KSC readies for CEV lift-offs

• #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
• Quote

  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
• 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?
• #63 by Jim on 17 May, 2006 15:13
• Quote

  dmc6960 - 17/5/2006  10:42 AM
  
  

  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?

  
  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
• 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
• #66 by possum on 04 Jun, 2006 17:34
• Quote

  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
• 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
• #68 by Jim on 04 Jun, 2006 18:51
• Quote

  rmathews3 - 4/6/2006  1:21 PM
  
  

  Quote

  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
• 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
• #70 by erauskydiver on 04 Jun, 2006 22:09
• Link didnt work?  How's this?
  
  http://www.floridatoday.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20060604/NEWS02/606040327
• #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.