude simpler than the MCC, so was the vehicle. Most people don't realize that 90% of the marching army supporting Shuttle missions consists of subsystem support and analysis teams, something that could be reduced on a more modern vehicle, but not eliminated - airlines have equivalent teams, they are just spread out to cover thousands of flights/year.

When I worked on SS Freedom, the original NASA requirement was to have the crew do all the activity planning/scheduling and subsystem analysis ("complete autonomy"). That lasted right up until we did the trades and realized that using on-orbit time, at 10s of thousands of dollars/man-hour, to manipulate schedules was how shall I put this..... stupid.