CEV "Stick booster" to use SLC 40 launch site?

IF NASA finalizes the decision to use a modified Shuttle solid booster (24
ton requirement) for the Crew Exploration Vehicle, or CEV -- instead of a
derivative of the current Atlas V or Delta 4 boosters -- would SLC40 be the
logical launch facility to "retrofit" for such launches?

The new 120-ton in-line "cargo" booster would use the VAB and 39 Launch
Complex.

Space Launch Complex (SLC) 40 completed the final Cape Canaveral Titan IVB
launch on April 30, 2005. SLC 41, that formerly hosted Titan IV launches,
was converted for the Atlas V in the late 1990s.

Since I have not been near SLC 40/41 since 1996 ... I do not believe that
the four-bay Vertical Integration Building (VIB) at the south end of the ITL
complex -- was used for Atlas V retrofit. Could the VIB be usable for
"stick" launch assembly?

IF so, other than the VIB -- what else could they salvage from the original
"Integrate-Transfer-Launch" (ITL) --that is no currently being used for
Atlas V and SLC 41 support ?

g. beat

"gb" wrote in message
...
IF NASA finalizes the decision to use a modified Shuttle solid booster (24
ton requirement) for the Crew Exploration Vehicle, or CEV -- instead of a
derivative of the current Atlas V or Delta 4 boosters -- would SLC40 be
the
logical launch facility to "retrofit" for such launches?

The new 120-ton in-line "cargo" booster would use the VAB and 39 Launch
Complex.

If you're going to keep the VAB and LC39, it may make more economic sense to
do both vehicles from the same facility since the cargo booster is most
likely going to use SRBs anyways. You can take advantage of economy of
scale.

"Greg D. Moore (Strider)" wrote in message
nk.net...

"gb" wrote in message
...
IF NASA finalizes the decision to use a modified Shuttle solid booster
(24
ton requirement) for the Crew Exploration Vehicle, or CEV -- instead of a
derivative of the current Atlas V or Delta 4 boosters -- would SLC40 be
the
logical launch facility to "retrofit" for such launches?

The new 120-ton in-line "cargo" booster would use the VAB and 39 Launch
Complex.

If you're going to keep the VAB and LC39, it may make more economic sense
to
do both vehicles from the same facility since the cargo booster is most
likely going to use SRBs anyways. You can take advantage of economy of
scale.


OK. They did that for Saturn 1B launches at Complex 39 (milk stool) after
Apollo 7 for the 3 Skylab crew launches - as a cost reduction move to reduce
pad maintenance, control rooms, etc. Familiar program design decisions and
assumptions (1960s Apollo & initial 1970 Shuttle).

1. What will be the frequency of launch for the CEV missions (e.g. ISS/Alpha
duties; Moon missions; Mars missions; other manned activity) in a year?
My estimate would be 4 each year.

2. What would be the expected frequency for "cargo" booster launches?
My estimate is 2 each year -- possibly as high as 4 for the first couple of
years
IF the Shuttle program is terminated.
That higher initial frequency would be to send up the remaining ISS/Alpha
modules -- already built. This makes NO assumption on the ISS service
duties -- while rarely used -- that ability to "return items to earth" --
will be significantly reduced in volume.

You would want to convert both 39A and 39B for "cargo" booster usage --
redundancy and have the ability to launch "2" segments of a Mars (or Moon)
mission within a shirt time period - if desired.

Are their likely scenarios where a third launch pad is advantageous?
(SLC 40 or build 39C)
Any proposed missions requiring 2 cargo launches and launch of CEV within a
week of those 2 launches? Mars?
(Skylab & first crew launch & Gemini / Agena launches are the last time US
has attempted that)

greg

"gb" wrote in message
...
"Greg D. Moore (Strider)" wrote in
message
nk.net...

OK. They did that for Saturn 1B launches at Complex 39 (milk stool) after
Apollo 7 for the 3 Skylab crew launches - as a cost reduction move to
reduce
pad maintenance, control rooms, etc. Familiar program design decisions
and
assumptions (1960s Apollo & initial 1970 Shuttle).

That and I think 36 was no longer available.

1. What will be the frequency of launch for the CEV missions (e.g.
ISS/Alpha
duties; Moon missions; Mars missions; other manned activity) in a year?
My estimate would be 4 each year.


I'd guess that's about right.


2. What would be the expected frequency for "cargo" booster launches?
My estimate is 2 each year -- possibly as high as 4 for the first couple
of
years

Perhaps a bit more, 1-2 to ISS, 1-2 to support Moon or Mars trips.


IF the Shuttle program is terminated.
That higher initial frequency would be to send up the remaining ISS/Alpha
modules -- already built. This makes NO assumption on the ISS service
duties -- while rarely used -- that ability to "return items to earth" --
will be significantly reduced in volume.

You would want to convert both 39A and 39B for "cargo" booster usage --
redundancy and have the ability to launch "2" segments of a Mars (or Moon)
mission within a shirt time period - if desired.

Are their likely scenarios where a third launch pad is advantageous?
(SLC 40 or build 39C)

Not if you do it right. Make the pads generic, make the MLPs specific.

Keep at least 3 MLPs, perhaps build a 4th.

Any proposed missions requiring 2 cargo launches and launch of CEV within
a
week of those 2 launches? Mars?
(Skylab & first crew launch & Gemini / Agena launches are the last time US
has attempted that)

greg

gb wrote:
Are their likely scenarios where a third launch pad is advantageous?
(SLC 40 or build 39C)

I think two pads is enough for ISS and/or the
Moon. It might even be enough for Mars if the
system could be designed to shorten pad
turnaround time the way Arianespace does at
Kourou, or Lockheed at Pad 41, or RSA at
Tanegashima with H-2.

It isn't pads that are needed. There were
13 space launches from Cape Canaveral last
year from seven launch pads - pads that
together provided a theoretical capacity
of about 50 launches per year. NASA doesn't
need to waste funds building more launch
infrastructure overcapacity. The agency
would be wiser to invest in optimizing use
of existing assets.

- Ed Kyle

"Greg D. Moore (Strider)" wrote in message
nk.net...
Not if you do it right. Make the pads generic, make the MLPs specific.

Keep at least 3 MLPs, perhaps build a 4th.

This would seem to be the way to go. Since "the stick" would be so much
smaller than the heavy cargo lifter, it seems like you'd want to at least
attempt to keep as much of the stick's specific hardware on the MLP.

Look at the Saturn V. It's far bigger (in volume) than the stick, and its
launch tower was mounted on the MLP:

http://fcit.usf.edu/florida/photos/n...ad/onpad02.htm

The Saturn V launch pads themselves didn't include much in the way of
towers, as even the service tower was mobile, as can easily be seen in these
pictures:

http://www.hq.nasa.gov/office/pao/Hi...s/saturn5.html

Jeff
--
Remove icky phrase from email address to get a valid address.

"Jeff Findley" wrote:


"Greg D. Moore (Strider)" wrote in message
ink.net...
Not if you do it right. Make the pads generic, make the MLPs specific.

Keep at least 3 MLPs, perhaps build a 4th.

This would seem to be the way to go. Since "the stick" would be so much
smaller than the heavy cargo lifter, it seems like you'd want to at least
attempt to keep as much of the stick's specific hardware on the MLP.

While 'specific' MLP's and MST's (mobile service towers) are the way
to go at first blush - it seems to me that it can get expensive (both
in aquisition and maintenance) fairly quickly.

The real problem however is the VAB - whose interior cannot be swapped
out easily. Can it be made generic?

/me Ponders a three part solution, custom MLP + custom MST + a
swappable VAB 'liner'. The last two might be combined into one with
the VAB interfaces (in each bay) made 'generic'.

D.
--
Touch-twice life. Eat. Drink. Laugh.

-Resolved: To be more temperate in my postings.
Oct 5th, 2004 JDL

Derek Lyons wrote:

While 'specific' MLP's and MST's (mobile service towers) are the way
to go at first blush - it seems to me that it can get expensive (both
in aquisition and maintenance) fairly quickly.

The real problem however is the VAB - whose interior cannot be swapped
out easily. Can it be made generic?

/me Ponders a three part solution, custom MLP + custom MST + a
swappable VAB 'liner'. The last two might be combined into one with
the VAB interfaces (in each bay) made 'generic'.

Part of the equation is the fact that the SRB Stick
launcher is set to come on line in 2011, seven years
before the bigger Shuttle derived heavy-lifter is
expected to appear. So the ground infrastructure
will have to be designed for a staggered, staged
implementation.

In addition, the plan seems to expect only two lunar
missions per year, with one heavy launch per mission,
so a single VAB bay and single mobile platform
would seem enough for the heavy lifter during the
lunar missions. Indeed, the same would be true for
the CEV launcher. So for lunar exploration, two
bays, two launchers, and two pads (all vehicle
specific) would suffice. In fact, such a program
could be performed with *no* VAB bays and *no* mobile
launchers if the pads were massively modified to
support on-pad stacking.

But Mars is a completely different problem. The VAB,
or something like it, would be needed for Mars. So
I ask this question. Is the VAB still going to be
usable after 2020, when it will be needed for Mars?

- Ed Kyle

On Mon, 1 Aug 2005 14:24:16 -0500, Derek Lyons wrote
(in article ):

The real problem however is the VAB - whose interior cannot be swapped
out easily. Can it be made generic?

/me Ponders a three part solution, custom MLP + custom MST + a
swappable VAB 'liner'. The last two might be combined into one with
the VAB interfaces (in each bay) made 'generic'.

Along those lines, how much of the VAB is actually in use right now?
Even for Saturn-Apollo, all four of them were not fitted out, correct?
Might a particular bay or bays be devoted to each of the specific
vehicles as part of the new spacecraft/launcher architecture?

--
"Fame may be fleeting but obscurity is forever." ~Anonymous
"I believe as little as possible and know as much as I can."
~Todd Stuart Phillips
www.angryherb.net

"Derek Lyons" wrote in message
...
"Jeff Findley" wrote:
"Greg D. Moore (Strider)" wrote in
message
ink.net...
Not if you do it right. Make the pads generic, make the MLPs specific.

Keep at least 3 MLPs, perhaps build a 4th.

This would seem to be the way to go. Since "the stick" would be so much
smaller than the heavy cargo lifter, it seems like you'd want to at least
attempt to keep as much of the stick's specific hardware on the MLP.

While 'specific' MLP's and MST's (mobile service towers) are the way
to go at first blush - it seems to me that it can get expensive (both
in aquisition and maintenance) fairly quickly.

The real problem however is the VAB - whose interior cannot be swapped
out easily. Can it be made generic?

I'm not sure the VAB would be much of an issue. There are four bays there,
right? If you had two working on stacking cargo shuttle derived vehicles
and two working on sticks, that might work out just fine. You'd still want
extra work platforms and the ability to be able to move work platforms from
one high bay to another (say to work on three sticks at once).

/me Ponders a three part solution, custom MLP + custom MST + a
swappable VAB 'liner'. The last two might be combined into one with
the VAB interfaces (in each bay) made 'generic'.

Here's where going with an inline shuttle derived cargo lifter may help.
One thing you can do to make life easier is to have different MLP's and
mount the centerline of the stick at the same location, in the horizontal
plane, as the centerline of the modified ET of the inline shuttle derived
vehicle. That may make your VAB work platforms a bit more generic since
they're dealing with something roughly the same shape (cylindrical) in
roughly the same horizontal plane.

Jeff
--
Remove icky phrase from email address to get a valid address.