Author Topic: KSC constructing a "Launch Pad in a Box" at Pad 39B (Read 16477 times)

Chris Bergin · « **on:** 05/09/2015 03:11 pm »

Found this in L2 documentation, so wrote it up as it's pretty interesting. Not sure where to host the thread, but the commercial opportunities makes me think it can go here.

http://www.nasaspaceflight.com/2015/05/ksc-construction-launch-pad-box/

edkyle99 · « **Reply #1 on:** 05/09/2015 04:24 pm »

Quote from: Chris Bergin on 05/09/2015 03:11 pm

Found this in L2 documentation, so wrote it up as it's pretty interesting. Not sure where to host the thread, but the commercial opportunities makes me think it can go here.

http://www.nasaspaceflight.com/2015/05/ksc-construction-launch-pad-box/

This is a head scratcher. I wonder if it might have begun construction to support SWORDS, since cancelled.

- Ed Kyle

RonM · « **Reply #2 on:** 05/09/2015 04:56 pm »

Could this be something that Venture Class Launch Services could use?

http://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=37525.0

What rockets are currently available that could use "the launch pad in a box"?

arachnitect · « **Reply #3 on:** 05/09/2015 05:04 pm »

Quote from: edkyle99 on 05/09/2015 04:24 pm

Quote from: Chris Bergin on 05/09/2015 03:11 pm
Found this in L2 documentation, so wrote it up as it's pretty interesting. Not sure where to host the thread, but the commercial opportunities makes me think it can go here.

http://www.nasaspaceflight.com/2015/05/ksc-construction-launch-pad-box/

This is a head scratcher. I wonder if it might have begun construction to support SWORDS, since cancelled.

- Ed Kyle

Probably a good guess.

I wonder what this was funded out of? KSC transition money or some outside source?

TrevorMonty · « **Reply #4 on:** 05/09/2015 06:34 pm »

I think they are targeting LVs like Rocket lab Electron and Firefly's Alpha. Both these companies are chasing NASA and DOD business.

Prober · « **Reply #5 on:** 05/10/2015 03:32 am »

Quote from: TrevorMonty on 05/09/2015 06:34 pm

I think they are targeting LVs like Rocket lab Electron and Firefly's Alpha. Both these companies are chasing NASA and DOD business.

don't forget Blue; they have a ready to go launcher.

QuantumG · « **Reply #6 on:** 05/10/2015 03:37 am »

Quote from: Prober on 05/10/2015 03:32 am

don't forget Blue; they have a ready to go launcher.

Well, pieces of one.

A_M_Swallow · « **Reply #7 on:** 05/10/2015 05:35 am »

The Launch Pad in a box can "... support small class (thrust<200k lbs) launch systems" and has "a Universal Propellant Servicing System (UPSS) with LOX and LCH4 pressure fed propellant transfer systems, up to three stage vehicle servicing".

So small launch vehicles or possibly flight testing of lunar landers.

sdsds · « **Reply #8 on:** 05/10/2015 06:08 am »

I think the N2O4 facility at pad B is centered in the first image below. (Is that correct?) The second shows it zoomed-in as far as Google maps will go. Not much to see there in these images, though.

Jim · « **Reply #9 on:** 05/10/2015 11:33 am »

Quote from: A_M_Swallow on 05/10/2015 05:35 am

possibly flight testing of lunar landers.

No, it is not for that. It is for launchers

AncientU · « **Reply #10 on:** 05/10/2015 01:18 pm »

Interesting that methlox has become the default propellant.
Private sector may be taking over (or has taken over) the technology development leadership role in rocket propulsion.

sanman · « **Reply #11 on:** 05/10/2015 02:24 pm »

I wonder if Launchpad-in-a-box includes a lightning tower? They're not the most portable things.

Jim · « **Reply #12 on:** 05/10/2015 02:28 pm »

Quote from: AncientU on 05/10/2015 01:18 pm

Interesting that methlox has become the default propellant.
Private sector may be taking over (or has taken over) the technology development leadership role in rocket propulsion.

No, this was leftovers from a gov't program.

A_M_Swallow · « **Reply #13 on:** 05/10/2015 09:53 pm »

Army surplus - where equipment built for a military purpose is (sold to be) used for civilian purposes.

The proposed Masten XEUS (manned) lunar lander is based on a modified Centaur upper stage. Centaur can use two RL10s for its main engines. 2 * 24,729 lbf of thrust. That much force and exhaust needs a launch pad rather than a runway.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/RL10
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Masten_Space_Systems#XEUS

DaveS · « **Reply #14 on:** 05/10/2015 10:13 pm »

Quote from: A_M_Swallow on 05/10/2015 09:53 pm

Army surplus - where equipment built for a military purpose is (sold to be) used for civilian purposes.

The proposed Masten XEUS (manned) lunar lander is based on a modified Centaur upper stage. Centaur can use two RL10s for its main engines. 2 * 24,729 lbf of thrust. That much force and exhaust needs a launch pad rather than a runway.

If you're thinking of Morpheus then it did use a dedicated launch pad, not the SLF runway.

MattMason · « **Reply #15 on:** 05/10/2015 11:37 pm »

Is this idea related or connected to Florida Today's report on NASA soliciting interest in private development/expansion of other launch sites including the unbuilt LC39C?

http://www.floridatoday.com/story/tech/science/space/2015/05/08/ksc-seek-industry-interest-new-launch-pads/26993595/

A_M_Swallow · « **Reply #16 on:** 05/11/2015 01:39 am »

Quote from: DaveS on 05/10/2015 10:13 pm

Quote from: A_M_Swallow on 05/10/2015 09:53 pm
Army surplus - where equipment built for a military purpose is (sold to be) used for civilian purposes.

The proposed Masten XEUS (manned) lunar lander is based on a modified Centaur upper stage. Centaur can use two RL10s for its main engines. 2 * 24,729 lbf of thrust. That much force and exhaust needs a launch pad rather than a runway.
If you're thinking of Morpheus then it did use a dedicated launch pad, not the SLF runway.

Initially Morpheus just used an area of concrete. After the crash a launch pad was built for the final vehicle.

guckyfan · « **Reply #17 on:** 05/11/2015 07:42 am »

I love the idea of NASA building something on LC 39-C. It can sit idle for some time then SpaceX can rent the area for 20 years. It should be much easier then to get permission to build a BFR pac there than it would be in a swamp area.

kraisee · « **Reply #18 on:** 05/11/2015 02:45 pm »

Seems like a whole lot of make-work to me, with no obvious target beneficiary.

Either that, or a political tool to deliberately channel money away from something else. Not sure if SLS/Orion or Commercial is the intended target, but wouldn't be surprised either way. 70/30 is my bet.

Ross.

A_M_Swallow · « **Reply #19 on:** 05/24/2015 01:30 pm »

The Masten XEUS forms part of NASA's Lunar CATALYST Initiative. This will need flight testing. Equipment built for one purpose can be redeployed or copied for a second purpose.

This is the Space Act Agreement between NASA and Masten Space Systems, Inc.
www.nasa.gov/sites/default/files/files/Lunar_Catalyst_SAA_Masten_Signed_30Sep2014.pdf

I hope the lander passed Milestone 4 'Preliminary Design Review (PDR) for robotic lander propulsion and Reaction Control System (RCS).