Lots of future vehicle relation in this:http://www.nasaspaceflight.com/2010/08/crawler-repairs-constellation-press-pad-39b-demolition/
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?
Quote from: Chris Bergin on 08/30/2010 02:00 amLots 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...
Quote from: RocketScientist327 on 08/30/2010 02:30 amQuote from: Chris Bergin on 08/30/2010 02:00 amLots 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.. 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?
Quote from: TrueBlueWitt on 08/30/2010 04:23 amSaturn 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.
Quote from: Ronsmytheiii on 08/30/2010 04:32 amQuote from: TrueBlueWitt on 08/30/2010 04:23 amSaturn 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?
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.
Quote from: TrueBlueWitt on 08/30/2010 04:40 amQuote from: Ronsmytheiii on 08/30/2010 04:32 amQuote from: TrueBlueWitt on 08/30/2010 04:23 amSaturn 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
Quote from: MP99 on 08/30/2010 10:16 amQuote from: TrueBlueWitt on 08/30/2010 04:40 amQuote from: Ronsmytheiii on 08/30/2010 04:32 amQuote from: TrueBlueWitt on 08/30/2010 04:23 amSaturn 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, Martinan earlier constellation architecture for a NEO mission used Ares I and a Delta IV Heavy:http://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=10974.0
Saturn V would get you to the moon in 1 launch.
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.