Post by: Chris Bergin on 03/28/2006 12:30 am
Post by: simonbp on 03/28/2006 12:55 am
Simon ;)
Post by: Jim on 03/28/2006 01:52 am
Quote
simonbp - 27/3/2006 6:55 PMSLC-40, BTW, was built originally for DynaSoar and MOL, and has launched Titian IIICs, Titan 34Ds, and Titan IVs ever since...Simon ;)No T-34D's and no MOL. MOL was VAFB. The MOL 'test flight" doesn't count
Post by: Stowbridge on 03/28/2006 02:35 am
Post by: Rocket Guy on 03/28/2006 02:41 am
Quote
Jim - 27/3/2006 8:52 PMQuotesimonbp - 27/3/2006 6:55 PMSLC-40, BTW, was built originally for DynaSoar and MOL, and has launched Titian IIICs, Titan 34Ds, and Titan IVs ever since...Simon ;)No T-34D's and no MOL. MOL was VAFB. The MOL 'test flight" doesn't count
Yes, there were 34Ds from pad 40 (ten by my count). Mars Observer was the last of them.
Post by: Rocket Guy on 03/28/2006 02:52 am
Edit: ok, this should make is easier. Also added "complex" 47 as they use it for sounding rockets.
Post by: Jim on 03/28/2006 03:08 am
Quote
Ben - 27/3/2006 8:41 PMMy bad. Was mixing things up with T-IV's. BTW MO was on a Commercial T-III, not technically a 34DQuoteJim - 27/3/2006 8:52 PMYes, there were 34Ds from pad 40 (ten by my count). Mars Observer was the last of them.Quotesimonbp - 27/3/2006 6:55 PMSLC-40, BTW, was built originally for DynaSoar and MOL, and has launched Titian IIICs, Titan 34Ds, and Titan IVs ever since...Simon ;)No T-34D's and no MOL. MOL was VAFB. The MOL 'test flight" doesn't count
Post by: Rocket Guy on 03/28/2006 03:10 am
Post by: Jim on 03/28/2006 03:12 am
Quote
Ben - 27/3/2006 9:10 PMYea, one of the four commercial Titan's, but it was technically a 34D model albeit LockMart looks at it separately.Actually the second stage was longer and the first stage engines were the same as a T-IV. So not a 34D
Post by: Jim on 03/28/2006 03:16 am
Quote
Stowbridge - 27/3/2006 8:35 PMDo we have an overview image to see where this is located?The O&C is located in the KSC industrial Area. I don't like the way the referenced site does its reports. It looks like they don't know what they are talking about. One of the uses of the O&C would be by LM to build the CEV.
Post by: kraisee on 03/28/2006 06:36 pm
Here's a marked satellite image of the whole center you might find useful.
(Click Picture for full 1597 x 2206 image - 695K)
Ross.
Post by: Rocket Guy on 03/28/2006 09:40 pm
Post by: nacnud on 03/28/2006 10:08 pm
Post by: Jim on 03/28/2006 10:29 pm
Quote
nacnud - 28/3/2006 4:08 PMWhy pad 40? Is this a long term thing or just for the test flights?
Just one of many options that was being considered
Post by: astrobrian on 03/28/2006 11:51 pm
Post by: Jim on 03/29/2006 12:48 am
Quote
astrobrian - 28/3/2006 5:51 PMThe option that always made the most sense to me was to adapt LC39 for the CEV. They have two launch pads after all and could begin converting one of them even with the shuttle still in service. Just my 2 cents
You wouldn't be able to launch a rescue shuttle if there was only one pad. Also MLP's would have to be converted and VAB high bays. It causes a lot of problems during the transition.
Post by: kanathan on 03/29/2006 12:59 am
EDIT: I think my question was answered by Jim in his last post. If they won't be using the VAB, which building will they use?
Post by: Jim on 03/29/2006 01:31 am
Quote
kanathan - 28/3/2006 6:59 PMIf pad 40 is used, would the VAB still be used to assemble the CEV, or would they have to switch over to another building?EDIT: I think my question was answered by Jim in his last post. If they won't be using the VAB, which building will they use?
40 is a stack (integrate) on the pad
Also they are not constrained to existing facilities. New facilities are possible if there are operations savings that defray the cost.
Post by: Rob in KC on 03/29/2006 01:55 am
Post by: nacnud on 03/29/2006 02:57 am
Post by: Jim on 03/29/2006 02:59 am
Quote
Rob in KC - 28/3/2006 7:55 PMWouldn't LC-41 make more sense than LC-40 given the location on that map?
That is Atlas V's, a very active pad and Lockheed Martin's.
IF another pad is used for CLV test flights, it won't use the VAB.
Post by: nacnud on 03/29/2006 03:04 am
I'm thinking that while a new pad at LC-39 could reuse alot of exsiting hardware a dedicated 40 could reduce the amount of infrastructure needed for the CLV and end up being cheaper.
Post by: Rob in KC on 03/29/2006 03:53 am
Quote
nacnud - 28/3/2006 8:57 PM
Isn't 41 an EELV pad, while 40 is titan and therefore dissused.
That explains it. Thanks.
Post by: astrobrian on 03/29/2006 04:14 am
Post by: Dana on 03/29/2006 06:32 am
End of an era if that is the case. Of all the launches from LC-39 only 3 (Apollos 4 & 6 and Skylab) have been unmanned.
Post by: Jim on 03/29/2006 12:37 pm
Post by: Jim on 03/29/2006 12:38 pm
Quote
astrobrian - 28/3/2006 10:14 PMAnother question I have, assuming they go with LC40. Is it going to be an issue that LC40 is part of CCAFS and not KSC?
Before LC-39, all manned pads were on CCAFS. NASA has facitilies on CCAFS.
Post by: simonbp on 03/29/2006 01:02 pm
Also, the CLV is going to ~100 feet taller than a Titan IV (or a Shuttle), meaning major modifications will nessisary no matter which pad they go with, right?
Simon ;)
Post by: Jim on 03/29/2006 01:22 pm
Quote
simonbp - 29/3/2006 7:02 AMSo I guess the major external facilitities that a CLV-ified pad 40 (with on-pad integration) would need is LOX/LH2 access (which should be around from the Titan IV's Centaur) and RSRM road access (what would be the easiest way to do this?)?Also, the CLV is going to ~100 feet taller than a Titan IV (or a Shuttle), meaning major modifications will nessisary no matter which pad they go with, right?Simon ;)
The Canister transporter (same as SRM segement transporter) used to go by LC-40 to get DOD shuttle payloads.
But once again, we are getting ahead of things.
Post by: dmc6960 on 03/29/2006 04:05 pm
Post by: Jim on 03/29/2006 05:41 pm
Quote
dmc6960 - 29/3/2006 10:05 AMWasn't SpaceX considering use of pad 40 since the Falcon 9 is going to be too big for use on 36A/B? I realize NASA would easily get priority over that, but if the issues with 36 are not resolved it certainly stinks for them.
they are just trade studies.
Post by: edkyle99 on 04/23/2006 04:26 am
Quote
Jim - 29/3/2006 11:41 AMQuotedmc6960 - 29/3/2006 10:05 AMWasn't SpaceX considering use of pad 40 since the Falcon 9 is going to be too big for use on 36A/B? I realize NASA would easily get priority over that, but if the issues with 36 are not resolved it certainly stinks for them.
they are just trade studies.
I recall reading an RFP for one of the early Constellation or OSP studies that provided a list of Government owned facilities that would be available, and should be considered for use in, the project. SLC 40, including the pad, the SMAB, the SMARF, the VIB, etc., were listed. But this was back before the CLV was specified to be an SRB-based launcher - back when EELVs were still in the running. I think that the use of SRBs would rule out use of the old Titan ITL facilities for CLV launch, but it doesn't exclude, say, the conversion of one of the buildings into a checkout facility for the new upper stage, etc.
- Ed Kyle
Post by: Jim on 04/23/2006 12:10 pm
Quote
edkyle99 - 23/4/2006 12:26 AMQuoteJim - 29/3/2006 11:41 AMI recall reading an RFP for one of the early Constellation or OSP studies that provided a list of Government owned facilities that would be available, and should be considered for use in, the project. SLC 40, including the pad, the SMAB, the SMARF, the VIB, etc., were listed. But this was back before the CLV was specified to be an SRB-based launcher - back when EELVs were still in the running. I think that the use of SRBs would rule out use of the old Titan ITL facilities for CLV launch, but it doesn't exclude, say, the conversion of one of the buildings into a checkout facility for the new upper stage, etc. - Ed KyleQuotedmc6960 - 29/3/2006 10:05 AMWasn't SpaceX considering use of pad 40 since the Falcon 9 is going to be too big for use on 36A/B? I realize NASA would easily get priority over that, but if the issues with 36 are not resolved it certainly stinks for them.
they are just trade studies.
OPF's are designated for upperstages. 40 is being looked at (low key) for early SRB flight test
Post by: wannamoonbase on 04/23/2006 09:00 pm
The flame trench can handle the thrust of either. The MST would have to be replaced or heavily modified and the SRB or EELV stack could be prepared in the SMARF or VIB. Erect on pad the Upper stage and CEV. I know some NASA people will see this as bush league and goes too far back in time to mercury and gemini. But then again some NASA people think its okay to spend a half billion to launch 4 people to the ISS.
The clean pad approach at SLC 41 is working great and allows for high launch rates. For CLV stack several boosters and checkout several upper stages and CEVs and you could probably launch and load within 3 or 4 weeks between launches.
SLC 40 would probably require a billion dollars in mods. LH2 and LOx for the upper stage for fuels as well as CEV propellant. The air conditioning systems may already be enough to handle the CLV/CEV stack. And of course a new or heavily modified MST and crew access UT.
I think using SLC 40 makes great sense and would be far more affordable than the city size complex of 39A and 39B. And it wouldn't require the accompaning army of staff either. (Which may again scare some people)
The only problem is a back up pad.
Post by: Jim on 04/23/2006 10:41 pm
Quote
wannamoonbase - 23/4/2006 5:00 PMCLV or EELV I think using SLC 40 makes sense.The flame trench can handle the thrust of either. The MST would have to be replaced or heavily modified and the SRB or EELV stack could be prepared in the SMARF or VIB. Erect on pad the Upper stage and CEV. I know some NASA people will see this as bush league and goes too far back in time to mercury and gemini. But then again some NASA people think its okay to spend a half billion to launch 4 people to the ISS.The clean pad approach at SLC 41 is working great and allows for high launch rates. For CLV stack several boosters and checkout several upper stages and CEVs and you could probably launch and load within 3 or 4 weeks between launches.SLC 40 would probably require a billion dollars in mods. LH2 and LOx for the upper stage for fuels as well as CEV propellant. The air conditioning systems may already be enough to handle the CLV/CEV stack. And of course a new or heavily modified MST and crew access UT.I think using SLC 40 makes great sense and would be far more affordable than the city size complex of 39A and 39B. And it wouldn't require the accompaning army of staff either. (Which may again scare some people)The only problem is a back up pad.
The VIF is the bottle neck for 41. It constrains the flight rate.
VIB is not sited for solids. Anyways, the railroad tracks in the ITL area have been dismantled. Only RR remaining is at 41.
40 is or has been looked at for CLV flight tests.
CEV propellant will be loaded off line.
If you are stacking the upperstage and CEV at the pad, you might as well stack the SRM.
Post by: wannamoonbase on 04/24/2006 12:25 am
Hopefully the CEV will fly at least that often but not likely.
Didn't know the tracks had been taken apart.
I do agree with the stacking at the pad. Works for me. Even if 40 just does the test launches that maybe a worthwhile use of resources as STS wraps up.
Post by: seminole AJ on 05/02/2006 05:56 am
Quote
Jim - 28/3/2006 7:48 PMQuoteastrobrian - 28/3/2006 5:51 PMThe option that always made the most sense to me was to adapt LC39 for the CEV. They have two launch pads after all and could begin converting one of them even with the shuttle still in service. Just my 2 cents
You wouldn't be able to launch a rescue shuttle if there was only one pad. Also MLP's would have to be converted and VAB high bays. It causes a lot of problems during the transition.
Sorry to go back Jim, but what is the problem with using the same pad you just lifted off from again? Is the issue in the MLP storage? Seems to me that you could get away with only having one active pad.
Forgive my ignorance, I'm sure this has been covered somewhere else
Also, how expensive would it be to build a brand new pad north of 39-B and just run the crawler tracks out there in order to still use the VAB...
Post by: Jim on 05/02/2006 11:41 am
Quote
seminole AJ - 2/5/2006 1:56 AMQuoteJim - 28/3/2006 7:48 PMSorry to go back Jim, but what is the problem with using the same pad you just lifted off from again? Is the issue in the MLP storage? Seems to me that you could get away with only having one active pad. Forgive my ignorance, I'm sure this has been covered somewhere elseAlso, how expensive would it be to build a brand new pad north of 39-B and just run the crawler tracks out there in order to still use the VAB...Quoteastrobrian - 28/3/2006 5:51 PMThe option that always made the most sense to me was to adapt LC39 for the CEV. They have two launch pads after all and could begin converting one of them even with the shuttle still in service. Just my 2 cents
You wouldn't be able to launch a rescue shuttle if there was only one pad. Also MLP's would have to be converted and VAB high bays. It causes a lot of problems during the transition.
If you are referring to back to back shuttles on the same pad, it is a 3-4 week turnaround.
100 of millions to Billions?, your guess is good as mine. Th
Post by: possum on 05/02/2006 12:08 pm
Quote
seminole AJ - 2/5/2006 12:56 AM
Sorry to go back Jim, but what is the problem with using the same pad you just lifted off from again? Is the issue in the MLP storage? Seems to me that you could get away with only having one active pad.
Forgive my ignorance, I'm sure this has been covered somewhere else
Also, how expensive would it be to build a brand new pad north of 39-B and just run the crawler tracks out there in order to still use the VAB...
The biggest reason for having 2 shuttle pads is doing maintenance and upgrades on one while the other is active. They need to be rotated out of service to maintain them in the harsh sea-air environment. Pad 39-C, 39-D, and 39-E were sited on the KSC master plan during Apollo (they were considering a flight rate of 24 per year early on). Building one today would be nearly impossible for environmental reasons, permitting alone could take 5 to 10 years. Even it that were circumvented by declaring the project a national priority, it would cost about $1.5 billion to $2 billion depending on the final configuration.
Post by: seminole AJ on 05/02/2006 03:02 pm
Quote
rmathews3 - 2/5/2006 8:08 AMQuoteseminole AJ - 2/5/2006 12:56 AM
Sorry to go back Jim, but what is the problem with using the same pad you just lifted off from again? Is the issue in the MLP storage? Seems to me that you could get away with only having one active pad.
Forgive my ignorance, I'm sure this has been covered somewhere else
Also, how expensive would it be to build a brand new pad north of 39-B and just run the crawler tracks out there in order to still use the VAB...
The biggest reason for having 2 shuttle pads is doing maintenance and upgrades on one while the other is active. They need to be rotated out of service to maintain them in the harsh sea-air environment. Pad 39-C, 39-D, and 39-E were sited on the KSC master plan during Apollo (they were considering a flight rate of 24 per year early on). Building one today would be nearly impossible for environmental reasons, permitting alone could take 5 to 10 years. Even it that were circumvented by declaring the project a national priority, it would cost about $1.5 billion to $2 billion depending on the final configuration.
Annother reason to LOVE big government. [rolleyes]
Post by: Jim on 05/02/2006 03:47 pm
Quote
seminole AJ - 2/5/2006 11:02 AMQuotermathews3 - 2/5/2006 8:08 AMAnnother reason to LOVE big government. [rolleyes]Quoteseminole AJ - 2/5/2006 12:56 AMSorry to go back Jim, but what is the problem with using the same pad you just lifted off from again? Is the issue in the MLP storage? Seems to me that you could get away with only having one active pad. Forgive my ignorance, I'm sure this has been covered somewhere elseAlso, how expensive would it be to build a brand new pad north of 39-B and just run the crawler tracks out there in order to still use the VAB...The biggest reason for having 2 shuttle pads is doing maintenance and upgrades on one while the other is active. They need to be rotated out of service to maintain them in the harsh sea-air environment. Pad 39-C, 39-D, and 39-E were sited on the KSC master plan during Apollo (they were considering a flight rate of 24 per year early on). Building one today would be nearly impossible for environmental reasons, permitting alone could take 5 to 10 years. Even it that were circumvented by declaring the project a national priority, it would cost about $1.5 billion to $2 billion depending on the final configuration.
building a new pad isnt that hard, 37 is new.
Post by: wannamoonbase on 05/02/2006 03:57 pm
Post by: simonbp on 05/02/2006 10:43 pm
Simon ;)
Post by: possum on 05/03/2006 02:26 pm
Quote
Jim - 2/5/2006 10:47 AMQuoteseminole AJ - 2/5/2006 11:02 AMQuotermathews3 - 2/5/2006 8:08 AMAnnother reason to LOVE big government. [rolleyes]Quoteseminole AJ - 2/5/2006 12:56 AMSorry to go back Jim, but what is the problem with using the same pad you just lifted off from again? Is the issue in the MLP storage? Seems to me that you could get away with only having one active pad. Forgive my ignorance, I'm sure this has been covered somewhere elseAlso, how expensive would it be to build a brand new pad north of 39-B and just run the crawler tracks out there in order to still use the VAB...The biggest reason for having 2 shuttle pads is doing maintenance and upgrades on one while the other is active. They need to be rotated out of service to maintain them in the harsh sea-air environment. Pad 39-C, 39-D, and 39-E were sited on the KSC master plan during Apollo (they were considering a flight rate of 24 per year early on). Building one today would be nearly impossible for environmental reasons, permitting alone could take 5 to 10 years. Even it that were circumvented by declaring the project a national priority, it would cost about $1.5 billion to $2 billion depending on the final configuration.
building a new pad isnt that hard, 37 is new.
Delta IV's Pad 37 was built on an existing site. Building a new pad in the middle of Mosquito Lagoon would be a challenge.
Post by: wannamoonbase on 05/03/2006 02:43 pm
Quote
simonbp - 2/5/2006 5:43 PM
$2 billion over 7 years ends up being 1.8% of a $16 billion per annum NASA budget: considering that A and B seem planned for a near complete overhaul, this seems concievible...
Simon ;)
I don't think you will do the work for 2 billion. Perhaps just to the pads themslves. But if that is including the MLP's, Cawlers and the VAB, not a chance.
As it is I would suspect that the MLPs, being essentially 40 years old, having been heavily modified once already will need to be constructed from new. For the CLV perhaps not but the CaLV I would bet you want a new one. That is alot of trips to and from the pad, lifts and placements and not to mention the lift off and toxic rocket exhaust.
Post by: Jim on 05/03/2006 02:55 pm
Quote
rmathews3 - 3/5/2006 10:26 AMDelta IV's Pad 37 was built on an existing site. Building a new pad in the middle of Mosquito Lagoon would be a challenge.
No more of a challenge than making Pad B out of the same lagoon.
BTW anybody notice that LC-39 pad designations are the opposite of the Cape's standard of the north pads being designated pad A.
Since I can't provide a prize, Kudos to the first to come up with the explaination. Kraisee can't guess since he is into launch complexes and probably knows the answer
Post by: seminole AJ on 05/03/2006 05:53 pm
Quote
Jim - 3/5/2006 10:55 AMQuotermathews3 - 3/5/2006 10:26 AMDelta IV's Pad 37 was built on an existing site. Building a new pad in the middle of Mosquito Lagoon would be a challenge.
No more of a challenge than making Pad B out of the same lagoon.
BTW anybody notice that LC-39 pad designations are the opposite of the Cape's standard of the north pads being designated pad A.
Since I can't provide a prize, Kudos to the first to come up with the explaination. Kraisee can't guess since he is into launch complexes and probably knows the answer
Because A is closer to the VAB via the crawlerway?
Or is it becase A was completed before B...
Post by: norm103 on 05/03/2006 06:22 pm
Also on a side note the VAB was going to have 6 bays not 4 bays and the ground was built up for this.
Post by: Jim on 05/03/2006 06:28 pm
Quote
seminole AJ - 3/5/2006 1:53 PMQuoteJim - 3/5/2006 10:55 AMBecause A is closer to the VAB via the crawlerway?Or is it becase A was completed before B...Quotermathews3 - 3/5/2006 10:26 AMDelta IV's Pad 37 was built on an existing site. Building a new pad in the middle of Mosquito Lagoon would be a challenge.
No more of a challenge than making Pad B out of the same lagoon.
BTW anybody notice that LC-39 pad designations are the opposite of the Cape's standard of the north pads being designated pad A.
Since I can't provide a prize, Kudos to the first to come up with the explaination. Kraisee can't guess since he is into launch complexes and probably knows the answer
Ding Ding Ding, We have a winner, because A was funded and completed first
Post by: seminole AJ on 05/04/2006 04:37 am
Quote
Jim - 3/5/2006 2:28 PMQuoteseminole AJ - 3/5/2006 1:53 PMQuoteJim - 3/5/2006 10:55 AMBecause A is closer to the VAB via the crawlerway?Or is it becase A was completed before B...Quotermathews3 - 3/5/2006 10:26 AMDelta IV's Pad 37 was built on an existing site. Building a new pad in the middle of Mosquito Lagoon would be a challenge.
No more of a challenge than making Pad B out of the same lagoon.
BTW anybody notice that LC-39 pad designations are the opposite of the Cape's standard of the north pads being designated pad A.
Since I can't provide a prize, Kudos to the first to come up with the explaination. Kraisee can't guess since he is into launch complexes and probably knows the answer
Ding Ding Ding, We have a winner, because A was funded and completed first
WOOHOO!!!!
Post by: possum on 05/04/2006 11:43 am
Quote
Jim - 3/5/2006 9:55 AMQuotermathews3 - 3/5/2006 10:26 AMDelta IV's Pad 37 was built on an existing site. Building a new pad in the middle of Mosquito Lagoon would be a challenge.
No more of a challenge than making Pad B out of the same lagoon.
I was referring to the environmental permitting of building a new pad. Pad B was built before the onslaught of environmental regulations and modifying it today would be relatively straightforward from an environmental permitting standpoint. Building Pad C would be near impossible in regards to getting an environmental permit. The only possibility would be to declare the project of such national importance that NOT building the new Pad would be more detrimental to the nation than the environmental impact. I don't believe this would be a difficult argument to win. If a "green" pad were needed, I believe the environmental impact issue could be overcome in this way. No law or regulation is absolute, there is always an out if the importance is high enough.
Post by: seminole AJ on 05/04/2006 06:22 pm
Post by: Jim on 05/04/2006 09:58 pm
Quote
seminole AJ - 4/5/2006 2:22 PMSeems to me that if a new one were to be built, NASA could make the permit happen. I.E. an executive order or some other way to bypass the permit process. But then again, the enviromentalists got their way with the adhesives on the ET...look where that brought us...
NASA follows allow environmental processes, NEPA, to the T. They won't skirt around them
BTW the other thing is an urban legend
Post by: kraisee on 05/09/2006 05:05 am
Any of those Pads could be re-conditioned and re-activated for new rocket systems, without having to tear up any additional areas of the wildlife refuge. Those areas are all designated right now as launch complexes for the Eastern Test Range, so the paperwork would be a lot simpler when compared to building something completely afresh.
Click to get a detailed map of the area below:
Ross.
Post by: Jim on 05/09/2006 12:00 pm
Quote
kraisee - 9/5/2006 1:05 AMApart from anything else, they wouldn't have to build any *totally new* pads. There are already plenty of pads at the Cape which are not currently being used for much of anything. And I'm not even talking about ones which are historically significant either. LC-40 and LC-36A+B are inacctive since the Titan-IV's and Atlas-II's stopped flying. Most of ICBM Row is available including LC-20, 16, 15 (Titan-i & II), 13, 12 and 11 (Atlas) are all currently unused. LC-46 (Trident), 9/10 (Navaho), 32/32 (Minuteman) are all free too. Even LC-25 (Trident, Poseidon), 29 (Polaris) and 30 (Pershing) could all be reactivated, although they are probably a little too close to the Port these days for anything of any significant size.Any of those Pads could be re-conditioned and re-activated for new rocket systems, without having to tear up any additional areas of the wildlife refuge. Those areas are all designated right now as launch complexes for the Eastern Test Range, so the paperwork would be a lot simpler when compared to building something completely afresh.Click to get a detailed map of the area below: Ross.
I think they were referring to a 39C if you still want to use Apolo/Shuttle infrastructure
Post by: wannamoonbase on 05/16/2006 01:40 am
I don't know if that is:
a) True
b) Still valid with current ESAS vehicles proposed.
Although the four SRB big mamma that has been discussed would certainly warrant another site review. But if I was NASA or the crawler driver I would want to have the heaviest largest vehicle as close to the VAB as possible. The Stick could be driven twice as fast with less hassle, I think.
Build a mini LC 39C between LC41 and LC39A and just launch the stick from there. I could probably be 1/4 the size of A or B if all it does is the stick. Keeps things close to home too.
Lockheed and the Atlas guys wouldn't like it but that could be settled with scheduling for funds.
Post by: Jim on 05/16/2006 02:58 am
Post by: simonbp on 05/16/2006 12:56 pm
Also, it seems that full MPLM + Crawler is kinda overkill for the CLV. Would a smaller vehicle be any cheaper?
Simon ;)
Post by: Jim on 05/16/2006 01:12 pm
Quote
simonbp - 16/5/2006 8:43 AM
Ok, here's an actual question: do the pads themselves have to be on the coast? IIRC, the Redstone pads weren't...
Also, it seems that full MPLM + Crawler is kinda overkill for the CLV. Would a smaller vehicle be any cheaper?
Simon ;)
Define coast? Look at the map posted earlier. 1000 feet vs 2000 feet? Does it really matter as long as nothing is downrange.
New MLP, new crawler and new pad interfaces cheaper vs existing crawler, existing pad intefaces and modified MLP?
Post by: Jim on 05/16/2006 01:21 pm
Post by: dmc6960 on 05/16/2006 07:20 pm
Post by: Jim on 05/17/2006 02:23 pm
Quote
dmc6960 - 16/5/2006 3:07 PM
What is this contruction for? And what is being built?
Spacecraft processing facility (not NASA)
Post by: dmc6960 on 05/17/2006 02:55 pm
Quote
Jim - 17/5/2006 9:10 AM
Spacecraft processing facility (not NASA)
Manned spacecraft? Unmanned spacecraft? Boeing? Lockheed? Both/Neither? Not at liberty to say?
Post by: Jim on 05/17/2006 03:13 pm
Quote
dmc6960 - 17/5/2006 10:42 AMQuoteJim - 17/5/2006 9:10 AM
Spacecraft processing facility (not NASA)
Manned spacecraft? Unmanned spacecraft? Boeing? Lockheed? Both/Neither? Not at liberty to say?
Lockheed and Boeing don't process spacecraft. The spacecraft contractor does. If it was for manned missions, NASA would be involved and it would be at KSC. Commercial spacecraft use Astrotech. So that leaves only two other possible users
Post by: erauskydiver on 05/18/2006 11:27 pm
Post by: erauskydiver on 06/04/2006 04:58 pm
http://www.floridatoday.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20060604/NEWS02/606040327
Post by: possum on 06/04/2006 05:34 pm
Quote
erauskydiver - 18/5/2006 6:14 PM
And those two other possiblities would be??
My guess would be NRO and AF.
Post by: Jim on 06/04/2006 06:50 pm
Quote
erauskydiver - 4/6/2006 12:45 PM
There is an interesting article in the Florida Today about upcoming facility modifications at KSC:
http://www.floridatoday.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20060604/NEWS02/606040327
this isn't KSC
Post by: Jim on 06/04/2006 06:51 pm
Quote
rmathews3 - 4/6/2006 1:21 PMQuoteerauskydiver - 18/5/2006 6:14 PM
And those two other possiblities would be??
My guess would be NRO and AF.
And who has the money
Post by: simonbp on 06/04/2006 07:00 pm
Quote
Jim - 4/6/2006 1:38 PM
And who has the money
Not NASA! :)
The Florida Today article makes a good point about a 2008 HST mission being the hold-up for pad changes; isn't that the same year that the first CLV (with dummy second stage) is penciled in for a flight?
Simon ;)
Post by: erauskydiver on 06/04/2006 10:09 pm
http://www.floridatoday.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20060604/NEWS02/606040327
Post by: Rob in KC on 06/04/2006 10:25 pm
Post by: Rocket Guy on 06/04/2006 11:35 pm
The RSS is 189 feet high and 130 feet top to bottom for the part that is in the air (not counting the support structure).
Sometimes I think they have their own fact sheets.