Quote from: renclod on 03/06/2012 09:29 pmQuote "The pad will then host a test launch in 2014, via the use of an existing Shuttle Mobile Launch Platform (MLP), conducted by a vehicle which can’t be named at this time due to an embargo." vehicle = launcher test vehiclevehicle = ascent abort test vehiclevehicle = pad abort test vehicleBut not any NASA managed vehicle
Quote "The pad will then host a test launch in 2014, via the use of an existing Shuttle Mobile Launch Platform (MLP), conducted by a vehicle which can’t be named at this time due to an embargo." vehicle = launcher test vehiclevehicle = ascent abort test vehiclevehicle = pad abort test vehicle
"The pad will then host a test launch in 2014, via the use of an existing Shuttle Mobile Launch Platform (MLP), conducted by a vehicle which can’t be named at this time due to an embargo."
(Proponent's thought of an engine-less core + SRB test is intriguing, but appears to fail the cost-benefit analysis)
Re Liberty: is there any sign at all that the money has been committed to develop it? What I'm aware of thus far are press releases, and those are cheap. And if by "Liberty" we mean a vehicle with a dummy upper stage, then it's more accuarately characterized as an Ares I-X or I-Y.
For the test launch from LC39B in 2014.. the only real possibility is a Liberty test flight.Orbiter
Please commence speculation regarding:Quote "The pad will then host a test launch in 2014, via the use of an existing Shuttle Mobile Launch Platform (MLP), conducted by a vehicle which can’t be named at this time due to an embargo." -Alex
Quote from: PahTo on 03/06/2012 08:28 pmFinally read the article, don't like to post without at least reading!Based on the fact it is a shuttle MLP, it is likely to be Liberty--Huh?, Liberty would use the Ares I MLP
Finally read the article, don't like to post without at least reading!Based on the fact it is a shuttle MLP, it is likely to be Liberty--
Quote from: alexw on 03/06/2012 04:28 amPlease commence speculation regarding:Quote "The pad will then host a test launch in 2014, via the use of an existing Shuttle Mobile Launch Platform (MLP), conducted by a vehicle which can’t be named at this time due to an embargo." -AlexThis should add fuel to the fire, per L2 ( presentation from last year)http://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=25508.0
Quote from: Jim on 03/07/2012 12:24 amQuote from: renclod on 03/06/2012 09:29 pmQuote "The pad will then host a test launch in 2014, via the use of an existing Shuttle Mobile Launch Platform (MLP), conducted by a vehicle which can’t be named at this time due to an embargo." vehicle = launcher test vehiclevehicle = ascent abort test vehiclevehicle = pad abort test vehicleBut not any NASA managed vehicle OK then :Boeing CST-100 pad abort test launch, 2014, from MLP ?
That said, 'embargo' does raise questions about possible other projects being developed in secrecy, specifically:* Atlas-V Heavy (crew rated) as a 'back up' Orion launcher;* Delta-IV or Atlas-V with EELV Phase-I upgrades (the former more likely) for secret DoD outsized payloads;* EELV Phase-II with the long-hinted-at 1Mlbf+ core engines & NG upper stage powerplant for said rumoured outsized DoD payloads.
Quote from: Ben the Space Brit on 03/07/2012 11:58 amThat said, 'embargo' does raise questions about possible other projects being developed in secrecy, specifically:* Atlas-V Heavy (crew rated) as a 'back up' Orion launcher;* Delta-IV or Atlas-V with EELV Phase-I upgrades (the former more likely) for secret DoD outsized payloads;* EELV Phase-II with the long-hinted-at 1Mlbf+ core engines & NG upper stage powerplant for said rumoured outsized DoD payloads.Those would not be developed in secrecy.
Quote from: yg1968 on 03/06/2012 02:45 pm"The pad will then host a test launch in 2014, via the use of an existing Shuttle Mobile Launch Platform (MLP), conducted by a vehicle which can’t be named at this time due to an embargo." What about a test of a man-rated FAlcon 9? Although it -could- be launched from LC-40, obviously LC-40 isn't set up to launch crews, and I think would need a lot of mods to do so. SpaceX -seems- like they have a pretty full manifest of commercial payloads and ISS resupply missions for the next few years once they get COTS2/3 out from around their necks. so if they get that off and successfuly, LC-40 will likely be pretty tied up and busy for the next few years and it would probably be pretty difficult to shut it down to do a bunch more modifications for crew capability (or for FH capability). SpaceX will have VAFB, but probably not for a few more reas before they are launching regularly from there. And that's not going to be where they launch equitorial orbits like ISS resupply. SO LC-40 will need to be operational going forward for SPaceX. Plus I'm sure that NASA would rather launch their crews from LC-39.So, over the next few years, a Shuttle MLP is modified to launch F9 crew(and maybe FH too, just like LC-37 can launch D4 or D4H). As well as RP-1 being added to the pads. Isn't 2014 when NASA is hoping to have commercial crew going anyway? Crew DRagon will probably be the first commercial crew vehicle ready. If they don't launch from LC-40 (and that doesn't seem likely in my humble opinion), they'd launch from LC-39.Prior to launching an actual crew, I'd think they'd want to do a full dress rehersal and test flight. WIth all the equipment in place just like the real thing. The test flight would probably have test dummies in it full of sensors to minitor the whole flight, orbit, docking with ISS, and EDL. A full simulated crewed flight ahead of actually putting people in it. And such a full dress rehersal would likely be done where they'll actually be launching the crews from, which is likely LC-39, once everything is in place and ready for crews.LC-40 stays with launching commercial payloads as is on F9, and cargo-DRago ISS supply missions.Just a guess....
My guess is that SpaceX would be unable to man-rate an F9, without NASA having spilled the beans some time ago. Particularly since in your scenario SpaceX would use - and modify - a lot of NASA hardware (LC-39, shuttle MLP, etc.) IMO an unlikely scenario.
Quote from: woods170 on 03/08/2012 08:59 pmMy guess is that SpaceX would be unable to man-rate an F9, without NASA having spilled the beans some time ago. Particularly since in your scenario SpaceX would use - and modify - a lot of NASA hardware (LC-39, shuttle MLP, etc.) IMO an unlikely scenario.Why would SpaceX need to modify anything but the MLP? LC-39B is already planned to be multi-user.