LC-37A never used

Why was LC-39A never used?
--
Replace you know what by j to email

On Wed, 05 Aug 2009 00:17:43 -0400, Jud McCranie
wrote:

Why was LC-39A never used?

I mean LC-37A.
--
Replace you know what by j to email

Jud McCranie wrote in
:

On Wed, 05 Aug 2009 00:17:43 -0400, Jud McCranie
wrote:

Why was LC-39A never used?

I mean LC-37A.

Because Saturn V made it obsolete?

At any rate, it's now being used by Delta IV.

--Damon

On Wed, 05 Aug 2009 00:21:42 -0500, Damon Hill
wrote:

Because Saturn V made it obsolete?

At any rate, it's now being used by Delta IV.

LC-37B is being used by Delta, but 37A was completed long before the
first Saturn V but never used.
--
Replace you know what by j to email

Jud McCranie wrote:
On Wed, 05 Aug
LC-37B is being used by Delta, but 37A was completed long before the
first Saturn V but never used.


Was it built as a back-up in case a Saturn 1 launch explosion destroyed
LC-37B? The Soviets lost a N-1 pad due to the rocket falling on it.

Pat

On Aug 5, 2:11*am, Pat Flannery wrote:
Jud McCranie wrote:
On Wed, 05 Aug
LC-37B is being used by Delta, but 37A was completed long before the
first Saturn V but never used.

Was it built as a back-up in case a Saturn 1 launch explosion destroyed
LC-37B? The Soviets lost a N-1 pad due to the rocket falling on it.

Pat

Jud,

While I am not entirely certain, I think the answer is no. Usually
duplicate pads were planned in anticipation of high flight rates, not
as a hedge against an accident. That is reflected in the design of
the VAB and the LC-39 complex.

I have read that when those facilities were being designed, the Earth
Orbital Rendezvous method was still being considered as the front-
runner of methods for Apollo to fly to the moon. EOR required more
launch vehicles to be assembled and launched at pretty much the same
time. That is why the VAB is larger than it seemingly needed to be.
One of the reasons LOR was eventually chosen was that a mission could
be flown with a single Saturn V.

Another clue is in the crawler path leading out to Pad 39B. If you
look at it in an aerial photograph or map, there appears to be a
kink. I have read that originally that was going to be a "fork in the
road", and that crawler would gone straight at that point to go out to
the never-built Pad 39C. Somewhere on the web, I have seen a old
photograph of a traffic signal with a sign that pointed the way to all
3 intended pads in LC-39.

Take care . . .

John

On Wed, 5 Aug 2009 06:42:58 -0700 (PDT), John
wrote:


While I am not entirely certain, I think the answer is no. Usually
duplicate pads were planned in anticipation of high flight rates, not
as a hedge against an accident.

I can see two pads, one for backup. If a Saturn V exploded and took
out the pad it probably would have set the Moon landing back a couple
of years.

But if I am right about this, pad 34 was built for Saturn I. Pad 37A
and 37B were finished about 1961 for Saturn IB. They started using
37B for Saturn IBs and redid 34 for IB. But 37A was available but
never used.

kink. I have read that originally that was going to be a "fork in the
road", and that crawler would gone straight at that point to go out to
the never-built Pad 39C. Somewhere on the web, I have seen a old
photograph of a traffic signal with a sign that pointed the way to all
3 intended pads in LC-39.

Yes, I've seen that.
--
Replace you know what by j to email

On Wed, 05 Aug 2009 00:17:43 -0400, Jud McCranie
wrote:

Why was LC-39A never used?

(LC-37A)

Pat is correct. Launch Complex 37 was built as a hedge against LC-34
being destroyed in an explosion. The original idea was to build a
second pad at LC-34, but there was not enough real estate there for
two pads (LC-34B would have been too close to LC-20), so in 1960 NASA
authorized construction of Launch Complex 37. It had two pads because
it was to be a more modern launch complex and would replace LC-34 for
Saturn C-1 and C-2 operations. Rising costs in 1961 forced NASA to
instead build one pad at LC-37 (Pad B) and keep LC-34.

see "Moonport", pgs 30-34.

The LOR decision meant the intermediate Saturns (C-2, C-3...) would
not be built and would not need a launch pad, so LC-37A was never
needed. The mission that became Apollo 9 was originally expected to
use two Saturn IB flights in rapid succession, one from LC-34 and one
from LC-37B. The Fire and lunar module delays pushed the mission until
after Saturn V would be available, so the mission was moved to a
single Saturn V.

Brian

On Wed, 5 Aug 2009 06:42:58 -0700 (PDT), John
wrote:

Another clue is in the crawler path leading out to Pad 39B. If you
look at it in an aerial photograph or map, there appears to be a
kink. I have read that originally that was going to be a "fork in the
road", and that crawler would gone straight at that point to go out to
the never-built Pad 39C.

Launch Complex 39 actually had positions established for as many as
five launch pads, four spaced up the coast and one slightly inland of
(present day) LC-39B. The fifth pad died quickly due to overflight
concerns and LC-39 settled on four pads (named A-D from north to
south), with the VAB having four High Bays and Launch Control having
four Firing Rooms all to match. The fourth pad was deferred early on
as a cost-cutting measure, since the two-launch EOR mission mode could
get by with a single pad acting as backup to either one should an
accident occur. The decision to go with LOR instead of EOR meant that
a single launch would get them to the moon, and one backup was
adequate, so LC-39A was cancelled, and two other two pads renamed A-B
from south to north.

The proposed location of the fifth pad actually resurfaced in recent
years as a potential commercial launch site at KSC, and as a potential
simplified Ares I launch pad before NASA abandoned commercial
possibilities at KSC and settled on reconfiguring LC-39A and B.

Somewhere on the web, I have seen a old
photograph of a traffic signal with a sign that pointed the way to all
3 intended pads in LC-39.

Here it is...

http://www.hq.nasa.gov/office/pao/Hi...C-66C-5451.jpg

And here is a picture of LIFE magazine with a painting of a Saturn V
launch from a 3-pad LC-39...

http://www.retroweb.com/apollo/life_640925.jpg

Note the "kink" that would have led on to the fourth pad. Also note
the third Titan launch pad at the ITL facility (now Complex 40/41.)
just south of LC-39.

Brian

On Wed, 05 Aug 2009 17:52:36 -0500, Brian Thorn
wrote:

Launch Complex 39 actually had positions established for as many as
five launch pads,

See this map, D and E were for Advanced Saturn or Nova
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:CCAFS.jpg
--
Replace you know what by j to email