afmartp@lims01.lerc.nasa.gov (PETER MARTIN) (05/15/91)
In article <6943@cactus.org>, rdd@cactus.org (Robert Dorsett) writes... >In article <1991May14.121925.59@%boot.decnet@edwards-tems.af.mil>, martin%boot.decnet@edwards-tems.af.mil writes: >> The logistics of shuttle operations at VAFB dictated that one orbiter >> vehicle be essentially dedicated to polar launches. When the fifth orbiter >> was scratched to recover from cost overruns, the practicality of launching >> from VAFB was seriously undermined. Eventually, the plan was scrapped and >> the >> completed facilities were mothballed. The facilities are now being modified >> for use as a Titan launch complex. > >I seem to recall several articles in AvLeak, between 1984 and 1986, which >alleged that the quality of workmanship at the Vandenberg launch facility >was pretty mediocre, and that from a cost/effectiveness standpoint, there >was absolutely no use for it (and I don't really accept that *one* orbiter >would justify the billions of dollars involved in the project--but then >again, that was the Reagan Administration). > >After the Challenger disaster, Vandenberg was stillborn--but I don't recall >any tears shed, since the project was considered dead even before then, being >viewed as a cash cow. Does anyone have more info on this? >Robert Dorsett I have a first hand understanding of the problems that led to the Vandenberg Launch Site's ,VLS, demise. In early 1986, Lockheed Space Operations Company, LSOC, NASA's prime operations contractor for shuttle proccessing, hired about 35 new graduates to be trained at KSC and then relocated to VLS. I was one of the 'lucky' 35. During 1986 at different times, many of us made trips to VLS to begin to familiarize ourselves with the operation there. Everyone came back with their own horror stories about the dismay that was there, myself included. I most people's opinion, the majority of the problems stem from NASA retrofitting and existing launch complex to one acceptable for the Shuttle system. I know they did the same thing at KSC, but the Saturn system was larger that the Shuttle so it made more sense. Things like at KSC the LCC, Launch Control Center, is three miles from the pad, (for safety reasons) but at VLS the launch 'bunker' is only a few hundred yards. I call it a bunker because it is basically a concrete block hollowed out. They built a concrete barrier wall between the complex and the pad that is a few feet thick that was supposed to 'protect' the LCC in the case of a pad disater. I guess they overlooked the fact that in an explosion of a fully fueld shuttle system, the resulting fireball would completely engulf the launch complex. There were cots, food and water stored in the bunker because if a launch had to be scrubbed after fueling, they launch team would not be allowed to leave for safety reasons until the fuel offloading was completed. Wouldn't you feel warm and fuzzy working in an environment like that? It's kind of ironic that I now work for Sverdrup Technology, a division of the Sverdrup Corporation who were the prime construction contractors for the VLS project! *************************************************************************** * Pete Martin * * NASA Lewis Research Center * * Cleveland, OH * * (216)433-8731 afmartp@lims01.lerc.nasa.gov * ***************************************************************************