-
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.
-
#20
by
Jim
on 29 Mar, 2006 02:59
-
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.
-
#21
by
nacnud
on 29 Mar, 2006 03:04
-
Jim in your opinion would a new LC-39 pad or a CLV decicated 40 pad be better?
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.
-
#22
by
Rob in KC
on 29 Mar, 2006 03:53
-
nacnud - 28/3/2006 8:57 PM
Isn't 41 an EELV pad, while 40 is titan and therefore dissused.
That explains it. Thanks.
-
#23
by
astrobrian
on 29 Mar, 2006 04:14
-
Another question I have, assuming they go with LC40. Is it going to be an issue that LC40 is part of CCAFS and not KSC?
-
#24
by
Dana
on 29 Mar, 2006 06:32
-
So am I on-track in thinking that manned CEVs will be stacked on the pad at LC-40 while the big heavy-lift vehicle will be stacked in the VAB and use LC-39, the MLPs, Crawlers, etc? Will there be new crew facilities, launch control center, and viewing areas added to LC-40 in light of its new mission? (Since I've never been there I don't know what's in place at that pad.)
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.
-
#25
by
Jim
on 29 Mar, 2006 12:37
-
Whoa, Let's step back a little. SLC-40 is just one of many options they are looking at. LC-39 is the perferred. Phasing of pad mods, building new pads, using other pads for test flights, etc are some of the trades.
-
#26
by
Jim
on 29 Mar, 2006 12:38
-
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.
-
#27
by
simonbp
on 29 Mar, 2006 13:02
-
So 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
-
#28
by
Jim
on 29 Mar, 2006 13:22
-
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.
-
#29
by
dmc6960
on 29 Mar, 2006 16:05
-
Wasn'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.
-
#30
by
Jim
on 29 Mar, 2006 17:41
-
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.
-
#31
by
edkyle99
on 23 Apr, 2006 04:26
-
Jim - 29/3/2006 11:41 AM
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.
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
-
#32
by
Jim
on 23 Apr, 2006 12:10
-
edkyle99 - 23/4/2006 12:26 AMJim - 29/3/2006 11:41 AMdmc6960 - 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
OPF's are designated for upperstages. 40 is being looked at (low key) for early SRB flight test
-
#33
by
wannamoonbase
on 23 Apr, 2006 21:00
-
CLV 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.
-
#34
by
Jim
on 23 Apr, 2006 22:41
-
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.
-
#35
by
wannamoonbase
on 24 Apr, 2006 00:25
-
The VIF is the bottle neck, but it was originally planned for two VIFs and a flight rate of one per 6 weeks (for small vehicles) and I think it was 8 weeks for HLVs. Even as it is, the fight rate as is could probably reach 6 a year. And currently no pad is getting used nearly that much.
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.
-
#36
by
seminole AJ
on 02 May, 2006 05:56
-
Jim - 28/3/2006 7:48 PM
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.
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...
-
#37
by
Jim
on 02 May, 2006 11:41
-
seminole AJ - 2/5/2006 1:56 AMJim - 28/3/2006 7:48 PMastrobrian - 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 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...
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
-
#38
by
possum
on 02 May, 2006 12:08
-
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.
-
#39
by
seminole AJ
on 02 May, 2006 15:02
-
rmathews3 - 2/5/2006 8:08 AM
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.
Annother reason to LOVE big government. [rolleyes]
-
#40
by
Jim
on 02 May, 2006 15:47
-
seminole AJ - 2/5/2006 11:02 AMrmathews3 - 2/5/2006 8:08 AMseminole 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.
Annother reason to LOVE big government. [rolleyes]
building a new pad isnt that hard, 37 is new.
-
#41
by
wannamoonbase
on 02 May, 2006 15:57
-
Only 1.5 to 2 billion? Given the cost of 37 and 41 for mods i think you would be lucky to come in at 2. Would be a great project. I hear what you are saying environmentally but every hour in Florida there are probably as many trees pushed over and burnt for strip malls and condos as there would be for 39C.
-
#42
by
simonbp
on 02 May, 2006 22:43
-
$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
-
#43
by
possum
on 03 May, 2006 14:26
-
Jim - 2/5/2006 10:47 AM
seminole AJ - 2/5/2006 11:02 AMrmathews3 - 2/5/2006 8:08 AMseminole 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.
Annother reason to LOVE big government. [rolleyes]
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.
-
#44
by
wannamoonbase
on 03 May, 2006 14:43
-
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.
-
#45
by
Jim
on 03 May, 2006 14:55
-
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
-
#46
by
seminole AJ
on 03 May, 2006 17:53
-
Jim - 3/5/2006 10:55 AM
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
Because A is closer to the VAB via the crawlerway?
Or is it becase A was completed before B...
-
#47
by
norm103
on 03 May, 2006 18:22
-
will it was to be A,B,C north to south but when the dumped the north pad wich was to be A they made the souther most pad A and the north most pad if it would be built would be pad C.
Also on a side note the VAB was going to have 6 bays not 4 bays and the ground was built up for this.
-
#48
by
Jim
on 03 May, 2006 18:28
-
seminole AJ - 3/5/2006 1:53 PMJim - 3/5/2006 10:55 AMrmathews3 - 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...
Ding Ding Ding, We have a winner, because A was funded and completed first
-
#49
by
seminole AJ
on 04 May, 2006 04:37
-
Jim - 3/5/2006 2:28 PM
seminole AJ - 3/5/2006 1:53 PMJim - 3/5/2006 10:55 AMrmathews3 - 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...
Ding Ding Ding, We have a winner, because A was funded and completed first
WOOHOO!!!!
-
#50
by
possum
on 04 May, 2006 11:43
-
Jim - 3/5/2006 9:55 AM
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.
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.
-
#51
by
seminole AJ
on 04 May, 2006 18:22
-
Seems 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...
-
#52
by
Jim
on 04 May, 2006 21:58
-
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
-
#53
by
kraisee
on 09 May, 2006 05:05
-
Apart 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.
-
#54
by
Jim
on 09 May, 2006 12:00
-
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
-
#55
by
wannamoonbase
on 16 May, 2006 01:40
-
I recall the LC39 site selection was moved so far north because of concern for nearby towns potentially being damaged by the much larger boosters.
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.
-
#56
by
Jim
on 16 May, 2006 02:58
-
Can't drive the crawler any faster anyways. You would want the bigger vehicle further away to prevent damage. no room between 41 and 39, rr tracks and barge canal and too close to Atlas. The pad for the stick wouldn't be any small than current LC-39 pads
-
#57
by
simonbp
on 16 May, 2006 12:56
-
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
-
#58
by
Jim
on 16 May, 2006 13:12
-
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?
-
#59
by
Jim
on 16 May, 2006 13:21
-
New construction on the Cape started. Large area (see black square on map) north of Lighthouse road near Delta II pads.
-
#60
by
dmc6960
on 16 May, 2006 19:20
-
What is this contruction for? And what is being built?
-
#61
by
Jim
on 17 May, 2006 14:23
-
dmc6960 - 16/5/2006 3:07 PM
What is this contruction for? And what is being built?
Spacecraft processing facility (not NASA)
-
#62
by
dmc6960
on 17 May, 2006 14:55
-
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?
-
#63
by
Jim
on 17 May, 2006 15:13
-
dmc6960 - 17/5/2006 10:42 AM
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?
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
-
#64
by
erauskydiver
on 18 May, 2006 23:27
-
And those two other possiblities would be??
-
#65
by
erauskydiver
on 04 Jun, 2006 16:58
-
-
#66
by
possum
on 04 Jun, 2006 17:34
-
erauskydiver - 18/5/2006 6:14 PM
And those two other possiblities would be??
My guess would be NRO and AF.
-
#67
by
Jim
on 04 Jun, 2006 18:50
-
-
#68
by
Jim
on 04 Jun, 2006 18:51
-
rmathews3 - 4/6/2006 1:21 PM
erauskydiver - 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
-
#69
by
simonbp
on 04 Jun, 2006 19:00
-
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
-
#70
by
erauskydiver
on 04 Jun, 2006 22:09
-
-
#71
by
Rob in KC
on 04 Jun, 2006 22:25
-
Pretty lazy Sunday article from FT. It's reading off the NASA Fact Sheet, not the actual reality.
-
#72
by
Rocket Guy
on 04 Jun, 2006 23:35
-
"to demolish the launch tower and a 100-foot-tall rotating service structure at the pad."
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.
