Quote from: MGoDuPage on 06/13/2022 05:28 pmQuote from: wannamoonbase on 06/13/2022 04:55 pmQuote from: MGoDuPage on 06/13/2022 04:47 pm2) Someone mentioned over on Reddit that Vlucan Centaur is slated to be using the same launch pad/facility as the one used by Atlas V & Boeint's Starliner. I don't know if there are other pads capable of launching an Atlas V w/ crewed Starliner. But if not..... is NASA requiring ULA & Boeing to do a similar risk-avoidance exercise?Vulcan is not the size of Superheavy and its miles away.NASA is right to be concerned, I suspect that DOD also wants some assurances as some of the planned payloads need to use LC39A.A problem with a fully fueled Superheavy could be very destructive. Even LC49 north of LC39B may be a concern for that pad.I'm not saying NASA doesn't have a right to be concerned--I think they DO.However, what I'm wondering whether NASA raised this issue previously? If they did & SpaceX ignored their concerns, then that's on SpaceX. But if not, then why not, and why should SpaceX have to pay for a concern that was raised after-the-fact? Also, are you saying the Vulcan launch infrastructure is miles away from the AtlasV/Starliner launch infrastrucutre? If so, then I agree there's no reason for NASA to require similar steps from ULA. But if not, then even if Vulcan won't be as big as the SH/SS stack, there'd still be a substantial risk of damaging the ability of Starliner to launch if an early Vulcan vehicle goes kablooey a few hundred feet away, no?The other reason the concern is high may be that Starliner is not yet crew-qualified. If Starliner were already operational, loss of the ability to launch Crew Dragon would not be as big a problem. If this factors into NASA's reasoning, then they might not want to risk 39A with a Starship launch attempt until Starliner-1 is ready to fly.
Quote from: wannamoonbase on 06/13/2022 04:55 pmQuote from: MGoDuPage on 06/13/2022 04:47 pm2) Someone mentioned over on Reddit that Vlucan Centaur is slated to be using the same launch pad/facility as the one used by Atlas V & Boeint's Starliner. I don't know if there are other pads capable of launching an Atlas V w/ crewed Starliner. But if not..... is NASA requiring ULA & Boeing to do a similar risk-avoidance exercise?Vulcan is not the size of Superheavy and its miles away.NASA is right to be concerned, I suspect that DOD also wants some assurances as some of the planned payloads need to use LC39A.A problem with a fully fueled Superheavy could be very destructive. Even LC49 north of LC39B may be a concern for that pad.I'm not saying NASA doesn't have a right to be concerned--I think they DO.However, what I'm wondering whether NASA raised this issue previously? If they did & SpaceX ignored their concerns, then that's on SpaceX. But if not, then why not, and why should SpaceX have to pay for a concern that was raised after-the-fact? Also, are you saying the Vulcan launch infrastructure is miles away from the AtlasV/Starliner launch infrastrucutre? If so, then I agree there's no reason for NASA to require similar steps from ULA. But if not, then even if Vulcan won't be as big as the SH/SS stack, there'd still be a substantial risk of damaging the ability of Starliner to launch if an early Vulcan vehicle goes kablooey a few hundred feet away, no?
Quote from: MGoDuPage on 06/13/2022 04:47 pm2) Someone mentioned over on Reddit that Vlucan Centaur is slated to be using the same launch pad/facility as the one used by Atlas V & Boeint's Starliner. I don't know if there are other pads capable of launching an Atlas V w/ crewed Starliner. But if not..... is NASA requiring ULA & Boeing to do a similar risk-avoidance exercise?Vulcan is not the size of Superheavy and its miles away.NASA is right to be concerned, I suspect that DOD also wants some assurances as some of the planned payloads need to use LC39A.A problem with a fully fueled Superheavy could be very destructive. Even LC49 north of LC39B may be a concern for that pad.
2) Someone mentioned over on Reddit that Vlucan Centaur is slated to be using the same launch pad/facility as the one used by Atlas V & Boeint's Starliner. I don't know if there are other pads capable of launching an Atlas V w/ crewed Starliner. But if not..... is NASA requiring ULA & Boeing to do a similar risk-avoidance exercise?
Quote from: DanClemmensen on 06/13/2022 08:34 pmQuote from: MGoDuPage on 06/13/2022 05:28 pmQuote from: wannamoonbase on 06/13/2022 04:55 pmQuote from: MGoDuPage on 06/13/2022 04:47 pm2) Someone mentioned over on Reddit that Vlucan Centaur is slated to be using the same launch pad/facility as the one used by Atlas V & Boeint's Starliner. I don't know if there are other pads capable of launching an Atlas V w/ crewed Starliner. But if not..... is NASA requiring ULA & Boeing to do a similar risk-avoidance exercise?Vulcan is not the size of Superheavy and its miles away.NASA is right to be concerned, I suspect that DOD also wants some assurances as some of the planned payloads need to use LC39A.A problem with a fully fueled Superheavy could be very destructive. Even LC49 north of LC39B may be a concern for that pad.I'm not saying NASA doesn't have a right to be concerned--I think they DO.However, what I'm wondering whether NASA raised this issue previously? If they did & SpaceX ignored their concerns, then that's on SpaceX. But if not, then why not, and why should SpaceX have to pay for a concern that was raised after-the-fact? Also, are you saying the Vulcan launch infrastructure is miles away from the AtlasV/Starliner launch infrastrucutre? If so, then I agree there's no reason for NASA to require similar steps from ULA. But if not, then even if Vulcan won't be as big as the SH/SS stack, there'd still be a substantial risk of damaging the ability of Starliner to launch if an early Vulcan vehicle goes kablooey a few hundred feet away, no?The other reason the concern is high may be that Starliner is not yet crew-qualified. If Starliner were already operational, loss of the ability to launch Crew Dragon would not be as big a problem. If this factors into NASA's reasoning, then they might not want to risk 39A with a Starship launch attempt until Starliner-1 is ready to fly.That makes sense. But I think timing will work out more or less fine for that. Go go go Boeing!
I'm not NASA or SpaceX, so this is an uninformed gut feeling. In the entire history of space flight, how many times has a launch pad been lost catastrophically for any reason?
Quote from: DanClemmensen on 06/13/2022 09:33 pmI'm not NASA or SpaceX, so this is an uninformed gut feeling. In the entire history of space flight, how many times has a launch pad been lost catastrophically for any reason?Off the top of my head: LC-36A, 12, 13, 15?, SLC-4E
Quote from: meekGee on 06/13/2022 08:40 pmQuote from: DanClemmensen on 06/13/2022 08:34 pmQuote from: MGoDuPage on 06/13/2022 05:28 pmQuote from: wannamoonbase on 06/13/2022 04:55 pmQuote from: MGoDuPage on 06/13/2022 04:47 pm2) Someone mentioned over on Reddit that Vlucan Centaur is slated to be using the same launch pad/facility as the one used by Atlas V & Boeint's Starliner. I don't know if there are other pads capable of launching an Atlas V w/ crewed Starliner. But if not..... is NASA requiring ULA & Boeing to do a similar risk-avoidance exercise?Vulcan is not the size of Superheavy and its miles away.NASA is right to be concerned, I suspect that DOD also wants some assurances as some of the planned payloads need to use LC39A.A problem with a fully fueled Superheavy could be very destructive. Even LC49 north of LC39B may be a concern for that pad.I'm not saying NASA doesn't have a right to be concerned--I think they DO.However, what I'm wondering whether NASA raised this issue previously? If they did & SpaceX ignored their concerns, then that's on SpaceX. But if not, then why not, and why should SpaceX have to pay for a concern that was raised after-the-fact? Also, are you saying the Vulcan launch infrastructure is miles away from the AtlasV/Starliner launch infrastrucutre? If so, then I agree there's no reason for NASA to require similar steps from ULA. But if not, then even if Vulcan won't be as big as the SH/SS stack, there'd still be a substantial risk of damaging the ability of Starliner to launch if an early Vulcan vehicle goes kablooey a few hundred feet away, no?The other reason the concern is high may be that Starliner is not yet crew-qualified. If Starliner were already operational, loss of the ability to launch Crew Dragon would not be as big a problem. If this factors into NASA's reasoning, then they might not want to risk 39A with a Starship launch attempt until Starliner-1 is ready to fly.That makes sense. But I think timing will work out more or less fine for that. Go go go Boeing!If I were SpaceX I would not want my KSC Starship launch schedule to be contingent on the Starliner-1 schedule. On the other hand, If I were SpaceX or NASA I would want an alternative launch pad for Dragon (crew and cargo) regardless of any added risk caused by Starship.I'm not NASA or SpaceX, so this is an uninformed gut feeling. In the entire history of space flight, how many times has a launch pad been lost catastrophically for any reason?
Quote from: MGoDuPage on 06/13/2022 04:47 pm1) I think SpaceX has a long term lease for a notional Pad 49 just to the north of 39A. Has SpaceX submitted plans to build that out & has NASA approved of those plans? It seems like the best long term solution will be to build out 49 and designate that as a 100% SS/SH facility.That is my sense as well. Lots of room to build several pads at LC-49, and it's reasonably far away from everything else. Use LC-39A sparingly while Falcon 9 is still in operation (which is going to be for at least a decade).Quote2) Someone mentioned over on Reddit that Vlucan Centaur is slated to be using the same launch pad/facility as the one used by Atlas V & Boeint's Starliner. I don't know if there are other pads capable of launching an Atlas V w/ crewed Starliner. But if not..... is NASA requiring ULA & Boeing to do a similar risk-avoidance exercise?That's a great question.
1) I think SpaceX has a long term lease for a notional Pad 49 just to the north of 39A. Has SpaceX submitted plans to build that out & has NASA approved of those plans? It seems like the best long term solution will be to build out 49 and designate that as a 100% SS/SH facility.
What about CRS? Right now we still have both Cygnus and Cargo Dragon, but Cygnus' status in unknown after the last Antares launches. Can Cargo Dragon launch from more than one pad?
Quote from: volker2020 on 06/13/2022 05:01 pmI can understand that NASA is not happy with using Launch Complex 40 for both Falcon 9 and Super Heavy. The question for me is, did they pay SpaceX to keep that redundancy? I am quite sure, they won't have Super Heavy and Facon at the pad at the same time. What legal basis does NASA have for such a request? After all, it is no cost plus contract.I don't know (or much care) about the "legal basis". NASA sees risk to ISS operations, and they are exploring ways to mitigate the risk.
I can understand that NASA is not happy with using Launch Complex 40 for both Falcon 9 and Super Heavy. The question for me is, did they pay SpaceX to keep that redundancy? I am quite sure, they won't have Super Heavy and Facon at the pad at the same time. What legal basis does NASA have for such a request? After all, it is no cost plus contract.
Quote from: wannamoonbase on 06/13/2022 04:55 pmQuote from: MGoDuPage on 06/13/2022 04:47 pm2) Someone mentioned over on Reddit that Vlucan Centaur is slated to be using the same launch pad/facility as the one used by Atlas V & Boeint's Starliner. I don't know if there are other pads capable of launching an Atlas V w/ crewed Starliner. But if not..... is NASA requiring ULA & Boeing to do a similar risk-avoidance exercise?Vulcan is not the size of Superheavy and its miles away.NASA is right to be concerned, I suspect that DOD also wants some assurances as some of the planned payloads need to use LC39A.A problem with a fully fueled Superheavy could be very destructive. Even LC49 north of LC39B may be a concern for that pad.I'm not saying NASA doesn't have a right to be concerned--I think they DO.However, what I'm wondering whether NASA raised this issue previously? If they did & SpaceX ignored their concerns, then that's on SpaceX. But if not, then why not, and why should SpaceX have to pay for a concern that was raised after-the-fact?
given:1. No such requirement when SpaceX flew 1st FH from the pad2. No such requirement for Vulcan flying from Starliner's pad
I find this totally incomprehensible.In any other regulated industry the potential effects on adjacent facilities would have been assessed, high level risk control measures agreed and panels like ASAP consulted during the proposal stage. For major concerns about a rather obvious scenario to surface well into construction would suggest that NASA has a badly broken safety management system.
Quote from: su27k on 06/14/2022 01:30 am given:1. No such requirement when SpaceX flew 1st FH from the pad2. No such requirement for Vulcan flying from Starliner's padNot a given.
Quote from: ThatOldJanxSpirit on 06/14/2022 08:37 amI find this totally incomprehensible.In any other regulated industry the potential effects on adjacent facilities would have been assessed, high level risk control measures agreed and panels like ASAP consulted during the proposal stage. For major concerns about a rather obvious scenario to surface well into construction would suggest that NASA has a badly broken safety management system.A. This isn't a regulated industryb. It is not a safety issue.
Quote from: edzieba on 06/14/2022 10:37 amQuote from: su27k on 06/14/2022 01:30 am given:1. No such requirement when SpaceX flew 1st FH from the pad2. No such requirement for Vulcan flying from Starliner's padNot a given.Ok, but just common sense. Two examples of higher risk rockets that launch directly from a crew pad.So the risk is accepted elsewhere, but that doesn't mean it shouldn't be eliminated if possible.So what I don't understand is why indeed the two pads are so close. Something about the foundations? Or maybe it's "far enough"?And how does this come up only now? Who exactly is expressing concern, and who was working with SpaceX on the plans?
A. It’s a high hazard industry. I’d still expect to see equivalent processes, be they external or internal (NASA) regulation.B. Assessments of safety and operability issues are usually closely entwined. Delete the word safety if you like Jim, but I’d still be mighty surprised to find out that NASAs management system was so poor as not to consider the effect of a failure on adjacent critical infrastructure prior to authorising construction work.
Quote from: ThatOldJanxSpirit on 06/14/2022 01:17 pmA. It’s a high hazard industry. I’d still expect to see equivalent processes, be they external or internal (NASA) regulation.B. Assessments of safety and operability issues are usually closely entwined. Delete the word safety if you like Jim, but I’d still be mighty surprised to find out that NASAs management system was so poor as not to consider the effect of a failure on adjacent critical infrastructure prior to authorising construction work.No.NASA turned over 39A to SpaceX. They run it. NASA as a customer of SpaceX services is raising an issue. This is not NASA manager of the KSC Spaceport that has an issue. NASA KSC does not manage the risk of SpaceX facilities. It is NASA CRS and NASA CCP looking at this risk.
Quote from: AS_501 on 05/06/2022 04:48 pmIs anyone concerned about how close this is to the current F9/H launch facility? If there was a SH/SS accident shortly after liftoff, flaming debris could rain down on the F9/H facility. In fact, I can't think of two launch pads so close to each other anywhere. Say it ain't so....much of a problem.LC-17 had the two pads relatively close to each other. Granted Starship/super heavy going boom is a lot more energetic than Delta II and probably not as close as starship is to the main 39A pad, but still close proximity.
Is anyone concerned about how close this is to the current F9/H launch facility? If there was a SH/SS accident shortly after liftoff, flaming debris could rain down on the F9/H facility. In fact, I can't think of two launch pads so close to each other anywhere. Say it ain't so....much of a problem.