A Space & astronomy forum. SpaceBanter.com

Go Back   Home » SpaceBanter.com forum » Space Science » Policy
Site Map Home Authors List Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read Web Partners

KSC Pad 39B Getting Makeover



 
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #1  
Old June 2nd 09, 09:36 PM posted to sci.space.policy
David Spain
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 2,901
Default KSC Pad 39B Getting Makeover


http://www.universetoday.com/2009/06...constellation/

  #2  
Old June 2nd 09, 10:39 PM posted to sci.space.policy
kT
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 5,032
Default KSC Pad 39B Getting Makeover

David Spain wrote:

http://www.universetoday.com/2009/06...constellation/



A super expensive launch pad, for an idiotic rocket that will never fly.

Bravo. Heckava job, murka, just a heckava job.
  #3  
Old June 4th 09, 04:21 PM posted to sci.space.policy
Jeff Findley
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 5,012
Default KSC Pad 39B Getting Makeover


"David Spain" wrote in message
...

http://www.universetoday.com/2009/06...constellation/


Let the scorched earth policy begin, even though the Human Space Flight
Review Committee has yet to begin to work.

Jeff
--
"Take heart amid the deepening gloom
that your dog is finally getting enough cheese" - Deteriorata - National
Lampoon


  #4  
Old June 5th 09, 02:16 AM posted to sci.space.policy
Brian Thorn[_2_]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 2,266
Default KSC Pad 39B Getting Makeover

On Thu, 4 Jun 2009 11:21:29 -0400, "Jeff Findley"
wrote:

Let the scorched earth policy begin, even though the Human Space Flight
Review Committee has yet to begin to work.


We only need one pad to keep Shuttle flying, if so desired. If we
change course and go with DIRECT, we'll need to modify Pad B anyway.
If we change course and go with Delta or Atlas, Pad B is irrelevant.

Brian
  #5  
Old June 5th 09, 04:11 PM posted to sci.space.policy
Jeff Findley
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 5,012
Default KSC Pad 39B Getting Makeover


"Brian Thorn" wrote in message
...
On Thu, 4 Jun 2009 11:21:29 -0400, "Jeff Findley"
wrote:

Let the scorched earth policy begin, even though the Human Space Flight
Review Committee has yet to begin to work.


We only need one pad to keep Shuttle flying, if so desired. If we
change course and go with DIRECT, we'll need to modify Pad B anyway.
If we change course and go with Delta or Atlas, Pad B is irrelevant.


If part of the output of the committee is a recommendation to keep flying
shuttle for several more years (unlikely, but possible), then having only
one shuttle pad is a nuisance. It might be fine, unless something goes
wrong with the pad (more fire brick liberation, and etc.) and as long as any
new shuttle missions always fly to ISS.

Jeff
--
"Take heart amid the deepening gloom
that your dog is finally getting enough cheese" - Deteriorata - National
Lampoon


  #6  
Old June 6th 09, 01:15 AM posted to sci.space.policy
Brian Thorn[_2_]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 2,266
Default KSC Pad 39B Getting Makeover

On Fri, 5 Jun 2009 11:11:08 -0400, "Jeff Findley"
wrote:


We only need one pad to keep Shuttle flying, if so desired. If we
change course and go with DIRECT, we'll need to modify Pad B anyway.
If we change course and go with Delta or Atlas, Pad B is irrelevant.


If part of the output of the committee is a recommendation to keep flying
shuttle for several more years (unlikely, but possible), then having only
one shuttle pad is a nuisance.


No it isn't. NASA flew 9 missions off one pad in one year (1985). Even
if the Shuttle is extended, we'll like see a flight rate only 1/3 of
that.

It might be fine, unless something goes
wrong with the pad (more fire brick liberation, and etc.)


Something (brick liberation) already went wrong with the only pad
we're actually flying from. It didn't cause any delays. At current and
proposed (extended) flight rates, it would take something really big
to cause a scheduling mess, something so big would probably end the
program anyway.

and as long as any
new shuttle missions always fly to ISS.


Not really. NASA seriously considered the single-pad option for
125/400 after the delay from October to May. The main reason they
stuck with dual-pad was because Ares 1X was way behind schedule
anyway. It complicates things, but it is doable.


Brian
  #7  
Old June 6th 09, 01:26 PM posted to sci.space.policy
Bob Haller
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 3,197
Default KSC Pad 39B Getting Makeover

NO work should be done till the direction of future operations is
made.

hey lets remodel our kitchen, during remodel you decide to level the
home and replace.

hey is taxpayers money why not waste it?
  #8  
Old June 8th 09, 03:24 PM posted to sci.space.policy
Jeff Findley
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 5,012
Default KSC Pad 39B Getting Makeover


"Brian Thorn" wrote in message
...
On Fri, 5 Jun 2009 11:11:08 -0400, "Jeff Findley"
wrote:


We only need one pad to keep Shuttle flying, if so desired. If we
change course and go with DIRECT, we'll need to modify Pad B anyway.
If we change course and go with Delta or Atlas, Pad B is irrelevant.


If part of the output of the committee is a recommendation to keep flying
shuttle for several more years (unlikely, but possible), then having only
one shuttle pad is a nuisance.


No it isn't. NASA flew 9 missions off one pad in one year (1985). Even
if the Shuttle is extended, we'll like see a flight rate only 1/3 of
that.

It might be fine, unless something goes
wrong with the pad (more fire brick liberation, and etc.)


Something (brick liberation) already went wrong with the only pad
we're actually flying from. It didn't cause any delays. At current and
proposed (extended) flight rates, it would take something really big
to cause a scheduling mess, something so big would probably end the
program anyway.

and as long as any
new shuttle missions always fly to ISS.


Not really. NASA seriously considered the single-pad option for
125/400 after the delay from October to May. The main reason they
stuck with dual-pad was because Ares 1X was way behind schedule
anyway. It complicates things, but it is doable.


I did say having only one pad is a "nuisance". It's possible to live with
one, but then you don't have a backup. I'll agree that it's very unlikely
that you'd *need* the second launch pad, but then you don't plan on using
backup hardware unless something goes terribly wrong with the primary
hardware, do you?

Jeff
--
"Take heart amid the deepening gloom
that your dog is finally getting enough cheese" - Deteriorata - National
Lampoon


  #9  
Old June 8th 09, 10:39 PM posted to sci.space.policy
Dr J R Stockton[_33_]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 5
Default KSC Pad 39B Getting Makeover

In sci.space.policy message ,
Mon, 8 Jun 2009 10:24:06, Jeff Findley
posted:

I did say having only one pad is a "nuisance". It's possible to live with
one, but then you don't have a backup. I'll agree that it's very unlikely
that you'd *need* the second launch pad, but then you don't plan on using
backup hardware unless something goes terribly wrong with the primary
hardware, do you?


In the last half-century or so, has a major hurricane, tornado, etc.
ever scored a direct hit on KSC? What are the odds, allowing for
climate trends, for the next half-century? AIUI, there's NO back-up
VAB.

--
(c) John Stockton, nr London, UK. Turnpike v6.05 MIME.
Web URL:http://www.merlyn.demon.co.uk/ - FAQqish topics, acronyms & links;
Astro stuff via astron-1.htm, gravity0.htm ; quotings.htm, pascal.htm, etc.
No Encoding. Quotes before replies. Snip well. Write clearly. Don't Mail News.
  #10  
Old June 8th 09, 11:49 PM posted to sci.space.policy
Greg D. Moore \(Strider\)
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 2,865
Default KSC Pad 39B Getting Makeover

"Dr J R Stockton" wrote in message
nvalid...
In sci.space.policy message ,
Mon, 8 Jun 2009 10:24:06, Jeff Findley
posted:

I did say having only one pad is a "nuisance". It's possible to live with
one, but then you don't have a backup. I'll agree that it's very unlikely
that you'd *need* the second launch pad, but then you don't plan on using
backup hardware unless something goes terribly wrong with the primary
hardware, do you?


In the last half-century or so, has a major hurricane, tornado, etc.
ever scored a direct hit on KSC? What are the odds, allowing for
climate trends, for the next half-century? AIUI, there's NO back-up
VAB.

I believe the one that hit a few years ago (4-5?) would qualify as a direct
hit. The VAB definitely took some damage.


--
Greg Moore
Ask me about lily, an RPI based CMC.

 




Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

vB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump

Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
GP-C102ED-ASGT (GP gets a Nexstar makeover) Michael McCulloch Amateur Astronomy 6 January 4th 05 04:28 AM
Extreme home makeover scope on roof Darren Drake Amateur Astronomy 12 March 10th 04 12:47 PM


All times are GMT +1. The time now is 02:32 PM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.6.4
Copyright ©2000 - 2024, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright ©2004-2024 SpaceBanter.com.
The comments are property of their posters.