maybe the Athena have a chance of capturing that part of the American launch market?
Is there any reason whatsoever (legal, commercial or political) why LM could not spin off their license to operate Athena-II/-III to ULA as a direct replacement for Delta-II?
Quote from: Ben the Space Brit on 03/04/2012 01:18 pmIs there any reason whatsoever (legal, commercial or political) why LM could not spin off their license to operate Athena-II/-III to ULA as a direct replacement for Delta-II? Yes. LM keeps all the revenue from operating Athena-II/-III itself. If it were part of ULA, it splits the money with Boeing.
Quote from: Jim on 03/04/2012 01:42 pmQuote from: Ben the Space Brit on 03/04/2012 01:18 pmIs there any reason whatsoever (legal, commercial or political) why LM could not spin off their license to operate Athena-II/-III to ULA as a direct replacement for Delta-II? Yes. LM keeps all the revenue from operating Athena-II/-III itself. If it were part of ULA, it splits the money with Boeing. Is it possible Boeing wants out of the launch business? The end result being LM owning all of ULA.
Re: Antares comment: I don't regard free market capitalism as annoying.
I just noticed, on reading about X-37B, that Athena 3 could lift that spacecraft mass to orbit from an East Coast pad.- Ed Kyle
Purely FWIW - If I were to nominate a possible HSF application for the Athena family, it would be to launch a quick-reaction crew rescue vehicle - Basically an uncrewed CST-100 that would be flown up to rendezvous with an imperilled spacecraft to allow the crew to transfer over and fly it back down.Being all-solid, Athena has the advantage of a very short reaction time compared to any liquid-fuelled booster. You'd need to have a good automatic flight control system for the rescue vehicle itself and it would need to be checked regularly to ensure it is still flight-worthy but the only launch constraint would really be phasing - launching close enough to the target vehicle's next over-pass so that it can catch up quickly.
Quote from: Ben the Space Brit on 03/06/2012 12:41 pmPurely FWIW - If I were to nominate a possible HSF application for the Athena family, it would be to launch a quick-reaction crew rescue vehicle - Basically an uncrewed CST-100 that would be flown up to rendezvous with an imperilled spacecraft to allow the crew to transfer over and fly it back down.Being all-solid, Athena has the advantage of a very short reaction time compared to any liquid-fuelled booster. You'd need to have a good automatic flight control system for the rescue vehicle itself and it would need to be checked regularly to ensure it is still flight-worthy but the only launch constraint would really be phasing - launching close enough to the target vehicle's next over-pass so that it can catch up quickly.Quick reaction time only if it is pre-stacked and squatting on a pad, sized correctly, solids do not have a "restart" capability, and I do not think Athena III has the Minute Man thrust termination system for fine tuning the final trajectory. The "CST-100" is going to have to do a fair amount of the orbital adjustments. But that's just software and we know software can be written very quickly
Falcon 9 and Antares are going to be busy with COTS/CRS.
Quick reaction time only if it is pre-stacked and squatting on a pad, sized correctly, solids do not have a "restart" capability, and I do not think Athena III has the Minute Man thrust termination system for fine tuning the final trajectory. The "CST-100" is going to have to do a fair amount of the orbital adjustments. But that's just software and we know software can be written very quickly
wrong, not even remotely close to what reality is. That is not how launch vehicle trajectories are designed nor is it applicable to rendezvous mission design.
They may also be trying to tie up Kodiak like Orbital has tied up Wallops.
Quote from: GClark on 03/06/2012 08:55 pmThey may also be trying to tie up Kodiak like Orbital has tied up Wallops. Kodiak isn't set up for liquid fueled LVs. AFAIK only solid motor LVs have launch from Kodiak.Some pad in VAFB is the most likely Antares West coast facility. Maybe refurbishing one of the old Delta II pad.
Quote from: kevin-rf on 03/06/2012 12:31 pmQuote from: edkyle99 on 03/06/2012 11:41 amI just noticed, on reading about X-37B, that Athena 3 could lift that spacecraft mass to orbit from an East Coast pad.- Ed KyleWith or without a fairing?There is about 1 tonne payload mass margin if a 1.3 tonne fairing is assumed, but that is about 3 tonnes short of the Atlas 5 X-37B payload fairing mass. So, this is likely iffy on that basis. But close! - Ed Kyle
Quote from: edkyle99 on 03/06/2012 11:41 amI just noticed, on reading about X-37B, that Athena 3 could lift that spacecraft mass to orbit from an East Coast pad.- Ed KyleWith or without a fairing?
Quote from: edkyle99 on 03/06/2012 09:49 pmQuote from: kevin-rf on 03/06/2012 12:31 pmQuote from: edkyle99 on 03/06/2012 11:41 amI just noticed, on reading about X-37B, that Athena 3 could lift that spacecraft mass to orbit from an East Coast pad.- Ed KyleWith or without a fairing?There is about 1 tonne payload mass margin if a 1.3 tonne fairing is assumed, but that is about 3 tonnes short of the Atlas 5 X-37B payload fairing mass. So, this is likely iffy on that basis. But close! - Ed KyleWould an X-37B gain anything from a launch from Kodiak?
QuoteWould an X-37B gain anything from a launch from Kodiak?No
Would an X-37B gain anything from a launch from Kodiak?
the need to do a dogleg out of Vandenberg.
Quote from: kevin-rf on 03/08/2012 03:07 pm the need to do a dogleg out of Vandenberg. That depends on the launch pad.
For Polar Orbits using the same rocket compared to Vandenberg, the rocket would gain some payload due to having less of penalty from the earths rotation, and the need to do a dogleg out of Vandenberg.
Honestly, the part that falls apart with all this is dragging the rocket out to Kodiak, for an insignificant paper gain.
Do the paper gains work that much differently than launching from say France?
Quote from: Jim on 03/09/2012 01:59 amBut since VAFB exists, it trumps KodiakStill, there must be something driving these companies away from places like the Cape and Vandenberg to places like Wallops and Kodiak.That something is green with numbers on it, I suspect, provided by local governments. - Ed Kyle
But since VAFB exists, it trumps Kodiak
btw. The earths rotation speed at Kodiak at ~57 north is about 570 mph, and at Vandenberg at ~24 north is 950 mph. For polar that must be overcome and you have about a 380 mph (170 meters per second).
Quote from: kevin-rf on 03/09/2012 12:51 amHonestly, the part that falls apart with all this is dragging the rocket out to Kodiak, for an insignificant paper gain. I understand your good points. Would you say the same of the ESA? Everything is shipped to South America and they have made it work with still losses.Do the paper gains work that much differently than launching from say France?
Thus, Kourou is king of launch site, at least until (and if) Alcantara fully develops.
Quote from: baldusi on 03/09/2012 06:38 pmThus, Kourou is king of launch site, at least until (and if) Alcantara fully develops.Nah, peak of mt. Everest
I did not realize that Kodiak, having lost anti-missile test work... - Ed Kyle
That means business for smaller, cheaper launch vehicles. - Ed Kyle
C) All SRM segments will use the same propellant grain and geometry,
Quote from: edkyle99 on 04/13/2012 03:57 pm That means business for smaller, cheaper launch vehicles. - Ed KyleIt also means cheaper payloads, since you no longer have all that extra plumbing and related costs.
Quote from: kevin-rf on 04/13/2012 05:02 pmQuote from: edkyle99 on 04/13/2012 03:57 pm That means business for smaller, cheaper launch vehicles. - Ed KyleIt also means cheaper payloads, since you no longer have all that extra plumbing and related costs.Inert Xenon versus incredibly toxic hydrazine. Big win there, IMHO.
... so Kodiak Athena would have thinner competition than a theoretical East Coast Athena. - Ed Kyle
Quote from: Robotbeat on 04/13/2012 05:22 pmQuote from: kevin-rf on 04/13/2012 05:02 pmQuote from: edkyle99 on 04/13/2012 03:57 pm That means business for smaller, cheaper launch vehicles. - Ed KyleIt also means cheaper payloads, since you no longer have all that extra plumbing and related costs.Inert Xenon versus incredibly toxic hydrazine. Big win there, IMHO.Isn't there a looming Xenon shortage due to increase usage and no increase in global production?
After considering some reasonable Athena 3 concepts, I've played with a few high energy upper stage ideas. These aren't meant to be "real" (the Lego (TM) thing), but give an idea of payloads for various propellant combinations. Obviously they cross deep into Atlas 5 territory, which Lockheed would not do unless it had a very good reason. (And yes, Jim, I should draw a big fairing around these Centaurs, because they can't support the payload otherwise.) The last concept is Liberty-esque, but assumes a composite case booster, etc, so is presented just to show a max-payload range.I've found that a bigger-than Castor 120 second stage would improve performance. Something about 1.5 times heavier would work. ATK has been burning Castor 120-diameter motors for the Air Force, but I'm not sure that anything longer than Castor 120 itself has been tested or considered. - Ed Kyle
First, the Antares launch pad at Wallops has been a long time coming and must have cost someone a pretty penny. An Athena 3 pad might be more straightforward.
Second, both Orbital and Lockheed Martin manufacture traditional satellites. SpaceX does not.
Third, SpaceX is talking about three launch complexes, creating more infrastructure than either Orbital or Lockheed-Athena. Either they are going to perform three times as many launches as Antares or Athena, or their fixed costs are going to be higher.
Fourth, Athena 3 would expose payloads to the highest g-forces of the three (I think).
Quote from: notsorandom on 04/16/2012 12:40 pmEd, the hypothetical 3 composite segment 110t LH2 Athena-X, the performance of that configuration is better then Liberty or Ares I. Is the performance of the composite solid what makes the difference there? In other words is a three segment composite that much better then a five segment steel case solid?According to my guesstimate the much improved propellant mass fraction of the first stage makes the difference. But, of course, the real implementation would be unlikely to match my guesses. No matter the details, composite case can provide substantial improvement. Look at the Castor and Orion motors for examples. - Ed Kyle
Ed, the hypothetical 3 composite segment 110t LH2 Athena-X, the performance of that configuration is better then Liberty or Ares I. Is the performance of the composite solid what makes the difference there? In other words is a three segment composite that much better then a five segment steel case solid?
Quote from: Ronsmytheiii on 05/10/2012 01:07 amBump for its larger sibling Linerty news.I'm not yet sure they're directly related. Liberty is ATK/EADS. Athena, including Athena 3 if it is ever developed, is Lockheed Martin. Of course ATK would pour motors for both rockets. - Ed Kyle
Bump for its larger sibling Linerty news.
Athena II as the upper stage. Hmmm. Actually stacking two Castor 120s and a Castor 30 on top of "another ATK solid rocket motor" could lift more than 5.9 tonnes to LEO from Florida. A lot more. I figure better than 10 tonnes. - Ed Kyle
This is interesting.http://www.lockheedmartin.com/us/news/press-releases/2012/april/0417-ss-cls.htmlAthena II as the upper stage. Hmmm. Actually stacking two Castor 120s and a Castor 30 on top of "another ATK solid rocket motor" could lift more than 5.9 tonnes to LEO from Florida. A lot more. I figure better than 10 tonnes. - Ed Kyle
How many segments are you assuming in your calcs, Ed? That might be the difference.
This is interesting.http://www.lockheedmartin.com/us/news/press-releases/2012/april/0417-ss-cls.html"The company recently selected KLC as its dedicated West Coast launch facility as it looks to expand launch capability with Athena III for commercial and government customers. Utilizing the Athena I and II as the upper stages and another ATK solid rocket motor as the first stage, Athena III will be capable of launching satellites weighing 4,600 kg (10,150 lbs.) from Alaska and 5,900 kg (13, 000 lbs.) from the Florida space coast."Athena II as the upper stage. Hmmm. Actually stacking two Castor 120s and a Castor 30 on top of "another ATK solid rocket motor" could lift more than 5.9 tonnes to LEO from Florida. A lot more. I figure better than 10 tonnes. - Ed Kyle
The proposed Kodiak launch site photo appears to show a mobile service tower (a building really) pulled back from a rocket that looks to me like something with only one Castor 120 and a Castor 30 type on top of an SRB segment type first stage.
Quote from: edkyle99 on 07/16/2012 01:15 amThe proposed Kodiak launch site photo appears to show a mobile service tower (a building really) pulled back from a rocket that looks to me like something with only one Castor 120 and a Castor 30 type on top of an SRB segment type first stage.Do you mean this (attached) artwork? I don't see indication the building moves.
Yes, the building moves on rails. We are calling it the Vehicle Processing Facility. It will have a 225-250 ton bridge crane that will stack the vehicle on the pad and then retract ~400 feet for launch.The EA for this project should be released to the public next month. Construction time depends on when the Athena III makes its first sale.
There was some mention that Alaska wanted to be able to "share" the same facilites between the Athena and Orbital's Antares. Of course, Antares needs to book some west coast flights on it's manifest first, but how realistic is it for Athena and Antares to share the same launch facilities ?
Quote from: Lurker Steve on 07/27/2012 01:14 amThere was some mention that Alaska wanted to be able to "share" the same facilites between the Athena and Orbital's Antares. Of course, Antares needs to book some west coast flights on it's manifest first, but how realistic is it for Athena and Antares to share the same launch facilities ?I just don't see it. Antares need an HIF, Athena a movable VPF that goes over the pad. Antares needs an RP-1 infrastructure, Athena needs none. If you use the same pad, should OSC wait on the HIF while the Athena is integrated on the pad? I simply don't see it.
On top of that, I do not know of any launch pad anywhere that is dual use for liquid and solid LVs.
Quote from: baldusi on 07/27/2012 05:00 pmQuote from: Lurker Steve on 07/27/2012 01:14 amThere was some mention that Alaska wanted to be able to "share" the same facilites between the Athena and Orbital's Antares. Of course, Antares needs to book some west coast flights on it's manifest first, but how realistic is it for Athena and Antares to share the same launch facilities ?I just don't see it. Antares need an HIF, Athena a movable VPF that goes over the pad. Antares needs an RP-1 infrastructure, Athena needs none. If you use the same pad, should OSC wait on the HIF while the Athena is integrated on the pad? I simply don't see it.You are correct about the different infrastructure requirements. On top of that, I do not know of any launch pad anywhere that is dual use for liquid and solid LVs. We have designs for a liquid pad and a solid pad. It may not be possible, or even operationally effective, to try to integrate the two dissimilar designs. We are still brain storming concepts, because we don't have the $$ to build two pads simultaneously. It is a moot point until there is a formal commitment from Orbital about their West Coast site.
http://www.flightglobal.com/news/articles/lockheed-considers-viability-of-resurrected-athena-small-satellite-launcher-programme-376581/Just saw this.Possibly not good news?
a price point of around $70 million for an Athena II...
http://www.spacenews.com/article/900m-in-pentagon-launch-contracts-awarded-to-lockheed-orbital-spacex#.UL4ud2fNlQF
I'm writing a short article on Athena. It discusses its history, launches, and current plans.Here's a question that I haven't been able to answer: why did they name it "Athena"?
Quote from: Blackstar on 02/01/2013 05:05 pmI'm writing a short article on Athena. It discusses its history, launches, and current plans.Here's a question that I haven't been able to answer: why did they name it "Athena"? Likely because the original designations "LLV" ("Lockheed Launch Vehicle") and "LMLV" ("Lockheed Martin Launch Vehicle") were not so well suited for marketing as a traditional mythological name.
Meanwhile, Orbital Sciences cobbled together a rocket and named it "Taurus". What the heck is a Taurus? Who builds it and what does it do? Is it a car or something?
Quote from: edkyle99 on 02/03/2013 10:05 pmMeanwhile, Orbital Sciences cobbled together a rocket and named it "Taurus". What the heck is a Taurus? Who builds it and what does it do? Is it a car or something?It's a constellation, specifically the most promenent one adjacent to Orion, and also near to Gemini. The stages used to create Taurus were named Castor (a star in Gemini) and Orion. It also provides a nice contrast with Pegasus (graceful winged horse vs. brute-force Taurus the bull).
I'm out of my element when it comes to advertising and brand-naming, but if I weren't a space history geek, would I have any idea what an "Atlas" did? (Is it a map?) "Lockheed Launch Vehicle" is, at least, self explanatory.
Right. A constellation, and I understand the reasoning, but what I'm wondering is whether a name like "Taurus" or "Atlas" or "Delta", etc., would really ever be selected by a real marketing brand naming guru in a true commercial setting.
... what I'm wondering is whether a name like "Taurus" or "Atlas" or "Delta", etc., would really ever be selected by a real marketing brand naming guru in a true commercial setting. I'm out of my element when it comes to advertising and brand-naming, but if I weren't a space history geek, would I have any idea what an "Atlas" did? (Is it a map?)
Dwayne Day is working on a longer article on the history of the Athena and is interested in hearing from anybody with more information on the rocket’s development and its operational history, including the SLC-6 “curse” events. He can be reached at [email protected].
Loved it, especially the plug at the end:
Quote from: kevin-rf on 02/11/2013 05:27 pmLoved it, especially the plug at the end:I wrote the article and was about to send it to my editor when I realized that several things that I mentioned in passing probably have more detail behind them, such as the payload fairing separation issue and the events concerning the "removal of the curse" at SLC-6.* So I cut a chunk out of the article (mostly stuff on the individual launches) and sent it to TSR with the hook at the end. I'll add in my original material, anything new I get, and use some great photos that I have of the launches
Frankly speaking I don't think it will hold much chance of staying in the market - no way this can be cheap enough to attract any commercial customers (it has to fight against Vega, Rockot, Dnepr, PSLV, Long March 4 series, Taurus etc, not to mention the future Soyuz 2-1v/Long March 6), and US government launches are currently held by Minotaur IV/V. I am already discounting Stratolaunch et al....At least I can give them credit for trying......
Here is the Athena brochure with the new data.
Quote from: Blackstar on 04/30/2013 10:42 pmHere is the Athena brochure with the new data.Lockheed Martin has a link to a full-up 2012 Athena Ic/IIc Mission Planners Guide on the following page.http://www.lockheedmartin.com/us/products/athena.html - Ed Kyle
Lockheed Martin Announces Cubesat payload integrators for Athena.http://www.lockheedmartin.com/us/news/press-releases/2013/august/0814-ss-athena.html - Ed Kyle
In addition, Athena RideShare missions planned for 2015 and 2016 from Kodiak Launch Complex can accommodate 24 P-PODs or a mix of 3U, 6U and 12U CubeSat containerized payloads, vastly expanding launch opportunities for these very small satellites to sun synchronous orbits.
Everyone here are the updated 2013 PDFs for the Athena Modular Family:Athena Rideshare (http://www.lockheedmartin.com/content/dam/lockheed/data/space/documents/athena/Athena%20RideShare.pdf)Athena Fact Sheet (http://www.lockheedmartin.com/content/dam/lockheed/data/space/documents/athena/Athena%20Fact%20Sheet%20Review%20vers%204.pdf)Athena User Guide (Coming Soon)Athena Modular Family (http://www.lockheedmartin.com/content/dam/lockheed/data/space/documents/athena/Athena_Modular_Family_2013_WBG.pdf)
First official look at Athena III. But also Athena IIcS with strap on motors. Orion 50SXLG strap on motors no less. Surprise! - Ed Kyle
Athena IIcS is just the reincarnation of the original Athena-3 with the Castor-IVA boosters replaced with Pegasus-heritage Orion-50SXLGs.
Unless you do ISS, LEO means SSO. And 3 tonnes covers everything commercial, NASA and a good fraction of DoD. It's right sized as is. I simply don't see the III market. Should be awfully expensive for the limited extra performance.
Quote from: baldusi on 10/27/2013 02:02 pmUnless you do ISS, LEO means SSO. And 3 tonnes covers everything commercial, NASA and a good fraction of DoD. It's right sized as is. I simply don't see the III market. Should be awfully expensive for the limited extra performance.With the revelation about Athena 2cS, I agree about Athena 3. Unless the Athena 3 so far revealed is only an initial stepping stone to something more capable.I also found very interesting the little note about a new "Castor 120XL" option. - Ed Kyle
Athena IIcS6 is interesting. In the middle Delta II range. I bet it'd be significantly cheaper than Athena III at low launch rates since the component masses would be much lighter.
Quote from: Robotbeat on 10/28/2013 03:03 pmAthena IIcS6 is interesting. In the middle Delta II range. I bet it'd be significantly cheaper than Athena III at low launch rates since the component masses would be much lighter.And far cheaper to develop. All of the Athena 2cS motors already exist while the Athena 3 first stage would have to be developed. Presumably Athena 2cS would fly from existing pads, while Athena 3 would need new pads. And so on. - Ed Kyle
That "Castor 900" stage - would that be the same diameter as a shuttle SRB?
Quote from: Lars_J on 10/28/2013 07:48 pmThat "Castor 900" stage - would that be the same diameter as a shuttle SRB?Yes design requirements for Castor 900 are taken from RSRMV programme. The Castor 900 Designation is new and is designation for three segment version of RSRMV. RSRM Specific info is listed in the latest ATK SRM Catalog
Quote from: russianhalo117 on 10/28/2013 08:41 pmQuote from: Lars_J on 10/28/2013 07:48 pmThat "Castor 900" stage - would that be the same diameter as a shuttle SRB?Yes design requirements for Castor 900 are taken from RSRMV programme. The Castor 900 Designation is new and is designation for three segment version of RSRMV. RSRM Specific info is listed in the latest ATK SRM CatalogI thought it was 2.5 segments for Athena 3. - Ed Kyle
Will all vehicles have an option to fly with a star engine on top of the orbital adjust module?
Quote from: fatjohn1408 on 01/29/2014 01:29 pmWill all vehicles have an option to fly with a star engine on top of the orbital adjust module?The user's guide described use of a Star 37FM fifth stage on Athena 2c for GTO and escape missions, but did not mention it for Athena 1c. The smaller rocket would likely only be used for LEO missions. Star 37FM weighs more than the mass that Athena 1c can lift to LEO. - Ed Kyle
Upperstages are different
Vanguard/Viking
Quote from: pippin on 03/14/2014 12:10 pmVanguard/VikingNo.
Quote from: Jim on 03/13/2014 11:24 pmUpperstages are differentHere's a visual comparison to illustrate. - Ed Kyle
I was looking at the ATK catalog not too long ago when the Minotaur-C was announced to look at the various motor stages. The Orion 50 and the Castor 30 motors seem to put out about the same total thrust, just the burn time is about twice as long for one of the them. It's interesting how 2 vendors are competing for the low end government launches with such similar designs.
So....is Lockheed Martin still pressing ahead with the Athena many MIRV cubesat launch next year? I have not seen any reports of a cubesat/microsat taking a seat on that flight.....
Alaska Aerospace Corp. has selected Lockheed Martin to use a renovated launch pad at the Kodiak Launch Complex for the company’s Athena 2S launch vehicle, the state-owned corporation announced Dec. 12http://spacenews.com/alaska-aerospace-selects-lockheed-martin-for-kodiak-launches/...Lockheed Martin has yet to announce any customers for the Athena 2S, a version of the company’s Athena 2 solid-propellant launch vehicle that adds up to six strap-on boosters to place payloads weighing up to 3,000 kilograms into sun-synchronous orbits. The first launches from Kodiak would take place in late 2016 or early 2017, according to the company. ...
I wonder who will win in this OSC vs LockMart battle for the few payloads in this class against international competitors. Maybe it will be neither?
Did it strike anyone else as bass-ackwards to say the launch complex has selected a launch vehicle as its launch vehicle of choice? ...
http://www.parabolicarc.com/2014/12/28/kodiak-launch-complex-upgrade-caught-spending-freeze/Kodiak Launch Complex Upgrade Caught in Spending Freezeby Doug Messieron December 28, 2014, at 10:02 amFacing a $3.5 billion budget shortfall due to the falling cost of oil, Alaska Gov. Bill Walker has ordered work stopped on a handful of major construction projects.SNIPThe upgrades to the launch paid would accommodate Lockheed Martin’s medium-lift Athena IIS rocket.
Are both Kodiak and Wallops MARS examples of something wrong with how launch pads are "insured"? - Ed Kyle
Can the Athena still launch from Cape Canaveral's Launch Complex 46? An example was the Lunar Prospector in 1998 and the FORMOSAT 1 Satellite in 1999.
I see. With that said, is Wallops Island LP-0B, Vandenberg SLC-8, or Vandenberg LC-576E available?LP-0B is where the Minotaurs launched from the East CoastSLC-8 was where the Minotaur launches began fromLC-576E was the home of the Taurus aka Minotaur-C
Quote from: longdrivechampion102 on 01/21/2015 10:00 pmI see. With that said, is Wallops Island LP-0B, Vandenberg SLC-8, or Vandenberg LC-576E available?LP-0B is where the Minotaurs launched from the East CoastSLC-8 was where the Minotaur launches began fromLC-576E was the home of the Taurus aka Minotaur-CTo begin, I would like to emphasize that SLC 46 is not that far from being returnable to service. The launch stand is stored nearby, for example, and the service tower is still there, but the place has been collecting dust and rust for 15 years.Of those you listed, I would expect SLC 8 and Pad 0B to be more compatible with Athena than SLC 576E. Athena and Minotaur (and Taurus) use mobile launch support equipment, designed from the outset to be setup and torn down. 576E used scaffolding rather than a fixed service tower, if I'm remembering correctly. Thus 8 and 0B and 46 should all be compatible. They all have service towers that look Athena capable. Work required of course. (SLC 8 hasn't seen a launch since 2011 I think.) - Ed Kyle