-
#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]
