KSC - what if

As we all know, KSC as we know it today really started as a facility to
launch missions to the Moon for the Apollo program. The VAB was designed
to accommodate the Saturn V, and pads 39A, 39B and the fabled 39C were
set up to facilitate mankind's assault on our nearest celestial neighbour.

These facilities were designed around the Saturn-V, with the smaller
Saturns also easily handled. The pads were situated far enough away from
the manned facilities on the basis of blast radius (if something went
seriously wrong) and acoustic range.

Now, let's assume funding for Apollo continued rather than was axed, and
let's assume Apollos 18 through 20 happened. Let's also assume the
shuttle program commences in 1972 and is developed rapidly in a
comparatively linear fashion, without the modifications suffered by what
we know today; and with the shuttle AAP blossoms, with SkyLab being
saved by a shuttle in 1978, and SkyLab II flying being serviced by
shuttle instead of Saturn 1Bs. The decision is made to extend AAP to
include a larger format space labs and the beginnings of an extended
lunar research program, and so the Saturn-V variants are brought on
board, like the Saturn MLV-V-4(S)-A, the Saturn MLV-V-4(S)-B, or even
the Saturn V-23(L) or Saturn V-4X(U).

With these larger vehicles and a greater level of activity (to say
nothing of the increased diversity of launch vehicles), the existing
infrastructure at KSC would hardly be up to the challenge. For starters,
the VAB would be too small to accommodate the larger Saturns. Secondly,
the pads might not be large enough. The LUTs wouldn't be large enough
either, and with that all the pad infrastructure. With increased
capacity comes increased power and therefore a larger blast radius
should one of them go off on the pad, so the pads themselves might
suddenly be found to be too close to the manned facilities.

So - would NASA be forced to relocate operations, or would there be
enough room at KSC to expand infrastructure so these monster rockets
could operate from an established facility? Would the VAB be extended or
would a newer building be established adjacent to it for larger
vehicles? Would pads 39A and B be reserved for shuttle and new pads have
to be built to accommodate the new run of Saturns, or would KSC be left
as is and another facility entirely (Hawaii? Texas?) be constructed to
run the larger systems?


David
--
per aspera ad astra

David Sander wrote:


So - would NASA be forced to relocate operations, or would there be
enough room at KSC to expand infrastructure so these monster rockets
could operate from an established facility?


They woudl expand ops at Kennedy. They had plans for just that. I've got
maps for the Post-Saturn launch pads around here, somewhere...


Would the VAB be extended or
would a newer building be established adjacent to it for larger
vehicles?


The VAB was big enough to handle any likely development of the Saturn.
The *really* tall versions of Saturn would have required a crane mounted
on top of the VAB, and final stacking occurs just outside the building.
The VAB's capabilities as far as faster proccessing were never really
put to the test.

Would pads 39A and B be reserved for shuttle and new pads have
to be built to accommodate the new run of Saturns, or would KSC be left
as is and another facility entirely (Hawaii? Texas?) be constructed to
run the larger systems?


There were some semi-serious proposals for Hawaiian launch of the Nova
rocket, but the logistics of the situation were basically prohibitive.
Not that there wouldn't have been a bunch of NASA and contractor
employees scrambling to get hired on in Hawaii....


I think the real trick would have been in getting Saturn V and Shuttle
operating simultaneously.

Scott Lowther wrote:

The VAB was big enough to handle any likely development of the Saturn.
The *really* tall versions of Saturn would have required a crane mounted
on top of the VAB, and final stacking occurs just outside the building.
The VAB's capabilities as far as faster proccessing were never really
put to the test.

What about width though? The larger variants with SRBs or even
liquid-fuelled strap-on boosters would have made any vehicle rather
broad - the VAB's internal structure - and its doorways - barely appear
capable of accommodating such a size.


David
--
per aspera ad astra

"David Sander" wrote in message
...

So - would NASA be forced to relocate operations, or would there be
enough room at KSC to expand infrastructure so these monster rockets
could operate from an established facility? Would the VAB be extended or
would a newer building be established adjacent to it for larger
vehicles? Would pads 39A and B be reserved for shuttle and new pads have
to be built to accommodate the new run of Saturns, or would KSC be left
as is and another facility entirely (Hawaii? Texas?) be constructed to
run the larger systems?

Lots of assumptions here... For one, that we'd outgrow the Saturn V or the
simpler deratives anytime soon. I'm not convinced we would have.

But... assuming that...

I'm not convinced you would need separate pads for Shuttle (assuming the
current design) and Saturn V. You'd need different MLPs for sure, but as
the Saturn MLP contained everything it needed, you'd simply launch from that
and ignore the RSS and like for the Shuttle, and vice versa.

So, you'd probably need another MLP or two.

Only two bays of the VAB have ever been outfitted for stacking. However,
now VAB bay 2 is available as a "storm shelter" and you need room for
storage and the ilke. So you may have been able to get away with keeping
two bays for shuttle and 2 for Saturn and derivatives. And then of course
the current design left room for up to 4 more bays. Outgrow that and then
simply build across the "road" another VAB.

And there was room (and I've seen one map) that shows room for 39D-F. The
"drive" time from the VAB would have been VERY long though.

So, I think KSC could have supported almost any realistic plans.




David
--
per aspera ad astra

David Sander wrote:

Scott Lowther wrote:

The VAB was big enough to handle any likely development of the Saturn.
The *really* tall versions of Saturn would have required a crane mounted
on top of the VAB, and final stacking occurs just outside the building.
The VAB's capabilities as far as faster proccessing were never really
put to the test.


What about width though? The larger variants with SRBs or even
liquid-fuelled strap-on boosters would have made any vehicle rather
broad - the VAB's internal structure - and its doorways - barely appear
capable of accommodating such a size.


Didn't need to. They would be stacked at the pad.

Greg D. Moore (Strider) wrote:

"David Sander" wrote in message
...

So - would NASA be forced to relocate operations, or would there be
enough room at KSC to expand infrastructure so these monster rockets
could operate from an established facility? Would the VAB be extended or
would a newer building be established adjacent to it for larger
vehicles? Would pads 39A and B be reserved for shuttle and new pads have
to be built to accommodate the new run of Saturns, or would KSC be left
as is and another facility entirely (Hawaii? Texas?) be constructed to
run the larger systems?


Lots of assumptions here... For one, that we'd outgrow the Saturn V or the
simpler deratives anytime soon. I'm not convinced we would have.

But... assuming that...

I'm not convinced you would need separate pads for Shuttle (assuming the
current design) and Saturn V.


More than a few Shuttle concepts called for the use of Saturn V first
stage, either expendable, or with wings bolted on. My understanding is
that the Boeing/Grumman concept for a flyback S-IC with an ET on the
nose and a Shuttle hanging off the side of the ET came *exceedingly*
close to beating out the solid strap-on concept.

In message , Scott Lowther
writes


David Sander wrote:

Scott Lowther wrote:

The VAB was big enough to handle any likely development of the
Saturn.
The *really* tall versions of Saturn would have required a crane mounted
on top of the VAB, and final stacking occurs just outside the building.
The VAB's capabilities as far as faster proccessing were never really
put to the test.

What about width though? The larger variants with SRBs or even
liquid-fuelled strap-on boosters would have made any vehicle rather
broad - the VAB's internal structure - and its doorways - barely appear
capable of accommodating such a size.

Didn't need to. They would be stacked at the pad.

But I thought the whole point of the VAB was that you didn't build the
stack at the pad.
--
What have they got to hide? Release the ESA Beagle 2 report.
Remove spam and invalid from address to reply.

David Sander wrote:

Would pads 39A and B be reserved for shuttle and new pads have
to be built to accommodate the new run of Saturns, or would KSC be left
as is and another facility entirely (Hawaii? Texas?) be constructed to
run the larger systems?


If they had any brains, it would be off to Christmas Island; almost
exactly on the equator, and lots of nice empty sea off to its east.
This got anything to do with MCS? How's everything going on that, anyway?

Pat

Scott Lowther wrote:


There were some semi-serious proposals for Hawaiian launch of the Nova
rocket, but the logistics of the situation were basically prohibitive.
Not that there wouldn't have been a bunch of NASA and contractor
employees scrambling to get hired on in Hawaii....


IIRC, NASA bought the land for the Nova pads at KSC; I wonder what ever
became of that?





I think the real trick would have been in getting Saturn V and Shuttle
operating simultaneously.


That would have been a real logistical nightmare, wouldn't it? You'd be
dealing with Lox/Kerosene, Lox/LH2, and solids all at once- not to
mention possibly trying to make the pads compatible for both types of
vehicles... at this point, a horizontal take-off variant of the Faget
design starts looking attractive. You could have a separate "Horizontal
Assembly Building" to place the orbiter on top of the fly-back booster.

Pat

More than a few Shuttle concepts called for the use of Saturn V first
stage, either expendable, or with wings bolted on. My understanding is
that the Boeing/Grumman concept for a flyback S-IC with an ET on the
nose and a Shuttle hanging off the side of the ET came *exceedingly*
close to beating out the solid strap-on concept.


thats really sad the saturn booster stage didnt win. much safer operations all
these years. more importandly the saturn techniology would of had a chance to
evolve, and mature.

ith the saturn family still around, ISS could of been built easier in just a
few pieces, and we would still of had heavy lift capacity.

what a screw up.........
..
..
End the dangerous wasteful shuttle now before it kills any more astronauts....