-
#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.
