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