Vandenberg Shuttle flights

What would it take to launch a shuttle from Vandenberg in
California?

Is it still possible?

JohnSmith wrote in news:lgSQg.8230$vi3.3778
@bignews3.bellsouth.net:

What would it take to launch a shuttle from Vandenberg in
California?

Tear down the Delta IV complex at SLC-6, rebuild all the shuttle
infrastructure that was torn down to build the Delta stuff, and convince
the USAF they need to launch shuttles.

Is it still possible?

No.


--
JRF

Reply-to address spam-proofed - to reply by E-mail,
check "Organization" (I am not assimilated) and
think one step ahead of IBM.

"JohnSmith" wrote in message
...
What would it take to launch a shuttle from Vandenberg in California?

Money. To rebuild SLC-6 BACK to a shuttle config.


Is it still possible?

Not really. It's been extremely modified since it was in a shuttle reay
config.

JohnSmith ) writes:
What would it take to launch a shuttle from Vandenberg in
California?

A lot of money, and cancelling the now existing pad that sits very
close to the old SLC-6. IOW, it flat out ain't gonna happen.

If you read Jenkins' book on the shuttle, the third edition,
theres a chapter there about the whole, sorry, tale of SLC-6,
and what was done and how far it got, and how much $$$ got used.

Is it still possible?

No. Even if it were, it has not been needed/useful since right
after Challenger.

Andre

Andre Lieven wrote:
JohnSmith ) writes:

What would it take to launch a shuttle from Vandenberg in
California?


A lot of money, and cancelling the now existing pad that sits very
close to the old SLC-6. IOW, it flat out ain't gonna happen.

If you read Jenkins' book on the shuttle, the third edition,
theres a chapter there about the whole, sorry, tale of SLC-6,
and what was done and how far it got, and how much $$$ got used.


Is it still possible?


No. Even if it were, it has not been needed/useful since right
after Challenger.

Andre


The reason I mentioned Vandenberg is the excellent flight of
Atlantis and the great job NASA has done getting back to
flight. The new Orion could be the focus of NASA at Kennedy
while the shuttle could be retained for other missions out
of Vandenberg.

It seems a shame to shut down the Space Shuttle in 2010

JohnSmith wrote:
Andre Lieven wrote:
JohnSmith ) writes:

What would it take to launch a shuttle from Vandenberg in
California?


A lot of money, and cancelling the now existing pad that sits very
close to the old SLC-6. IOW, it flat out ain't gonna happen.

If you read Jenkins' book on the shuttle, the third edition,
theres a chapter there about the whole, sorry, tale of SLC-6,
and what was done and how far it got, and how much $$$ got used.


Is it still possible?


No. Even if it were, it has not been needed/useful since right
after Challenger.

Andre


The reason I mentioned Vandenberg is the excellent flight of
Atlantis and the great job NASA has done getting back to
flight. The new Orion could be the focus of NASA at Kennedy
while the shuttle could be retained for other missions out
of Vandenberg.

It seems a shame to shut down the Space Shuttle in 2010

The shuttle is getting old. Its technology is outdated. And IIRC, it
was only designed to serve for 10 years and be replaced by the next
generation of reusable spaceplane. That didn't happen, and was largely
a political decision. But then again, so was the shuttle.

As much as I personally like the shuttle, the time has come to move on.
I'm not very fond of NASA's Apollo on Steroids approach either, but it
might be the only game in town for a while. I'm hoping that private
industry will fill in the gap and develop a truly reusable orbital
spaceplane, but I'm not holding my breath.

The oly way this country will ever get a viable space program up and
running is if it can somehw get a lot of politicians elected and make a
lot of political contributors^H^H^H^H^H^H^H^H^H^H^H^H^H^H^H^H^H^H^H ^H
contractors rich.

Watch out for China and India. They just might eat our lunch in space.

Bill Sullivan

"Is this glass half empty or half full? That depends. Are you pouring
or drinking?"

In article ,
JohnSmith wrote:

The reason I mentioned Vandenberg is the excellent flight of
Atlantis and the great job NASA has done getting back to
flight. The new Orion could be the focus of NASA at Kennedy
while the shuttle could be retained for other missions out
of Vandenberg.

I thought the reason for killing the shuttle, is that the USA won't pay
to run both the Shuttle program and Orion. Wouldn't moving the shuttle
to Vandenburg at the same time as running Orion cost even more than simply
trying to run both programs out of the Cape? I didn't think it was even
feasible to launch to the ISS out of Vandenburg.

Nick

"JohnSmith" wrote in message
...

The reason I mentioned Vandenberg is the excellent flight of Atlantis and
the great job NASA has done getting back to flight. The new Orion could be
the focus of NASA at Kennedy while the shuttle could be retained for other
missions out of Vandenberg.

And who would pay for these continuing shuttle operations? Certainly not
NASA. Certainly not DOD since they used the Challenger disaster as a
convienent excuse to get out of the shuttle program and go back to ELV's.

It seems a shame to shut down the Space Shuttle in 2010

It seems a shame not to, considering how much of NASA's budget is eaten up
by the shuttle program.

Unfortunately, Griffin seems hell bent on keeping the Saturn/shuttle
infrastructure in place by building and flying Ares I and V.

Jeff
--
"They that can give up essential liberty to obtain a
little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor
safety"
- B. Franklin, Bartlett's Familiar Quotations (1919)

nmp stelde de volgende uitleg voor :
Op Fri, 22 Sep 2006 10:43:55 -0700, schreef The Rocket Scientist:

[..]

As much as I personally like the shuttle, the time has come to move on.
I'm not very fond of NASA's Apollo on Steroids approach either, but it
might be the only game in town for a while. I'm hoping that private
industry will fill in the gap and develop a truly reusable orbital
spaceplane, but I'm not holding my breath.

Perhaps if it were easy, it would have been done already?

The Vandenberg launch site was mentioned for polar shuttle missons, and
these never happened.

André

--
(\__/)
( o.O) This is Bunny. Copy and paste bunny into
(")_(") your signature to help him gain world domination.

nmp wrote:
Op Fri, 22 Sep 2006 10:43:55 -0700, schreef The Rocket Scientist:

[..]

Watch out for China and India. They just might eat our lunch in space.

Oh yes, I almost forgot to ask: what kind of lunch are you referring too?
Afraid the moon is made of cheese after all, and that they are going to
eat all of it?

Of course the moon is made of cheese. Just look at Google Moon. :-)

I say: there is room in space for any nation that wants to try.

Most international struggles are not about the available room, but how
that room and its resources will be allocated. There's plenty to go
around here on Earth, but the various political divisions still come up
with ingenious excuses to grab and control bigger chunks of it.
Eventually, economic supremacy will belong to that nation which can
best capitalize on the resources of space. I would prefer my own
nation to enjoy that position and make no apologies for such
preference.

And perhaps it would be good to seek cooperation with all of them.

International cooperation. Great idea. One of these days we ought to
try it. Show of hands, who wants to go first? Who wants to be the
first to give up whatever advantage you might enjoy for the sake of
international cooperation?

I'm not making fun of you, or trying to denigrate your idea. It's a
good idea, and I sincerely wish we could do it. But my long and bitter
experience with basic human nature leads me to believe that it just
won't happen.

Bill Sullivan

"For every complex problem, there is a clear and simple solution that
is wrong."
- H. L. Menken