Author Topic: Constellation press ahead with Pad 39B demolition  (Read 53172 times)


Offline Lars_J

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 6161
  • California
  • Liked: 664
  • Likes Given: 195
Re: Constellation press ahead with Pad 39B demolition
« Reply #1 on: 08/30/2010 02:17 AM »
So are 'rescue orbiter missions' going to be launched only from 39A then, I assume? How long does it take to turn around 39A for a new launch?

Offline RocketEconomist327

  • Rocket Economist
  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 805
  • Infecting the beltway with fiscal responsibility, limited government, and free markets.
  • Liked: 82
  • Likes Given: 62
Re: Constellation press ahead with Pad 39B demolition
« Reply #2 on: 08/30/2010 02:30 AM »
Lots of future vehicle relation in this:

http://www.nasaspaceflight.com/2010/08/crawler-repairs-constellation-press-pad-39b-demolition/
This is not good news.

Let me cut my nose off to save my face...
You can talk about all the great things you can do, or want to do, in space; but unless the rocket scientists get a sound understanding of economics (and quickly), the US space program will never achieve the greatness it should.

Putting my money where my mouth is.

Offline Chris Bergin

Re: Constellation press ahead with Pad 39B demolition
« Reply #3 on: 08/30/2010 02:56 AM »
So are 'rescue orbiter missions' going to be launched only from 39A then, I assume? How long does it take to turn around 39A for a new launch?

Yes, but they've been using 39A for all Shuttle - including a LON requirement - since 39B was handed over. The two pads were only required during STS-125/400 for the fast turnaround. All other missions go to ISS and thus if there was a problem, the next scheduled mission - from 39A - would become LON, as they can survive on ISS for several months.

Offline scotty125

  • Museum Docent/Leicester City Fan
  • Full Member
  • **
  • Posts: 215
  • Portland, Oregon
  • Liked: 1
  • Likes Given: 2
Re: Constellation press ahead with Pad 39B demolition
« Reply #4 on: 08/30/2010 03:54 AM »
I guess I just don't get it.  This penchant for action without any firm future plans is mystifying to me.  Sure looks a lot like scorched earth... Augustine should have recommended stopping the gutting of Michoud during the hearings, construction of the MLP should have been deferred until it was apparent Ares I was actually going to be the next big thing, and this demolition should be postponed until, again, future plans are established.  With the possibility of an HLV in some respects shuttle-derived, isn't it conceivable that some of the existing structure might be useful?  Must we continue these ridiculous expenditures without a plan in place?  It's not like anything is going to fly for 4-5 years anyway...a deferment of 6 months would hardly seem to kill any future possibilities.

Yet another attempt to keep PoR alive at all costs.  Rather than demolish 39B, maybe we should have an exorcism on site to purge the spirits of Griffin and his followers once and for all.  I'm sure they could spend a few million CxP dollars on it if that's the objective...Perhaps the authorization bill should include cease and desist language such that this crap stops until a coherent plan is established.
"He who will not, when he may, when he should, he shall have nay."
TV Commercial - Gulf Oil during Apollo Landings

Offline Ronsmytheiii

  • Moderator
  • Global Moderator
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 22325
  • Liked: 603
  • Likes Given: 244
Re: Constellation press ahead with Pad 39B demolition
« Reply #5 on: 08/30/2010 03:55 AM »
Lots of future vehicle relation in this:

http://www.nasaspaceflight.com/2010/08/crawler-repairs-constellation-press-pad-39b-demolition/
This is not good news.

Let me cut my nose off to save my face...

I am not so sure, Saturn V and STS used a single pad for the early parts of their program, and STS has been basically doing the same since RTF with exception of the STS-400 mission, so single pad ops should not be a major deal.  After all, Atlas V/Delta IV/Falcon IX all use single pad ops for an inclination
"Every vision is a joke until the first man accomplishes it; once realized, it becomes commonplace." - Robert Goddard

Offline TrueBlueWitt

  • Space Nut
  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1976
  • Mars in my lifetime!
  • DeWitt, MI
  • Liked: 60
  • Likes Given: 69
Re: Constellation press ahead with Pad 39B demolition
« Reply #6 on: 08/30/2010 04:23 AM »
Lots of future vehicle relation in this:

http://www.nasaspaceflight.com/2010/08/crawler-repairs-constellation-press-pad-39b-demolition/
This is not good news.

Let me cut my nose off to save my face...

I am not so sure, Saturn V and STS used a single pad for the early parts of their program, and STS has been basically doing the same since RTF with exception of the STS-400 mission, so single pad ops should not be a major deal.  After all, Atlas V/Delta IV/Falcon IX all use single pad ops for an inclination

Saturn V would get you to the moon in 1 launch.

For CxP 1.5 or dual launch(DIRECT).. don't you need the second launch within a few days or week at the outside?  How do you do this with 1 pad?  Unless you pland to save the 2nd pad money and use it for a Depot?
« Last Edit: 08/30/2010 04:32 AM by TrueBlueWitt »

Offline Ronsmytheiii

  • Moderator
  • Global Moderator
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 22325
  • Liked: 603
  • Likes Given: 244
Re: Constellation press ahead with Pad 39B demolition
« Reply #7 on: 08/30/2010 04:32 AM »
Saturn V would get you to the moon in 1 launch.

For CxP 1.5 or dual launch.. don't you need the second launch within a few days or week at the outside?  How do you do this with 1 pad?  Unless you plan to save the 2nd pad money and use it for a Depot?

I am assuming that we would be using the flexible plan outlined by the President and Senate, visiting NEO's and not actually putting boots in strong gravity wells initially (ie moon, and mars for awhile) Also dont forget that there are major concerns with the existing infrastructure (ie buildings that have been exposed to sea-air for 30+ years) so this may have been inevitable anyway.
« Last Edit: 08/30/2010 04:33 AM by Ronsmytheiii »
"Every vision is a joke until the first man accomplishes it; once realized, it becomes commonplace." - Robert Goddard

Offline TrueBlueWitt

  • Space Nut
  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1976
  • Mars in my lifetime!
  • DeWitt, MI
  • Liked: 60
  • Likes Given: 69
Re: Constellation press ahead with Pad 39B demolition
« Reply #8 on: 08/30/2010 04:40 AM »
Saturn V would get you to the moon in 1 launch.

For CxP 1.5 or dual launch.. don't you need the second launch within a few days or week at the outside?  How do you do this with 1 pad?  Unless you plan to save the 2nd pad money and use it for a Depot?

I am assuming that we would be using the flexible plan outlined by the President and Senate, visiting NEO's and not actually putting boots in strong gravity wells initially (ie moon, and mars for awhile) Also dont forget that there are major concerns with the existing infrastructure (ie buildings that have been exposed to sea-air for 30+ years) so this may have been inevitable anyway.


Is a single J-246 launch enough to get you to a NEO and back?  We talking minamalist touch and go?  Perhaps with an ATV or Bigelow based hab launched seperately on EELV or Ariane?

Offline Lars_J

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 6161
  • California
  • Liked: 664
  • Likes Given: 195
Re: Constellation press ahead with Pad 39B demolition
« Reply #9 on: 08/30/2010 05:58 AM »
What gives you the impression that we are going anywhere? Congress certainly doesn't think so. All it wants is jobs to build something. It doesn't have to go anywhere.

All this "build stuff prematurely" (Ares I tower) and "dismantle stuff prematurely" (39B) is fully in line with what they want to do. Give KSC and other HSF parts of NASA lots of "stuff to do" (jobs) without having to make much actual progress.

The quotes from the article also makes it quite clear that KSC managers view SLS as just a modified Constellation. Perhaps they are right? I dunno.  :(
« Last Edit: 08/30/2010 05:59 AM by Lars_J »

Online MP99

Re: Constellation press ahead with Pad 39B demolition
« Reply #10 on: 08/30/2010 10:16 AM »
Saturn V would get you to the moon in 1 launch.

For CxP 1.5 or dual launch.. don't you need the second launch within a few days or week at the outside?  How do you do this with 1 pad?  Unless you plan to save the 2nd pad money and use it for a Depot?

I am assuming that we would be using the flexible plan outlined by the President and Senate, visiting NEO's and not actually putting boots in strong gravity wells initially (ie moon, and mars for awhile) Also dont forget that there are major concerns with the existing infrastructure (ie buildings that have been exposed to sea-air for 30+ years) so this may have been inevitable anyway.

Is a single J-246 launch enough to get you to a NEO and back?  We talking minamalist touch and go?  Perhaps with an ATV or Bigelow based hab launched seperately on EELV or Ariane?

No.

cheers, Martin

Online DaveS

  • Shuttle program observer
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 7770
  • Sweden
  • Liked: 300
  • Likes Given: 12
Re: Constellation press ahead with Pad 39B demolition
« Reply #11 on: 08/30/2010 10:29 AM »
Guys, it's not like 39B will be completely un-usable. All that will be removed is the Fixed Service Structure and the Rotating Service Structure. The rest of the pad will be left as is.

It's just the FSS/RSS that will be removed as they're very shuttle-specific in their design. There's no need for the huge RSS when you don't have an orbiter to service. The FSS maybe, could serve some future use but the RSS cannot.

The RSS was created specifically to service the orbiter's APUs, OMS/RCS and to install/remove payloads from the payload bay. If you remove the orbiter, you have no use of the RSS.
"For Sardines, space is no problem!"
-1996 Astronaut class slogan

"We're rolling in the wrong direction but for the right reasons"
-USA engineer about the rollback of Discovery prior to the STS-114 Return To Flight mission

Online Ben the Space Brit

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 6985
  • A spaceflight fan
  • London, UK
  • Liked: 550
  • Likes Given: 624
Re: Constellation press ahead with Pad 39B demolition
« Reply #12 on: 08/30/2010 10:54 AM »
AFAIK, Ares-I-X did a pretty nasty number on 39B's FSS anyway.  Combined with all the cumulative damage from SRM exhaust products from the last 30 years, I have no problem them having to rebuild Pad-39B. They would need to make extensive modifications to support the SLS anyway - the FSS and crew access arm both need to be higher and the hypergolic fuelling umbilicals need to be moved higher too.

This also opens up an intreguing (if unlikely) possibility.  If further shuttle flights beyond STS-135 and LON-336 are authorised, it should be possible to continue using -39A as a shuttle pad for as long as necessary whilst -39B is rebuilt to support SLS-X and early SLS-M operational missions to the ISS.
"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 robertross

  • Canadian Member
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 17773
  • Westphal, Nova Scotia
  • Liked: 441
  • Likes Given: 3336
Re: Constellation press ahead with Pad 39B demolition
« Reply #13 on: 08/30/2010 11:41 AM »
I hate the thought of seeing the pad demolished "IF" it could have been of benefit during the HLV transition.

Now if they can make good use of the Ares I ML for this new pad (with obvious re-work), with the necessity of the a clean-pad starting point, I can see that. Just guessing here, but I doubt much forthought has been put into it at this stage; it's simply a follow-on scorched earth policy.
Remembering those who made the ultimate sacrifice for our rights & freedoms, and for those injured, visible or otherwise, in that fight.

Offline rosbif73

  • Veteran
  • Full Member
  • **
  • Posts: 204
  • Liked: 8
  • Likes Given: 16
Re: Constellation press ahead with Pad 39B demolition
« Reply #14 on: 08/30/2010 12:23 PM »
AFAIK, Ares-I-X did a pretty nasty number on 39B's FSS anyway.  Combined with all the cumulative damage from SRM exhaust products from the last 30 years, I have no problem them having to rebuild Pad-39B. They would need to make extensive modifications to support the SLS anyway - the FSS and crew access arm both need to be higher and the hypergolic fuelling umbilicals need to be moved higher too.

What are DIRECT's current plans for the pads and service structure, and for the MLPs for that matter? (I know, I could just go and search through a few hundred pages of Direct 3.0 threads, but I'm an up-to-date answer will be helpful to many here...)

Offline Ronsmytheiii

  • Moderator
  • Global Moderator
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 22325
  • Liked: 603
  • Likes Given: 244
Re: Constellation press ahead with Pad 39B demolition
« Reply #15 on: 08/30/2010 02:06 PM »
Saturn V would get you to the moon in 1 launch.

For CxP 1.5 or dual launch.. don't you need the second launch within a few days or week at the outside?  How do you do this with 1 pad?  Unless you plan to save the 2nd pad money and use it for a Depot?

I am assuming that we would be using the flexible plan outlined by the President and Senate, visiting NEO's and not actually putting boots in strong gravity wells initially (ie moon, and mars for awhile) Also dont forget that there are major concerns with the existing infrastructure (ie buildings that have been exposed to sea-air for 30+ years) so this may have been inevitable anyway.

Is a single J-246 launch enough to get you to a NEO and back?  We talking minamalist touch and go?  Perhaps with an ATV or Bigelow based hab launched seperately on EELV or Ariane?

No.

cheers, Martin

an earlier constellation architecture for a NEO mission used Ares I and a Delta IV Heavy:

http://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=10974.0

« Last Edit: 08/30/2010 02:10 PM by Ronsmytheiii »
"Every vision is a joke until the first man accomplishes it; once realized, it becomes commonplace." - Robert Goddard

Online MP99

Re: Constellation press ahead with Pad 39B demolition
« Reply #16 on: 08/30/2010 07:03 PM »
Saturn V would get you to the moon in 1 launch.

For CxP 1.5 or dual launch.. don't you need the second launch within a few days or week at the outside?  How do you do this with 1 pad?  Unless you plan to save the 2nd pad money and use it for a Depot?

I am assuming that we would be using the flexible plan outlined by the President and Senate, visiting NEO's and not actually putting boots in strong gravity wells initially (ie moon, and mars for awhile) Also dont forget that there are major concerns with the existing infrastructure (ie buildings that have been exposed to sea-air for 30+ years) so this may have been inevitable anyway.

Is a single J-246 launch enough to get you to a NEO and back?  We talking minamalist touch and go?  Perhaps with an ATV or Bigelow based hab launched seperately on EELV or Ariane?

No.

cheers, Martin

an earlier constellation architecture for a NEO mission used Ares I and a Delta IV Heavy:

http://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=10974.0

Well, I don't know if that's the same study as http://ti.arc.nasa.gov/projects/neo_study/pdf/NEO_feasibility.pdf, but if so, it lists the only two known targets (pp.11-12, lines highlighted in pink) for 1xEELV (Centaur launched on DIVH) + 1xOrion (launched on Ares I) as:-

12-dec-2065 (180 days)
or
30-apr-2069 (150 or 180 days, depending on dV).

So, "apparently not for the next 55 years" for EELV + Orion.

cheers, Martin

Edit, assuming a Lunar Orion mass of 21494Kg, then a single launch of Jupiter CLV (@100%) can push this through 4.7Km/s. Together with ~1.7Km/s of Orion dV, then that allows a mission total dV of 6.4Km/s (assuming zero EDS boiloff before the rendezvous burn). However, I suspect that carrying supplies for a six month mission will add quite a bit to the burnout mass, and I have my doubts about 6 months stuck in an Orion with no hab.

Add a hab (CaLV @ 100%) + Orion (25mT total) launched on an EELV-H, as the question suggested, and total dV increases to 6.5Km/s, assuming the hab is discarded before / during rendezvous. This assumes the hab & 6 months of supplies adds 8.5mt for a total Orion + hab mass of 30mT.

Ref http://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=22574.msg632623#msg632623 for a suggestion that the three known "worthwhile" targets require 6.78 - 7.06 Km/s.

Edit: corrected, enhanced & re-phrased.

Edit again: should say some smaller NEO's seem to be in range, although rejected by the "Jenkins" study.
« Last Edit: 08/30/2010 08:16 PM by MP99 »

Offline simonbp

Re: Constellation press ahead with Pad 39B demolition
« Reply #17 on: 08/31/2010 06:26 AM »
Saturn V would get you to the moon in 1 launch.

Of course, the irony is that before the LOR decision, it couldn't (direct descent need a second Saturn V for TLI LOX), and thus the requirement for dual pads...

Offline padrat

  • Payload Packer and Dragon tamer...
  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1408
  • Where Dragons roam....
  • Liked: 747
  • Likes Given: 12
Re: Constellation press ahead with Pad 39B demolition
« Reply #18 on: 08/31/2010 11:17 AM »
The Hypergolic farms are already in the final stages of decommission, aka. Demolition. They've already been stripped of machinery and I believe the cross country lines are going to be demo'ed soon if they haven't already started. On a positive note having both cryo farms empty has allowed them to remove, refurbish, and replace the block valves and any other valves that are normally holding back cryos. It was badly needed after 50 years of use.
If the neighbors think you're the rebel of the neighborhood, embrace it and be the rebel. It keeps them wondering what you'll do next...

Offline robertross

  • Canadian Member
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 17773
  • Westphal, Nova Scotia
  • Liked: 441
  • Likes Given: 3336
Re: Constellation press ahead with Pad 39B demolition
« Reply #19 on: 08/31/2010 11:19 AM »
The Hypergolic farms are already in the final stages of decommission, aka. Demolition. They've already been stripped of machinery and I believe the cross country lines are going to be demo'ed soon if they haven't already started. On a positive note having both cryo farms empty has allowed them to remove, refurbish, and replace the block valves and any other valves that are normally holding back cryos. It was badly needed after 50 years of use.

Good info. Thanks padrat.
Remembering those who made the ultimate sacrifice for our rights & freedoms, and for those injured, visible or otherwise, in that fight.

Tags: