Vandenberg Shuttle Facilities

[Jim]

.

[Blackstar]

On this site somewhere is the environmental impact report for the shuttle facilities at VAFB. I think it is a pretty big file. We should probably post that here. I'll go searching for it.

(Just did a quick look and did not find it. Will keep looking.)

[DaveS]

On this site somewhere is the environmental impact report for the shuttle facilities at VAFB. I think it is a pretty big file. We should probably post that here. I'll go searching for it.

(Just did a quick look and did not find it. Will keep looking.)

Here you go:

[AS_501]

Thanks for the map Jim....interesting.  Speaking of Vandenburg/Shuttle, any info./links on whether the Shuttle was capable of delivering to a sun-sync orbit and the approximate payload penalty for delivering to high-inclination orbits in general (compared to KSC)?

[LittleBird]

Thanks for the map Jim....interesting.  Speaking of Vandenburg/Shuttle, any info./links on whether the Shuttle was capable of delivering to a sun-sync orbit and the approximate payload penalty for delivering to high-inclination orbits in general (compared to KSC)?

Baseline missions 3A and 3B were designed to be flown at 104 degrees if I've skim read this doc http://www.jamesoberg.com/sts-3A_B-DRM.PDF
correctly, so that was certainly part of the design brief originally. Others will know better what the realised Shuttle could have done.

[Jim]

Thanks for the map Jim....interesting.  Speaking of Vandenburg/Shuttle, any info./links on whether the Shuttle was capable of delivering to a sun-sync orbit and the approximate payload penalty for delivering to high-inclination orbits in general (compared to KSC)?

That was the whole point of a shuttle pad at Vandenberg

32klb to 150nmi at 98 degree inclination was the main requirement.  the payload would likely raise it own orbit to get to sun synchronous.   or use another inclination and altitude combination.

[Jim]

Thanks for the map Jim....interesting.  Speaking of Vandenburg/Shuttle, any info./links on whether the Shuttle was capable of delivering to a sun-sync orbit and the approximate payload penalty for delivering to high-inclination orbits in general (compared to KSC)?

Baseline missions 3A and 3B were designed to be flown at 104 degrees if I've skim read this doc http://www.jamesoberg.com/sts-3A_B-DRM.PDF
correctly, so that was certainly part of the design brief originally. Others will know better what the realised Shuttle could have done.

Those never became actually design drivers.
PRM-4 was the driver. 32klb to 150nmi at 98 degree inclination was the original requirement.

[LittleBird]

Thanks for the map Jim....interesting.  Speaking of Vandenburg/Shuttle, any info./links on whether the Shuttle was capable of delivering to a sun-sync orbit and the approximate payload penalty for delivering to high-inclination orbits in general (compared to KSC)?

Baseline missions 3A and 3B were designed to be flown at 104 degrees if I've skim read this doc http://www.jamesoberg.com/sts-3A_B-DRM.PDF
correctly, so that was certainly part of the design brief originally. Others will know better what the realised Shuttle could have done.

Those never became actually design drivers.
PRM-4 was the driver. 32klb to 150nmi at 98 degree inclination was the original requirement.

Thanks. I see you've explained them here: https://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=4998.msg79056#msg79056

[Blackstar]

Thanks for the map Jim....interesting.  Speaking of Vandenburg/Shuttle, any info./links on whether the Shuttle was capable of delivering to a sun-sync orbit and the approximate payload penalty for delivering to high-inclination orbits in general (compared to KSC)?

Baseline missions 3A and 3B were designed to be flown at 104 degrees if I've skim read this doc http://www.jamesoberg.com/sts-3A_B-DRM.PDF
correctly, so that was certainly part of the design brief originally. Others will know better what the realised Shuttle could have done.

Those never became actually design drivers.
PRM-4 was the driver. 32klb to 150nmi at 98 degree inclination was the original requirement.

And 60-foot payload bay to carry a Hexagon was another main design driver.

But I do have a related question: was the crossrange requirement specifically from DoD, or was it just inherent to any polar launch from Vandenberg? In other words, once they made the decision to fly polar out of Vandenberg, did they need to have that crossrange requirement, or could they have settled for something different?

[Jim]

And 60-foot payload bay to carry a Hexagon was another main design driver.

But I do have a related question: was the crossrange requirement specifically from DoD, or was it just inherent to any polar launch from Vandenberg? In other words, once they made the decision to fly polar out of Vandenberg, did they need to have that crossrange requirement, or could they have settled for something different?

I have the requirements document (rev A) from 1978.   The requirement as stated was intact landing in CONUS for Abort Once Around.   This was before TAL came up as a performance enhancement.

[Hog]

And 60-foot payload bay to carry a Hexagon was another main design driver.

But I do have a related question: was the crossrange requirement specifically from DoD, or was it just inherent to any polar launch from Vandenberg? In other words, once they made the decision to fly polar out of Vandenberg, did they need to have that crossrange requirement, or could they have settled for something different?

I have the requirements document (rev A) from 1978.   The requirement as stated was intact landing in CONUS for Abort Once Around.   This was before TAL came up as a performance enhancement.

Emphasis mine

Remaining within the context of West coast operations?

xxxxxxx
As a 10 year old it would have been exciting to see Discovery head West via SCA for something other than her maintenance down period(OMDP) and her retirement.

1) Space Complex-6 in 1980
2)Launch azimuths VAFB and KSC
3) OV-101 Enterprise looking good on the launch mount(November 1984 to May 1985)
4) STS-62A mission patch
5)STS-62A crew

[edzieba]

That does raise an interesting question: what (if any) effect did classified payloads have on available abort sites? e.g. landing at RAF Fairford would very likely have been acceptable, but Casablanca or Banjul might not have seen as great places to strand an orbiter with secret squirrel bits inside. And maybe tucked in some scrupulously nondescript filing cabinet are plans on how to secure and retrieve a LACROSSE or MAGNUM from a stranded orbiter without the normal payload processing facilities.

[Jim]

And maybe tucked in some scrupulously nondescript filing cabinet are plans on how to secure and retrieve a LACROSSE or MAGNUM from a stranded orbiter without the normal payload processing facilities.

There was a device for all payloads.

[Blackstar]

A few weeks ago I did an interview for a BBC podcast where they asked me a bunch of questions about SLC-6 and Vandenberg. One thing I could not definitively answer was what was supposed to be the first military payload launched on the shuttle from SLC-6. I think it was Teal Ruby. Is that correct?

Do we have different manifests for those early launches? I think that the first payload may have shifted around a bit in the manifest. At one point, the payload on STS-27 was going to launch from SLC-6. However, USAF/NRO was concerned. They did not want to have the first use of the pad, first launch of a new orbiter, and first launch of a new payload type all on the same mission.

[DaveS]

A few weeks ago I did an interview for a BBC podcast where they asked me a bunch of questions about SLC-6 and Vandenberg. One thing I could not definitively answer was what was supposed to be the first military payload launched on the shuttle from SLC-6. I think it was Teal Ruby. Is that correct?

Do we have different manifests for those early launches? I think that the first payload may have shifted around a bit in the manifest. At one point, the payload on STS-27 was going to launch from SLC-6. However, USAF/NRO was concerned. They did not want to have the first use of the pad, first launch of a new orbiter, and first launch of a new payload type all on the same mission.

Yes, AFP-888 and the same CIRRIS payload that was flown on STS-4 was manifested for STS-62A. STS-62B was manifested with a KH payload, probably the rumored KH-12. CIRRIS flew later on STS-39 from KSC and whatever the 62B payload was was flown on STS-27 which did a very rare north-eastern dog-leg trajectory to 62°.

[Jim]

whatever the 62B payload was was flown on STS-27 which did a very rare north-eastern dog-leg trajectory to 62°.

The dogleg wasn't until STS-36

[DaveS]

whatever the 62B payload was was flown on STS-27 which did a very rare north-eastern dog-leg trajectory to 62°.

The dogleg wasn't until STS-36

I must have mixed those two up then. It was one of them though!

[LittleBird]

And maybe tucked in some scrupulously nondescript filing cabinet are plans on how to secure and retrieve a LACROSSE or MAGNUM from a stranded orbiter without the normal payload processing facilities.

There was a device for all payloads.

[Hog]

A few weeks ago I did an interview for a BBC podcast where they asked me a bunch of questions about SLC-6 and Vandenberg. One thing I could not definitively answer was what was supposed to be the first military payload launched on the shuttle from SLC-6. I think it was Teal Ruby. Is that correct?

Do we have different manifests for those early launches? I think that the first payload may have shifted around a bit in the manifest. At one point, the payload on STS-27 was going to launch from SLC-6. However, USAF/NRO was concerned. They did not want to have the first use of the pad, first launch of a new orbiter, and first launch of a new payload type all on the same mission.

Teal Ruby-spacecraft P80-1.  Some info from the National Museum of the USAF.

"Instead, spacecraft P80-1 became a test-bed for studying how space equipment ages in storage."

https://www.nationalmuseum.af.mil/Visit/Museum-Exhibits/Fact-Sheets/Display/Article/589823/teal-ruby/

[Jim]

OMCF

[Hog]

OMCF=Orbiter Maintenance Checkout Facility

attachments (courtesy USAF)
a)SLC-6
b)SLC-6
c)SLC-6 from the South

[Blackstar]

I just acquired a bunch of concept art (1978-1980) for VAFB shuttle facilities, so I'm going to write a short article to show off the art.

Before I open up Jenkins' big shuttle book to look, I have a couple of questions that maybe people here know off the top of their head.

Where can I find the annual launch rate for VAFB/VSFB for the past two decades? I know that it increased a lot in the past two years with Falcon 9 launches, but I'd like to get an understanding of what it was this century.

What was the expected VAFB shuttle launch rate as of 1980? I am sure that there is a projected manifest somewhere that predicted X number of Florida launches and Y number of Vandenberg launches. Anybody have any tips?

[Blackstar]

Okay, I have a partial answer to my question above.

The original plan was for 20 launches a year from VAFB with a two-shuttle fleet assigned to Vandenberg. This may have required a second pad.

This was later revised down to about 17 launches per year, and then further to 13 launches per year. That's discussed in the attached 1977 Government Accounting Office document. I assume that by 1980, the number dropped a bit more, probably to around 8-10 a year.

[Blackstar]

Well, maybe I wrote that too soon. This 1978 GAO report indicates that the military launch model by 1978 required only four shuttle launches per year from Vandenberg.

I'll keep digging.

[Blackstar]

This GAO report from October 1986 indicates that they were considering two possible Vandenberg shuttle launch requirements--four launches per year and one launch per year. So it looks that by 1978 the expected number was four and this stayed constant over time. It is possible it went up a bit. I wrote about DAMON and that would have required several shuttle launches per year. But DAMON was canceled not much after it had started.

[zubenelgenubi]

<snip>
The original plan was for 20 launches a year from VAFB with a two-shuttle fleet assigned to Vandenberg. This may have required a second pad.
<snip>

That would explain the the two launch pads on the map in Jim's OP.

[map]

[Blackstar]

That would explain the the two launch pads on the map in Jim's OP.

According to one of the GAO documents I posted above, as of 1977, the plan was for the first pad to be available by 1982, and a decision to be made by the early 1980s if the second pad was necessary, with a goal of having it ready by 1986. Of course, SLC-6 was not ready until 1986, and was shut down only a few months before completion.

[Blackstar]

It is not the focus of my upcoming short article, but the expected number of VAFB shuttle launches raises some interesting questions--what led them to believe that they would have approximately 17, and then approximately 13, launches per year? Most of those would have been reconnaissance satellites, and even by the mid-1970s the NRO was only launching a handful of them per year, not the monthly launches of the 1960s.

I have been hoping that we would get more NRO documents on their expected use of the shuttle, but it has slowed down in the last few years. My article on DAMON and HEXAGON on shuttle explored some plans to use shuttle as a reconnaissance platform (not just a launch vehicle). But it's hard to see how they could do eight or more reconnaissance missions per year with shuttle.

[Spiceman]

Maybe it was a case of "Hans Mark shuttle enthusiasm". He was really the kind of guy who would push for multiple DAMON missions per year: making the Shuttle a kind of "spaceborne SR-71" or "orbital U-2".
Also launch on crisis. Arguing that "yes, we have KH-9s in orbit, but Shuttle can add additional capability in time of crisis." Making the KH-9 reusable, launching on demand every 15 days or less (cough, cough), bringing down film at a runway, hence faster than those pesky buckets parachuted in the Pacific...
Whatever Shuttle justification borrowed from NASA 1972 playbook ("bring it and they will come") and adapted to spy satellites.

[Blackstar]

Maybe it was a case of "Hans Mark shuttle enthusiasm". He was really the kind of guy who would push for

Yes, I believe that is the general answer. I would like to get a more specific answer. I need to figure out what records to FOIA from NRO.

[Jim]

Where can I find the annual launch rate for VAFB/VSFB for the past two decades? I know that it increased a lot in the past two years with Falcon 9 launches, but I'd like to get an understanding of what it was this century.

Gunter's?  Look at Titan II/IV, Delta II/IV and Atlas II/III

[Blackstar]

Where can I find the annual launch rate for VAFB/VSFB for the past two decades? I know that it increased a lot in the past two years with Falcon 9 launches, but I'd like to get an understanding of what it was this century.

Gunter's?  Look at Titan II/IV, Delta II/IV and Atlas II/III

I tried that. No luck. I'll have to ask Jonathan McDowell, who can probably pull this out of a database.

[Blackstar]

I don't want to turn this into a big article, so I am resisting diving into it too much. I have looked at Jenkins' shuttle book to see what is in there and will look at it again. Most of his focus was on SLC-6, and I need to understand what other shuttle facilities were built at VAFB that were ultimately repurposed. The artwork I have shows a parachute maintenance building and also a large shuttle ET maintenance building that could hold up to five ETs. I don't know if either of those was built.

It's always impressive to look at photos of the SLC-6 construction. It was a huge project. A couple of years ago I was lucky to get an exclusive tour of SLC-6 while the Delta IV Heavy was on the pad. I got to go under, alongside, and above the rocket, which was really cool. My guide also pointed out some of the changes from MOL to shuttle and then from shuttle to Delta IV. For instance the original MOL complex had fire escapes down from the tower that were not enclosed, meaning that anybody using them could be overcome by smoke, so they were replaced with enclosed stairwells--the original stairwells were still there, but they were blocked off. There was another major difference on the ground in front of the rocket, where a rotating structure had been replaced. And some of the flame trenches were partially filled in.

[edzieba]

Where can I find the annual launch rate for VAFB/VSFB for the past two decades? I know that it increased a lot in the past two years with Falcon 9 launches, but I'd like to get an understanding of what it was this century.

Gunter's?  Look at Titan II/IV, Delta II/IV and Atlas II/III

I tried that. No luck. I'll have to ask Jonathan McDowell, who can probably pull this out of a database.

VSFB launches per year attached (filtered from Jonathan's GCAT).

[th]Year[/th]     [th]Launch count[/th]
1958	1
1959	20
1960	25
1961	28
1962	58
1963	91
1964	105
1965	101
1966	122
1967	115
1968	78
1969	95
1970	87
1971	84
1972	65
1973	44
1974	49
1975	47
1976	41
1977	32
1978	32
1979	27
1980	27
1981	21
1982	17
1983	28
1984	23
1985	17
1986	17
1987	20
1988	13
1989	13
1990	13
1991	16
1992	13
1993	11
1994	14
1995	11
1996	16
1997	19
1998	18
1999	17
2000	16
2001	12
2002	13
2003	12
2004	8
2005	9
2006	11
2007	8
2008	10
2009	8
2010	10
2011	9
2012	4
2013	11
2014	6
2015	7
2016	7
2017	14
2018	13
2019	10
2020	5
2021	10
2022	19
2023	35
2024	36

[Blackstar]

Thank you for that. Does that include suborbital launches like Minuteman?


Update: Jonathan just told me 286 launches this century, including suborbital like Minuteman.

[edzieba]

Thank you for that. Does that include suborbital launches like Minuteman?

It does. Here's just orbital launches:

[th]Year[/th]     [th]Count[/th]
1959	8
1960	11
1961	17
1962	26
1963	21
1964	32
1965	40
1966	46
1967	40
1968	32
1969	22
1970	17
1971	19
1972	21
1973	12
1974	13
1975	14
1976	13
1977	7
1978	14
1979	6
1980	9
1981	8
1982	5
1983	11
1984	10
1985	5
1986	4
1987	5
1988	7
1989	2
1990	3
1991	5
1992	4
1993	4
1994	6
1995	6
1996	8
1997	11
1998	11
1999	11
2000	8
2001	5
2002	3
2003	6
2004	3
2005	5
2006	6
2007	4
2008	4
2009	6
2010	3
2011	6
2012	2
2013	5
2014	4
2015	2
2016	3
2017	9
2018	9
2019	3
2020	1
2021	7
2022	16
2023	30
2024	33
2024	36

[Blackstar]

Working a bit more on my article (again, it's going to be relatively short, not a detailed history of this subject), I decided to look at Google Earth to see what shuttle facilities were built and still standing. I looked for the ET storage and processing facility and found it just a short distance south of SLC-6. It was designed to store four ETs and process a fifth.

I suspect that this building was never used, even for Delta IV. It's just too big, and at the southern part of the base there's not really any activities over there that would require it. What are they going to fill it with, lawnmowers and dump trucks?  Next time I am out there I'll have to ask my buddy if we can get over there and see it.

[Galactic Penguin SST]

Working a bit more on my article (again, it's going to be relatively short, not a detailed history of this subject), I decided to look at Google Earth to see what shuttle facilities were built and still standing. I looked for the ET storage and processing facility and found it just a short distance south of SLC-6. It was designed to store four ETs and process a fifth.

I suspect that this building was never used, even for Delta IV. It's just too big, and at the southern part of the base there's not really any activities over there that would require it. What are they going to fill it with, lawnmowers and dump trucks?  Next time I am out there I'll have to ask my buddy if we can get over there and see it.

This site is now leased out to Relativity Space to build a new pad there for their Terran-R rocket.

https://www.cnbc.com/2020/06/24/3d-rocket-printer-relativity-signs-deal-with-iridium-and-plans-to-build-a-california-launchpad.html

Relativity just announced they’ve secured a launch site at Vandenberg on the southern tip of the base, and a launch contract with Iridium to fly 6 of their satellites. As well as a Chief Financial Officer with investment banking/fundraising background. Pretty big news! That is some solid, very solid, business progress. Methinks as long as the printing tech is actually working, they will definitely make it to orbit just a matter of time now... and they’ll probably have the capital to do it if they don’t already given this kind of business traction which is catnip for investors.

[Blackstar]

I'm not doing any deep dive research on VAFB and the shuttle. I have another article in draft form that I may go back to some day and it goes into things like the acquisition of the land that was then used for SLC-6. My current article is mainly just an excuse to show off a bunch of artwork.

One interesting fact that a friend of mine pointed out was that the large ET storage facility, capable of storing four ETs while processing a fifth, was based on a concern that in event of war, the Panama Canal could be shut down. Now I'm not sure how you get to that point--if it is WWIII, then the launch site will get nuked, so it doesn't matter if the canal is open or closed. Maybe they were concerned about instability in Panama, which did eventually become rather unstable.

[Jim]

One interesting fact that a friend of mine pointed out was that the large SRB storage facility, capable of storing four SRBs while processing a fifth, was based on a concern that in event of war, the Panama Canal could be shut down. Now I'm not sure how you get to that point--if it is WWIII, then the launch site will get nuked, so it doesn't matter if the canal is open or closed. Maybe they were concerned about instability in Panama, which did eventually become rather unstable.

ET storage facility I believe. That is the building in reply #36.  SRB building were on the north side near the railroad tracks.

[DaveS]

Working a bit more on my article (again, it's going to be relatively short, not a detailed history of this subject), I decided to look at Google Earth to see what shuttle facilities were built and still standing. I looked for the ET storage and processing facility and found it just a short distance south of SLC-6. It was designed to store four ETs and process a fifth.

I suspect that this building was never used, even for Delta IV. It's just too big, and at the southern part of the base there's not really any activities over there that would require it. What are they going to fill it with, lawnmowers and dump trucks?  Next time I am out there I'll have to ask my buddy if we can get over there and see it.

The External Tank Checkout Facility (ETCF) was used as the ETs for the first four Vandenberg missions had been delivered prior to the program's termination. The Facility Checkouts back in 1984/1985 saw Enterprise mated to ET assigned to the third mission. After the termination those ETs were used on later missions from KSC instead. Also, the first set of FWC SRMs had also been delivered but the pad trials used the same inert steel SRBs that had been used for the same purpose at KSC in '79, also with Enterprise.
Edit:
Attached a B&Wphoto of the STS-62A FWC SRBs stacked on the Launch Mount prior to program termination.

[Blackstar]

ET storage facility I believe. That is the building in replay #36.  SRB building were on the north side near the railroad tracks.

Yes, corrected. Serves me right for posting while drunk.

[Blackstar]

Some more examples of some of the stuff I acquired at my recent trip to VSFB. I'll be going back in a few weeks.

Top image is the ET facility. You can see the four storage bays and the high-bay at left.

[Blackstar]

My TSR article on this subject will probably appear next week. It's finished, but I decided to delay it a week because I don't want to swamp TSR with military space articles. Also, it takes forever to write captions for a bunch of images, and I have yet to do that. I'll post a few more of the images in coming days.

I'm primarily going to stick to the artwork, not construction photos. I do have a lot of great SLC-6 photos but they're not all mine. There is somebody who wants to do something about SLC-6 and I don't want to step on his toes. As I mentioned, I do have another article about SLC-6 that is in draft form and I may have to revisit it. That is more about the acquisition of the land. As soon as the base was established there were Air Force people looking at acquiring the land to the south that was owned by the Sudden family. Efforts to take it did not start until around 1963/64. The Air Force seized it using eminent domain, but they under-paid the Suddens who then sued the government and successfully received more money for the property. And then of course everything was shut down with MOL's cancellation. It must have been rather galling to the Suddens to have their land taken and then have the whole area put into mothballs by 1970.

[catdlr]

My TSR article on this subject will probably appear next week. It's finished, but I decided to delay it a week because I don't want to swamp TSR with military space articles. Also, it takes forever to write captions for a bunch of images, and I have yet to do that. I'll post a few more of the images in coming days.

I'm primarily going to stick to the artwork, not construction photos. I do have a lot of great SLC-6 photos but they're not all mine. There is somebody who wants to do something about SLC-6 and I don't want to step on his toes. As I mentioned, I do have another article about SLC-6 that is in draft form and I may have to revisit it. That is more about the acquisition of the land. As soon as the base was established there were Air Force people looking at acquiring the land to the south that was owned by the Sudden family. Efforts to take it did not start until around 1963/64. The Air Force seized it using eminent domain, but they under-paid the Suddens who then sued the government and successfully received more money for the property. And then of course everything was shut down with MOL's cancellation. It must have been rather galling to the Suddens to have their land taken and then have the whole area put into mothballs by 1970.

I eagerly wait for it.  But, pick a slow news day or launch day to publish it.  Tony

[Blackstar]

I eagerly wait for it.  But, pick a slow news day or launch day to publish it.  Tony

There are no slow news days anymore.

[Blackstar]

[catdlr]

I love the model; I can see myself inserting my "N" scale train set onto it.

All that complexity, much of it never used, and some of those flame ducts getting refiled with soil—it's so sad.

But Hey, it's time for Change.  Let's see what SpaceX will build.

[Blackstar]

I love the model; I can see myself inserting my "N" scale train set onto it.

All that complexity, much of it never used, and some of those flame ducts getting refiled with soil—it's so sad.

But Hey, it's time for Change.  Let's see what SpaceX will build.

The model lights up, with little blinking lights that show the path of the Delta IV to the pad. The construction of the model is impressive, and the lighting doesn't add much to it. There are plans to build a glass cover over it to protect it. They also have some other SLC-6 and SLC-4 tower models.

I walked down in one of those flame trenches in 2022.

[Blackstar]

https://thespacereview.com/article/4882/1

Vandenberg and the space shuttle (part 1)
by Dwayne A. Day
Monday, October 28, 2024

In the early 1980s, excitement was rapidly building at Vandenberg Air Force Base and its surrounding areas on California’s Central Coast as the Air Force began construction of numerous new facilities to support the space shuttle. In addition to major reconstruction of the SLC-6 launch pad, work began on orbiter, booster, and payload processing buildings and other support infrastructure with the expectation that shuttles would regularly be roaring aloft from Vandenberg. But after the January 1986 Challenger accident, plans to launch shuttle from the West Coast were halted, then canceled completely. The decision was a major setback to the local economy and the base.

[catdlr]

https://thespacereview.com/article/4882/1

Vandenberg and the space shuttle (part 1)
by Dwayne A. Day
Monday, October 28, 2024

I want to give this the time it deserves to be read in detail. I'm busy with caregiving, but I'll be free to read the article overnight. I'm so delighted you spent the time and effort visiting the base and researching historical records in writing this. I wish NASA events were different and the VSFB Shuttle launch facility was operational. But what happened, happened, and putting it into a written article will make this a lifetime treasure.

 Tony

[Blackstar]

I want to give this the time it deserves to be read in detail. I'm busy with caregiving, but I'll be free to read the article overnight. I'm so delighted you spent the time and effort visiting the base and researching historical records in writing this. I wish NASA events were different and the VSFB Shuttle

Just to clarify: my only real "research" was going to Vandenberg and coming across a file that included a few dozen glossy prints from the shuttle facilities construction proposals. They were in a file without any context, no documentation. I just scanned all of them. I did not dig through historical archives. In all my years of going out to Vandenberg, I've never had much success dealing with the base historian.

The rest of my research on shuttle at VAFB comes from some other documents that I already had, as well as verifying information from Dennis Jenkins' 3-volume shuttle set. (His chapter on shuttle at VAFB is probably the most extensive print source on this subject.) In short, I don't consider this to be extensive research on my part, unless you want to count driving up to VSFB from LAX to be part of the effort.

At some point in the future I'll write about why I've been going to Vandenberg and what I've been doing. There is something going on there, and there is a hint in one of the photos in this article. While there, I've found a few interesting things, like the Transit and the Thor photos that I published in previous Space Review articles.

[catdlr]

I want to give this the time it deserves to be read in detail. I'm busy with caregiving, but I'll be free to read the article overnight. I'm so delighted you spent the time and effort visiting the base and researching historical records in writing this. I wish NASA events were different and the VSFB Shuttle

Just to clarify: my only real "research" was going to Vandenberg and coming across a file that included a few dozen glossy prints from the shuttle facilities construction proposals. They were in a file without any context, no documentation. I just scanned all of them. I did not dig through historical archives. In all my years of going out to Vandenberg, I've never had much success dealing with the base historian.

The rest of my research on shuttle at VAFB comes from some other documents that I already had, as well as verifying information from Dennis Jenkins' 3-volume shuttle set. (His chapter on shuttle at VAFB is probably the most extensive print source on this subject.) In short, I don't consider this to be extensive research on my part, unless you want to count driving up to VSFB from LAX to be part of the effort.

At some point in the future I'll write about why I've been going to Vandenberg and what I've been doing. There is something going on there, and there is a hint in one of the photos in this article. While there, I've found a few interesting things, like the Transit and the Thor photos that I published in previous Space Review articles.

Understand, but anything and everything you give us is way better than we could ever obtain. 

[Blackstar]

Understand, but anything and everything you give us is way better than we could ever obtain. 

It's just a personal research integrity thing for me--there are other articles I've written that I consider to be much more original and unique research. My article on TENCAP, or my articles on SIGINT, for example, all have new information that nobody previously reported on. I broke new ground with those. I did not break new ground with this Vandenberg shuttle article(s).

That said (and please allow me to ramble), SLC-6 has long been an interest of mine. Back in the 1990s I used to trade emails with another writer where we would discuss what happened to SLC-6 and what was likely to happen to it. There were people in the Lompoc community who expected the shuttle to lead to a boom in tourism as people filled up the hotels prior to a shuttle launch, and they expected traffic jams on the roads as people jostled for a good spot to watch the shuttle rise up over the mountains.

Vandenberg was relatively sleepy up until last year. They had maybe a dozen or so launches a year for a long time. And then the Falcon 9 launches increased substantially, and now there is a whole community of people who watch the launches. It helps that the state opened up one of the beaches that allows people to watch launches from much closer now. It's not clear that this has affected the local economy at all. But there's more energy to the place.

[catdlr]

Blackstar,

I lived in LA, drove to Lompoc for dinner, and then went off to Surf Train station with my parents.  I remember viewing the Delta III launches (JPL mission) from the old Surf train station (when it was still used to drop off and retrieve mail bags with those spring-loaded Swing Arms that the onboard postal employee would grab as the train sped by.  I could see the Titan pad from a distance.  The launches at night were spectacular as the LV would ascend directly overhead (at least appeared that way).  For so many hours, we waited with others in cold, windy weather to watch a few precious moments of excitement. It's never old.  Lompoc was a sleep town; only the BBQ festival and the Burpee seed plantations made the entire valley a wall-to-wall rainbow of color.  I think the flower festival was more exciting than the launches for the people living there.  The 60s must have been busy on the base with all the spy launches. 

Since my wife took ill, I haven't ventured back many years, but I can at least enjoy them now on the internet and not have to endure the weather.

[Blackstar]

The "Vandenberg Rocket Launches" group on Facebook has some great photographs. Just don't read the comments.

[Blackstar]

I may have posted one or more of these up-thread, but the August 4, 1978 one is the most interesting one. Also not that important. It suggested that USAF did not need Vandenberg for shuttle launches because polar launches could be done from Florida.

I'm not sure how they reached that conclusion. But perhaps a bit more importantly, I'm not sure that the GAO was really authorized to make major recommendations about technical programs. Or probably should not have been.

I think I later saw a document or maybe a history that suggested that some USAF people stated that GAO was clearly not technically qualified to make those kinds of decisions and this made the GAO look bad. I think that's true. But this document was clearly an outlier and they did not keep arguing that point.

[LittleBird]

I may have posted one or more of these up-thread, but the August 4, 1978 one is the most interesting one. Also not that important. It suggested that USAF did not need Vandenberg for shuttle launches because polar launches could be done from Florida.

I'm not sure how they reached that conclusion. But perhaps a bit more importantly, I'm not sure that the GAO was really authorized to make major recommendations about technical programs. Or probably should not have been.

I think I later saw a document or maybe a history that suggested that some USAF people stated that GAO was clearly not technically qualified to make those kinds of decisions and this made the GAO look bad. I think that's true. But this document was clearly an outlier and they did not keep arguing that point.

It appears that there was doubt quite early on in some quarters about whether Vandenberg would really become a shuttle base - see my post about  an Agena tug briefing

https://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=11111.msg2588314#msg2588314

when the possibility of dogleg manoeuvre had been acknowledged.

[gtae07]

Just don't read the comments.

Probably sound advice for any website these days 

I used to work with a guy who did GSE development out there for the Shuttle program.   He had some pretty good stories from SLC-6 and later at KSC when he followed the program over there.  I wish I'd kept in touch; he was forcibly retired in one of our misguided panicked layoffs a few years ago.

[Blackstar]

Working a bit more on my article (again, it's going to be relatively short, not a detailed history of this subject), I decided to look at Google Earth to see what shuttle facilities were built and still standing. I looked for the ET storage and processing facility and found it just a short distance south of SLC-6. It was designed to store four ETs and process a fifth.

I suspect that this building was never used, even for Delta IV. It's just too big, and at the southern part of the base there's not really any activities over there that would require it. What are they going to fill it with, lawnmowers and dump trucks?  Next time I am out there I'll have to ask my buddy if we can get over there and see it.

This site is now leased out to Relativity Space to build a new pad there for their Terran-R rocket.

https://www.cnbc.com/2020/06/24/3d-rocket-printer-relativity-signs-deal-with-iridium-and-plans-to-build-a-california-launchpad.html

Relativity just announced they’ve secured a launch site at Vandenberg on the southern tip of the base, and a launch contract with Iridium to fly 6 of their satellites. As well as a Chief Financial Officer with investment banking/fundraising background. Pretty big news! That is some solid, very solid, business progress. Methinks as long as the printing tech is actually working, they will definitely make it to orbit just a matter of time now... and they’ll probably have the capital to do it if they don’t already given this kind of business traction which is catnip for investors.

I know nothing about Relativity Space, but apparently they are in some financial trouble:

https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2024-11-01/relativity-space-is-said-to-face-cash-drain-exploring-options?sref=nPlhheXZ

[Blackstar]

It has been some time since I last read this, so I need to look at it again for interesting stuff. Pete Aldridge was Secretary of the Air Force and was behind the decision to stop USAF use of the shuttle. He explains that decision here in a history he wrote in (I think) the early 1990s. Of course, he could not even mention the NRO here, so you need to read between the lines on some things.

This history covers the period from 1983-1985 when DoD sought to procure additional expendable launch vehicles so that it did not have to entirely rely upon the space shuttle for launch, something that had been enshrined in policy in 1978. That eventually led to the Titan IV, and then later on to the restarting of Atlas and Delta II production lines. (I think that the Atlas and Delta II decision was made after Challenger, and that up to the Challenger accident the only approved alternative was the Titan.) The article also mentions the decision to move some small payloads, such as DMSP, to the Titan II.

In short, for a period of time all payloads--civil, military, and commercial--were supposed to go on the shuttle. But this decision was reversed.

[Blackstar]

Vandenberg and the space shuttle (part 2)
by Dwayne A. Day
Monday, November 11, 2024

During the 2000s, rocket launches at Vandenberg Air Force Base were so few—falling into the single digits—that the base became almost sleepy. In recent years, launches have increased substantially, and several new launch companies have taken over dormant facilities, adding greater energy to what is now a Space Force Base on California’s central coast. But even today the activity on the base does not match the early 1980s when major construction was underway both at the southern part of the base, at Space Launch Complex-6, as well as on the main base. The construction was in support of the Space Shuttle, which was planned to begin launches from California by the mid-1980s. Recently, this author acquired many images of the proposed shuttle facilities that were created from 1978 to 1980 when construction was first proposed. Although it is easy to see what was built at Vandenberg, these illustrations show the plans before construction began (see “Vandenberg and the space shuttle (part 1)”, The Space Review, October 28, 2024.)

[catdlr]

Vandenberg and the space shuttle (part 2)
by Dwayne A. Day
Monday, November 11, 2024

Thank you for your efforts. I acknowledge that you avoided mentioning the Indian burial grounds as a potential explanation for the unsuccessful projects associated with this launch pad. It is my hope that this matter will no longer be an issue and that the spirits will welcome SpaceX. SpaceX is effectively optimizing the use of this pad despite the likelihood that much of the infrastructure developed for prior projects will remain unused.  I wish them all the luck.  I appreciate your effort to bring us some added historical insights to this very large but very secret lunch facility.  It will be a challenge for NSF to provide live coverage of launches being so far away from Surf train station.  Just have to depend on SpaceX providing that.

Tony.

[Blackstar]

Thank you for your efforts. I acknowledge that you avoided mentioning the Indian burial grounds as a potential explanation

There never were any "burial grounds." That's a complete misstating of Chumash theology. And rumors of a "curse" were ways for white people to blame the mismanagement of a construction project on somebody else. I've researched and written about that subject, it was not relevant to this article.

[catdlr]

Thank you for your efforts. I acknowledge that you avoided mentioning the Indian burial grounds as a potential explanation

There never were any "burial grounds." That's a complete misstating of Chumash theology. And rumors of a "curse" were ways for white people to blame the mismanagement of a construction project on somebody else. I've researched and written about that subject, it was not relevant to this article.

Thanks for clearing that misconception up.

[Whisper-stream]

Blackstar writes: "There never were any 'burial grounds.' That's a complete misstating of Chumash theology. And rumors of a "curse" were ways for white people to blame the mismanagement of a construction project on somebody else. I've researched and written about that subject, it was not relevant to this article."


While I agree with all of the above, it's only fair to mention that Native American remains were found at archaeological sites nearby. In October 1990, I photographed a human jawbone and other fragmentary remains at Nocto, site of a Chumash village just south of SLC-6.

[Blackstar]

There are bones everywhere. There are bones at Mount Vernon and Monticello. There's a family plot located next to my local Starbucks. That means nothing. If somebody wants to blame native American ghosts for a messed-up USAF contract, then I think they might have some other issues they need to deal with.

[Whisper-stream]

No need to be churlish. I wasn't suggesting there was any merit to the idea of intervention by native spirits. I was merely positing a likely origin for the folklore surrounding SLC-6.

[Blackstar]

One thing that I did not do for the article was compare the proposal artwork to what was actually built. The payload processing building, for instance, was constructed, but is apparently different than what was depicted in the artwork. Also, there were proposed facilities for handling the hypergolics on the shuttle, but I'm not sure that these were constructed.

The best source on the work is Dennis Jenkins' 3-volume shuttle history. I think the Vandenberg facilities are discussed in volume 3.

[LittleBird]

One thing that I did not do for the article was compare the proposal artwork to what was actually built. The payload processing building, for instance, was constructed, but is apparently different than what was depicted in the artwork.

I am rather amazed by how close the payload processing building seema to be to the pad if I have understood right:



https://www.l3harris.com/all-capabilities/satellite-and-payload-processing

[catdlr]

One thing that I did not do for the article was compare the proposal artwork to what was actually built. The payload processing building, for instance, was constructed, but is apparently different than what was depicted in the artwork.

I am rather amazed by how close the payload processing building seema to be to the pad if I have understood right:

https://youtube.com/watch?v=GvQ1LrSyV1M

https://www.l3harris.com/all-capabilities/satellite-and-payload-processing

Is L3Harris still doing this?  I was under the impression that Astrotech was performing this for F9 and ULA.

[hartspace]

I am rather amazed by how close the payload processing building seema to be to the pad if I have understood right:

As I recall, the east face of the Payload Processing Facility (PPF), now IPF, was about 800 feet from the Shuttle launch mount.  Needless to say, the PPF is quite a hefty concrete building.  Also of note, the Shuttle Launch Control Center, the two-story building to the northwest of the PPF was 1200 feet from the launch mount, and people would be in there for the Shuttle launch.

[hartspace]

Is L3Harris still doing this?  I was under the impression that Astrotech was performing this for F9 and ULA.

It's been a few years since I worked at Vandenberg, but at the time Astrotech had a payload processing facility on north base south of SLC-2, L3Harris had the IPF adjacent to SLC-6, and SpaceX had a payload processing facility attached to their booster processing building at SLC-4.

[Blackstar]

The best source on the shuttle facilities at VAFB is volume 3 of Dennis Jenkins' shuttle history. It has photos of the actual facilities. I have not done a comparison between the artwork that I published and the final versions, although the ET storage facility looks identical.

[Blackstar]

I was out at SLC-6 today. SpaceX currently occupies a couple of the buildings, one of which is used for things like refurbishing rockets, shrouds, and also encapsulating Starlink payloads. I think that was the former SRB building. They also occupy another building, although I don't know what they do there. They have not begun any demolition of the main structures on the launch pads. That is going to take awhile.

Also saw the ET storage building. It's not in use, just locked up. Although Relativity has a lease to it, my guess is that they'll probably give it up, and then SpaceX will take it over. SpaceX needs more storage space, and that would be useful to them.

Also got over to the former MOL/shuttle astronaut quarters. That is also used by SpaceX, although I don't know what for. It's not that big. There's a dome on a small tower next to it.

[Blackstar]

About ten days ago I was out at Vandenberg. One of the things I wanted to see was the MOL/shuttle crew quarters. We drove over to the building. It is now leased by SpaceX and I couldn't go inside (SpaceX leases a much larger building right next door). It is actually a pretty small building and this shuttle-era drawing makes it look larger than it did up close. I assume that they only use it for offices, because it's not really designed for handling hardware. If the interior partitions are still the same, those are probably just basic offices. Apparently there was a secure room in there, which makes sense because this would have been designed for briefing MOL astronauts on their classified mission. Whether that has been preserved, I don't know.

The large room at the end was originally a handball court for the astronauts, then intended to be an exercise room for the shuttle astronauts.

[dawardlaw]

Some more examples of some of the stuff I acquired at my recent trip to VSFB. I'll be going back in a few weeks.

Top image is the ET facility. You can see the four storage bays and the high-bay at left.

The OMCF was designed to also service retrieved on-orbit assets and to send them back up.

[LittleBird]

Some more examples of some of the stuff I acquired at my recent trip to VSFB. I'll be going back in a few weeks.

Top image is the ET facility. You can see the four storage bays and the high-bay at left.

The OMCF was designed to also service retrieved on-orbit assets and to send them back up.

Interesting, in view of the now declassified studies on doing that with HEXAGON in space, Blackstar has written about this at TSR. Not sure if we've seen any docs on doing such work on ground and subsequent relaunch.

[Jim]

Interesting, in view of the now declassified studies on doing that with HEXAGON in space, Blackstar has written about this at TSR. Not sure if we've seen any docs on doing such work on ground and subsequent relaunch.

Never got that far.  No satellite designed for that yet.

[Blackstar]

Interesting, in view of the now declassified studies on doing that with HEXAGON in space, Blackstar has written about this at TSR. Not sure if we've seen any docs on doing such work on ground and subsequent relaunch.

Never got that far.  No satellite designed for that yet.

I'd have to check my notes, but DAMON was only an active project for about a year. I don't know if they even got to start procurement of long-lead items for that, but it was canceled relatively quickly and they certainly didn't get around to working on the ground servicing part.

For those who don't know: DAMON was a top secret plan to develop a modified HEXAGON camera system and fly it in the shuttle bay. It would take photos over the Soviet Union and then the shuttle would return to Earth, the system would be refurbished, and it would fly again. The plans were for about 2-3 flights per year. It was canceled around late 1980 (need to check that date).

[Jim]

Interesting, in view of the now declassified studies on doing that with HEXAGON in space, Blackstar has written about this at TSR. Not sure if we've seen any docs on doing such work on ground and subsequent relaunch.

Never got that far.  No satellite designed for that yet.

I'd have to check my notes, but DAMON was only an active project for about a year. I don't know if they even got to start procurement of long-lead items for that, but it was canceled relatively quickly and they certainly didn't get around to working on the ground servicing part.

For those who don't know: DAMON was a top secret plan to develop a modified HEXAGON camera system and fly it in the shuttle bay. It would take photos over the Soviet Union and then the shuttle would return to Earth, the system would be refurbished, and it would fly again. The plans were for about 2-3 flights per year. It was canceled around late 1980 (need to check that date).

It would have been an “easy” refurbishment.  The OMCF was set up to handle large payloads and propellant s.

[Blackstar]

It would have been an “easy” refurbishment.  The OMCF was set up to handle large payloads and propellant s.

The problem for DAMON would have been designing it so that the film could be threaded through it. When they built the HEXAGON, they threaded film in as they built the camera, and then kept a piece hanging out of the camera so that they could thread in the actual film for the mission.

I don't know how they would have done it with DAMON. Possibly they would have brought the equipment back and kept a piece of the film in the camera and then spliced new film to that for the next mission.

By the way, I originally thought that DAMON was a name from mythology, but was later told that it was "Nomad" spelled backwards, because the NRO guys were Trekkies.

[LittleBird]

By the way, I originally thought that DAMON was a name from mythology, but was later told that it was "Nomad" spelled backwards, because the NRO guys were Trekkies.

So we shouldn't expect to see PYTHIAS declassified, then ;-)

[catdlr]

NSF Article on SLC-6

SpaceX’s SLC-6 redevelopment green light
written by Chris Bergin, October 19, 2025

I'll ask my question from L2 over here:

Why do you think the IPF (circle in red) was not labeled in this picture?  It wasn't marked, and I wanted to know if it would be altered or reused to support SpaceX. That building was missing a flag. Is it out of scope for the renovations?

[Jim]

Why do you think the IPF (circle in red) was not labeled in this picture?  It wasn't marked, and I wanted to know if it would be altered or reused to support SpaceX. That building was missing a flag. Is it out of scope for the renovations?

Because it has been operating as a commercial PPF for the last 35 years or so.  L3Harris currently operates it.

[catdlr]

Why do you think the IPF (circle in red) was not labeled in this picture?  It wasn't marked, and I wanted to know if it would be altered or reused to support SpaceX. That building was missing a flag. Is it out of scope for the renovations?

Because it has been operating as a commercial PPF for the last 35 years or so.  L3Harris currently operates it.

That's what I thought too, thanks as always for a straight answer.   So it wasn't marked on that picture as it's "Out of Scope".  Thanks, Jim,

Tony

[Blackstar]

When I was out there a few months ago I asked about that. I think (and my memory is sketchy) that I was told that SpaceX would like to acquire it, but at the moment they're not getting it. Not sure why. Maybe the current operator is not interested in giving it up, or SpaceX is just going to have to wait for the lease to expire.

I published an article a few months ago about the new museum and I included some photos of the museum's big SLC-6 model. I was standing at that model when we had the above discussion. We were talking about what buildings were likely to be demolished.

[LittleBird]

Why do you think the IPF (circle in red) was not labeled in this picture?  It wasn't marked, and I wanted to know if it would be altered or reused to support SpaceX. That building was missing a flag. Is it out of scope for the renovations?

Because it has been operating as a commercial PPF for the last 35 years or so.  L3Harris currently operates it.

That's what I thought too, thanks as always for a straight answer.   So it wasn't marked on that picture as it's "Out of Scope".  Thanks, Jim,

Tony

See video here: https://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=58617.msg2641618#msg2641618