Author Topic: Major KSC refurbishment work continuing ahead of SLS and Orion debuts  (Read 65363 times)

Online Galactic Penguin SST

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 vehicle
vehicle = ascent abort test vehicle
vehicle = pad abort test vehicle

But not any NASA managed vehicle

Then I'll pull a rabbit out of this one: how about something suborbital from Blue Origin?  ::)

Seriously if someone is trying to use an old Shuttle MLP for an launch, it's gotta be something that involves testing of an LV (assuming the MLP will be dumped after one or two launches a la Ares-I-X and MLP-1), and one that could be adapted without too much trouble. Liberty is definitely the highest thing on the list.
Astronomy & spaceflight geek penguin. In a relationship w/ Space Shuttle Discovery. Current Priority: Chasing the Chinese Spaceflight Wonder Egg & A Certain Chinese Mars Rover

Offline Proponent

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 7277
  • Liked: 2782
  • Likes Given: 1462
(Proponent's thought of an engine-less core + SRB test is intriguing, but appears to fail the cost-benefit analysis)

It certainly fails my cost-benefit analysis, but from, say, Sen. Nelson's point of view things might look different.
« Last Edit: 03/07/2012 01:48 am by Proponent »

Offline Proponent

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 7277
  • Liked: 2782
  • Likes Given: 1462
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.

Offline Jason1701

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2232
  • Liked: 70
  • Likes Given: 152
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.

What I'm aware of is press releases, undamped speculation on difficult technical issues, and a total lack of customers.

Offline edkyle99

  • Expert
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 15391
    • Space Launch Report
  • Liked: 8566
  • Likes Given: 1356
For the test launch from LC39B in 2014.. the only real possibility is a Liberty test flight.

Orbiter

Here's my guess, FWIW.  There was a report late last year that NASA planned to move an Orion abort (LAS) flight test from New Mexico to Cape Canaveral - specifically LC46 - using a Peacekeeper-based booster.  Perhaps that test has been moved to LC39B. 

Then there's my second, less likely guess:  Athena 3.  Athena 3 would use a first stage composed of 2.5 SRB segments, so it would fit on an MLP.  2014 is a push for an all-new development, however.

 - Ed Kyle

Offline Danderman

  • Extreme Veteran
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 10288
  • Liked: 699
  • Likes Given: 723
Getting back to the refurbishment issue, is this part of the Obama announcement back in 2009 about modernizing KSC?

Offline Ronsmytheiii

  • Moderator
  • Global Moderator
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 23394
  • Liked: 1879
  • Likes Given: 1023
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

This should add fuel to the fire, per L2 ( presentation from last year)

http://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=25508.0

Offline renclod

  • Extreme Veteran
  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1671
  • EU.Ro
  • Liked: 17
  • Likes Given: 2
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 vehicle
vehicle = ascent abort test vehicle
vehicle = pad abort test vehicle

But not any NASA managed vehicle

OK then :

Boeing CST-100 pad abort test launch, 2014, from MLP ?

« Last Edit: 03/07/2012 07:26 am by renclod »

Offline woods170

  • IRAS fan
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 12096
  • IRAS fan
  • The Netherlands
  • Liked: 18202
  • Likes Given: 12162

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--

Huh?, Liberty would use the Ares I MLP

No, the Ares 1 ML has been assigned to SLS. Liberty planned on using the Ares 1 ML but after the SLS intervention they changed course and intended to fly Liberty off a converted shuttle MLP.

Offline woods170

  • IRAS fan
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 12096
  • IRAS fan
  • The Netherlands
  • Liked: 18202
  • Likes Given: 12162
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

This should add fuel to the fire, per L2 ( presentation from last year)

http://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=25508.0

If it is indeed the vehicle listed to fly off pad 39 in FY2014, per the presentation, then we should expect construction of mods to the MLP to start this year. That particular vehicle cannot fly off the current SRB launch mounts.

@ Chris Bergin: note my carefull wording above to avoid giving away any contents of the linked L2 presentation.  ;D

Offline Jim

  • Night Gator
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 37441
  • Cape Canaveral Spaceport
  • Liked: 21451
  • Likes Given: 428
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 vehicle
vehicle = ascent abort test vehicle
vehicle = pad abort test vehicle

But not any NASA managed vehicle

OK then :

Boeing CST-100 pad abort test launch, 2014, from MLP ?

there are cheaper and more readily available alternatives.

Offline Ben the Space Brit

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 7206
  • A spaceflight fan
  • London, UK
  • Liked: 806
  • Likes Given: 900
My guess that the mystery test flight is what used to be called Ares-I-X Prime, the flight test of the in-line 5-seg with Ares-I-X-style dummy upper stage.  Even though Ares-I is cancelled Liberty is still at least technically in development.  In any case, I can see them wanting to proceed with this flight just to keep the skills of the LC-39 team up-to-date.

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.

In all cases, these would be launched from LC-39 because it keeps the team gainfully employed and, as LC-39B is to be a multi-role 'clean' pad, it would be simpler to launch a one-off test from there without having to construct a purpose-built pad for a prototype.

FWIW, though, I consider Ares-I-X-Prime most likely.


[edit]
Corrected typo
« Last Edit: 03/07/2012 01:12 pm by Ben the Space Brit »
"Oops! I left the silly thing in reverse!" - Duck Dodgers

~*~*~*~

The Space Shuttle Program - 1981-2011

The time for words has passed; The time has come to put up or shut up!
DON'T PROPAGANDISE, FLY!!!

Offline Jim

  • Night Gator
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 37441
  • Cape Canaveral Spaceport
  • Liked: 21451
  • Likes Given: 428


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.


Those would not be developed in secrecy.

Offline PahTo

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1698
  • Port Angeles
  • Liked: 271
  • Likes Given: 1194

As woods170 pointed out, the Ares MLP has been re-purposed to SLS.

Also, Ares 1X used a shuttle MLP, so it's reasonable step to use it for Ares 1Y (re-badged as something Liberty related).

Having said that, some form of (non Liberty) pad abort test is reasonable too.  Not exactly a launch in the classic sense, but...


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--

Huh?, Liberty would use the Ares I MLP

Offline Robotbeat

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 39271
  • Minnesota
  • Liked: 25240
  • Likes Given: 12115


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.


Those would not be developed in secrecy.
None of those things seem likely at all, but what do you think it is? ;)
Chris  Whoever loves correction loves knowledge, but he who hates reproof is stupid.

To the maximum extent practicable, the Federal Government shall plan missions to accommodate the space transportation services capabilities of United States commercial providers. US law http://goo.gl/YZYNt0

Offline Lobo

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 6915
  • Spokane, WA
  • Liked: 672
  • Likes Given: 437
"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....
« Last Edit: 03/08/2012 05:30 pm by Lobo »

Offline woods170

  • IRAS fan
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 12096
  • IRAS fan
  • The Netherlands
  • Liked: 18202
  • Likes Given: 12162
"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.

Offline Lobo

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 6915
  • Spokane, WA
  • Liked: 672
  • Likes Given: 437
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.

Oh well, it was worth a guess.  But isn't Commercial Crew supposed to be flying by 2014?  Something's going to have to start happening before too long to get that to happen.  And I don't think Crew DRagon will be launching from LC-40.

Offline yg1968

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 17267
  • Liked: 7123
  • Likes Given: 3065
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.

Why would SpaceX need to modify anything but the MLP? LC-39B is already planned to be multi-user.
« Last Edit: 03/08/2012 11:19 pm by yg1968 »

Offline Lobo

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 6915
  • Spokane, WA
  • Liked: 672
  • Likes Given: 437
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.

Why would SpaceX need to modify anything but the MLP? LC-39B is already planned to be multi-user.

That was kind of my thought.  Although the MLP is heavier than the ML base, the unfueld F9 is going to be incredibly light in comparison to the Shuttle.  So I think it's be a snap to modify the MLP to have a full tower with crew escape system, umbilical arms, and crew access arm, for crew Dragon/F9.  It certainly won't cause the CT to even work up a sweat. 
SpaceX is sort of the "Plan A " for NASA's commercial Crew (with all due respect to Boeing and SpaceDev/SNC and Blue Origin, I think those are more Plans B.)  The Shuttle MLP's have been designated for commercial already I think, so it would be really surpsrising to me if SpaceX wasn't going to get one.
If NASA wants crew Dragon flying by 2014, they'll probably want a full dress rehersal test flight sometime shortly before that.  It would mean that MLP modifications will probably start happening before too awful long.  ALthough I think the Ares 1 ML was built in like a year from scratch (correct me if that's wrong), so I'd assume SpaceX/NASA wouldn't need much more than a year to modify the MLP.  So maybe they start work on it sometime late this year or early next?  Be something to watch for anyway.

Other than the MLP, I think the only modification Pad 39B will need is it's RP-1 system restored, and I think that was part of the KSC upgrades anyway.

Conceivably, SpaceX might design the new MLP to accomodate FH as well as crew F9, so they don't have to interrupt LC-40 opperations to modify it for either while they are launching their F9 uncrewed contracts.  Or they might design it for crew DRagon/F9 only, as they might be able to build FH facilities at LC-40 at a 90 degree angle to the F9 facilities, where it might not inturrupt commercial and cargo F9 operations.  ( I think I read somewhere that that was a proposal they were considering)  I imagine SpaceX would rather not have to rely on NASA for it's commercial FH launches if they don't have to.  ;-)

Tags:
 

Advertisement NovaTech
Advertisement Northrop Grumman
Advertisement
Advertisement Margaritaville Beach Resort South Padre Island
Advertisement Brady Kenniston
Advertisement NextSpaceflight
Advertisement Nathan Barker Photography
1