-
KSC readies for CEV lift-offs
by
Chris Bergin
on 28 Mar, 2006 00:30
-
-
#1
by
simonbp
on 28 Mar, 2006 00:55
-
SLC-40, BTW, was built originally for DynaSoar and MOL, and has launched Titian IIICs, Titan 34Ds, and Titan IVs ever since...
Simon
-
#2
by
Jim
on 28 Mar, 2006 01:52
-
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
-
#3
by
Stowbridge
on 28 Mar, 2006 02:35
-
Do we have an overview image to see where this is located?
-
#4
by
Rocket Guy
on 28 Mar, 2006 02:41
-
Jim - 27/3/2006 8:52 PM
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
Yes, there were 34Ds from pad 40 (ten by my count). Mars Observer was the last of them.
-
#5
by
Rocket Guy
on 28 Mar, 2006 02:52
-
Pads in red are active as of 1/1/2005. Since then, 36 and 40 have gone into 'suspension' for lack of a better word (until a new vehicle like the CEV comes along). The distance from the top to the bottom (let's say 39B down to the Port area) is about 15 miles (it's a much bigger place than most people realize until they get here)!
Edit: ok, this should make is easier. Also added "complex" 47 as they use it for sounding rockets.
-
#6
by
Jim
on 28 Mar, 2006 03:08
-
Ben - 27/3/2006 8:41 PMJim - 27/3/2006 8:52 PMsimonbp - 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.
My bad. Was mixing things up with T-IV's. BTW MO was on a Commercial T-III, not technically a 34D
-
#7
by
Rocket Guy
on 28 Mar, 2006 03:10
-
Yea, one of the four commercial Titan's, but it was technically a 34D model albeit LockMart looks at it separately.
-
#8
by
Jim
on 28 Mar, 2006 03:12
-
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
-
#9
by
Jim
on 28 Mar, 2006 03:16
-
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.
-
#10
by
kraisee
on 28 Mar, 2006 18:36
-
-
#11
by
Rocket Guy
on 28 Mar, 2006 21:40
-
Yea, I have that too. I wanted to post one that might be easier to read for some members who aren't familiar with what is and isn't used today.
-
#12
by
nacnud
on 28 Mar, 2006 22:08
-
Why pad 40? Is this a long term thing or just for the test flights?
-
#13
by
Jim
on 28 Mar, 2006 22:29
-
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
-
#14
by
astrobrian
on 28 Mar, 2006 23:51
-
The 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
-
#15
by
Jim
on 29 Mar, 2006 00:48
-
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.
-
#16
by
kanathan
on 29 Mar, 2006 00:59
-
If 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?
-
#17
by
Jim
on 29 Mar, 2006 01:31
-
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.
-
#18
by
Rob in KC
on 29 Mar, 2006 01:55
-
Wouldn't LC-41 make more sense than LC-40 given the location on that map?
-
#19
by
nacnud
on 29 Mar, 2006 02:57
-
Isn't 41 an EELV pad, while 40 is titan and therefore dissused.
