Author Topic: Launch Pad Complex Q and A thread  (Read 6117 times)

Offline zinfab

  • Space Junkie
  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 372
  • North Carolina
  • Liked: 0
  • Likes Given: 0
Re: Launch Pad Complex Q and A thread
« Reply #20 on: 06/11/2006 04:07 PM »
http://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/forums/thread-view.asp?tid=1982&start=1&highlight=LC40&highlightmode=1

The article leading THIS thread intimates that pad 40 is the choice (at least to start). It will be interesting to see how this works out. 39a/b have been THE pads for a long time. One wonders if 40 will a) save them money on crew launches, b) enable them to tailor crew pads, rather than making 39a/b multi-use and c) keeps 39a/b free from cross-program competition/construction/planning/etc. by moving it to 40.

Offline astrobrian

  • NSF Photographer
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2934
  • Austin Texas
  • Liked: 19
  • Likes Given: 43
Re: Launch Pad Complex Q and A thread
« Reply #21 on: 06/11/2006 06:46 PM »
That would make sense if they decided they needed to keep the shuttle going a little longer than 2010.  It would also eliminate the problem of needing the rescue flight pad available for the HST mission

Offline zinfab

  • Space Junkie
  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 372
  • North Carolina
  • Liked: 0
  • Likes Given: 0
Re: Launch Pad Complex Q and A thread
« Reply #22 on: 06/11/2006 07:19 PM »
And, they can start modifying the pad as soon as the requirements are ready, regardless of Shuttle status.

Online DaveS

  • Shuttle program observer
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 7836
  • Sweden
  • Liked: 345
  • Likes Given: 14
Re: Launch Pad Complex Q and A thread
« Reply #23 on: 06/12/2006 10:42 PM »
This is a question of 39A and B in the current status.

Looking on this live webcam feed( http://science.ksc.nasa.gov/shuttle/countdown/video/chan3large.jpg ) of 39B it seems like there's not much clearane between the  RSS "legs" and the MLP. What is the clearance between the MLP and the RSS "legs"?
"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

Offline possum

  • Veteran
  • Full Member
  • **
  • Posts: 223
  • Liked: 1
  • Likes Given: 0
Re: Launch Pad Complex Q and A thread
« Reply #24 on: 06/14/2006 03:01 PM »
Quote
DaveS - 12/6/2006  5:29 PM

This is a question of 39A and B in the current status.

Looking on this live webcam feed( http://science.ksc.nasa.gov/shuttle/countdown/video/chan3large.jpg ) of 39B it seems like there's not much clearane between the  RSS "legs" and the MLP. What is the clearance between the MLP and the RSS "legs"?

Remember that the MLP is 135 feet wide and 25 feet thick, what looks close in the picture is actually several feet.  I don't have the exact number, but it's about 3 or 4 feet.

Offline possum

  • Veteran
  • Full Member
  • **
  • Posts: 223
  • Liked: 1
  • Likes Given: 0
Re: Launch Pad Complex Q and A thread
« Reply #25 on: 06/14/2006 03:12 PM »
Quote
darkenfast - 5/6/2006  11:23 AM

Just wondering: could anyone tell me how much of a sea-level rise the launch complexes could handle before they start having trouble with flooding?  Do they have any problems now?  Ditto the VAB area?

The bottom the of flame trench at Pad A is 6 feet above MSL (mean sea level) and Pad B is 11 feet.  Water in the flame trench is obviously not a problem itself, but there would be lots of other equipment effected if the water got high enough to flood the flame trench.  The LOX and LH2 storage and distribution, hypergol fuel and oxidizer storage and distibution, high pressure gas storage and the PTCR (pad terminal connection room) are all at ground level and would be effected.  Everything in the LC39 complex would be in a similar state.  I doubt if anything is much more than 10 feet above sea level.

Offline possum

  • Veteran
  • Full Member
  • **
  • Posts: 223
  • Liked: 1
  • Likes Given: 0
Re: Launch Pad Complex Q and A thread
« Reply #26 on: 06/14/2006 03:27 PM »
Quote
zinfab - 11/6/2006  10:54 AM

http://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/forums/thread-view.asp?tid=1982&start=1&highlight=LC40&highlightmode=1

The article leading THIS thread intimates that pad 40 is the choice (at least to start). It will be interesting to see how this works out. 39a/b have been THE pads for a long time. One wonders if 40 will a) save them money on crew launches, b) enable them to tailor crew pads, rather than making 39a/b multi-use and c) keeps 39a/b free from cross-program competition/construction/planning/etc. by moving it to 40.

Tha Pad 40 scenario is being pushed by ATK for the initial flight tests, but I'm not sure if their intention is to carry that through to the operational pad of choice.  I don't think Exploration has the money to mod Pad 40 for CLV long-term, manned flights.  The facilities would have to be drastically modified to stack a 5-segment SRB with upper stage and CEV.  For test flights this could be done on the pad with mobile cranes, but a long-term and efficient operation for CLV at Pad 40 would require more work than LC39, in my opinion.  Both locations will require significant Pad and MLP mods, but the stacking facility is the big difference.  The VAB can handle the job with relatively minor mods to highbay platforms whereas the LC40 facility (SMAB?) would have to be totally rebuilt to stack the entire CLV.  This is assuming you don't want to stack the CLV at the pad at LC40, which would drive even more pad mods.  So I have to think that LC39 is the better long term solution.

Offline Jim

  • Night Gator
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 32131
  • Cape Canaveral Spaceport
  • Liked: 10783
  • Likes Given: 321
Re: Launch Pad Complex Q and A thread
« Reply #27 on: 06/14/2006 04:18 PM »
CLV launches from SLC-40 would not use the mobile concept, but stack on pad. Titan -IV use to stack the upper two segments of the SRM's on 41.  Additionally, on one mission, one booster was destacked and restacked.  The bridge cranes on 40 could do the same.    The MST could be modified just like the VAB cells.  A launch mount would be added to hold the SRB and the umbilical tower modified appropriately.


It all depends on the CLV flight rate, which drives everything.  If it is low enough and only one MLP would be needed, then SLC-40 could do it just as easy, mechanically.  Extending LCC comm lines is another thing, but depending on a new control system (LPS needs to be replaced), this might be easy

Offline Davie OPF

  • Member
  • Full Member
  • **
  • Posts: 241
  • Kennedy Space Center
  • Liked: 2
  • Likes Given: 2
RE: Launch Pad Complex Q and A thread
« Reply #28 on: 06/14/2006 08:39 PM »
The launch complex is one of the most underestimated elements of space flight. You have to go there to understand, but they are special facilities, especially 39A and B

Offline possum

  • Veteran
  • Full Member
  • **
  • Posts: 223
  • Liked: 1
  • Likes Given: 0
RE: Launch Pad Complex Q and A thread
« Reply #29 on: 06/14/2006 09:05 PM »
The flight rate for CEV is 6 per year max in the early years when going to ISS (this is the plan, reality is usually less).  After the US backs out of ISS in 2016, it would be 2 lunar missions per year.  I wouldn't expect more than 4 lunar missions per year in full swing.  The CLV will be very tall, over 300 feet, that would require a total rework of the MST, I assume.

Tags: