waisnor_r@apollo.HP.COM (Robert Waisnor) (12/14/89)
Hello,
Is the west coast launch site ever going to be used for
shuttle launches? I heard that NASA and/or the air force
abandoned the site after the Challenger mission.
Bob Waisnor
Bob Waisnor INTERNET address: "That's no light at the
Apollo Computer, Inc. waisnor_r@apollo.hp.com end of tunnel, it's
Chelmsford, MA 01824 FON: (508) 256-6600 X5891 a freight train!!!!!"
henry@utzoo.uucp (Henry Spencer) (12/15/89)
In article <47679458.20b6d@apollo.HP.COM> waisnor_r@apollo.HP.COM (Robert Waisnor) writes: >Is the west coast launch site ever going to be used for >shuttle launches? I heard that NASA and/or the air force >abandoned the site after the Challenger mission. Yet another Frequently Asked Question, sigh... (The sigh is directed not at the questioner, but at our largely-useless f-a-q list.) The Vandenberg shuttle pad is theoretically only mothballed. There are no plans to use it, but in principle it could be revived. It won't be. There are too few missions interested in using it, and it would cost too much to revive it, cure some minor technical problems, and operate it. -- 1755 EST, Dec 14, 1972: human | Henry Spencer at U of Toronto Zoology exploration of space terminates| uunet!attcan!utzoo!henry henry@zoo.toronto.edu
shafer@elxsi.dfrf.nasa.gov (Mary Shafer (OFV)) (12/15/89)
In article <47679458.20b6d@apollo.HP.COM> waisnor_r@apollo.HP.COM (Robert Waisnor) writes:
Is the west coast launch site ever going to be used for
shuttle launches?
No, probably not. Mothballing in that climate really means abandoning.
I heard that NASA and/or the air force
abandoned the site after the Challenger mission.
The Air Force built it, the Air Force owns it, the Air Force abandoned it.
NASA would have just been a "contractor" to the Air Force for missions
out of Vandenburg.
--
Mary Shafer shafer@elxsi.dfrf.nasa.gov or ames!elxsi.dfrf.nasa.gov!shafer
NASA Ames Dryden Flight Research Facility, Edwards, CA
Of course I don't speak for NASAmelkins@jarthur.Claremont.EDU (Michael Elkins) (12/15/89)
In article <47679458.20b6d@apollo.HP.COM> waisnor_r@apollo.HP.COM (Robert Waisnor) writes: >Is the west coast launch site ever going to be used for >shuttle launches? I heard that NASA and/or the air force >abandoned the site after the Challenger mission. > Let's hope so... I beleive that STS-26 was supposed to be launched from over here, but after the accident, it was cancelled. -me -- /| /|___ melkins@hmcvax.claremont.edu | "ACK!!! / |/ |__ melkins@jarthur.claremont.edu | ...It's not just a word, |___ ...uunet!jarthur!melkins | but a state of mind." Michael Elkins------------------------------+----------------------------------
mustard@sdrc.UUCP (Sandy Mustard) (12/16/89)
> In article <47679458.20b6d@apollo.HP.COM> waisnor_r@apollo.HP.COM (Robert Waisnor) writes: > >Is the west coast launch site ever going to be used for > >shuttle launches? I heard that NASA and/or the air force > >abandoned the site after the Challenger mission. > I just read in AW&ST that the Air Force was requesting to build another Titan 3 site at Vandenberg and Congress said no, convert the shuttle facilities.
pubtendr@xroads.UUCP (Steve Roberson) (12/16/89)
I understand that the shuttle launch site at Vandenburg was damaged when they lost a Titan in a nearby launch. This was just after the Challenger accident. Because of the damage and the military's loss of confidence, the site was scrapped. Perhaps it has already been dismantled? -- \ / C r o s s r o a d s C o m m u n i c a t i o n s /\ (602) 941-2005 300|1200 Baud 24 hrs/day / \ hplabs!hp-sdd!crash!xroads!pubtendr
henry@utzoo.uucp (Henry Spencer) (12/18/89)
In article <896@xroads.UUCP> pubtendr@xroads.UUCP (Steve Roberson) writes: >I understand that the shuttle launch site at Vandenburg was damaged when they >lost a Titan in a nearby launch. This was just after the Challenger accident. >Because of the damage and the military's loss of confidence, the site was >scrapped. Perhaps it has already been dismantled? No, it's still there. The Titan accident did no significant damage to the shuttle site, although it really made a mess of its own pad and its twin. -- 1755 EST, Dec 14, 1972: human | Henry Spencer at U of Toronto Zoology exploration of space terminates| uunet!attcan!utzoo!henry henry@zoo.toronto.edu
rlw@ttardis.UUCP (Ron Wilson) (12/19/89)
In article <991@sdrc.UUCP>, mustard@sdrc.UUCP (Sandy Mustard) writes: >I just read in AW&ST that the Air Force was requesting to build another >Titan 3 site at Vandenberg and Congress said no, convert the shuttle >facilities. Wouldn't that cost more than building a new site?
serre@tramp.Colorado.EDU (SERRE GLENN) (12/19/89)
Info about Vandenberg: 1) SLC-6 (Shuttle Launch Pad) was indeed mostly, if not completely, finished. 2) I get the impression that West Coast Launches were abandoned when it was decided not to go ahead with composite SRBs for the shuttle. Without the upgraded boosters, Shuttle payload would have been extremely limited. 3) Much SLC-6 AGE (Aerospace Ground Equipment) has been salvaged for use on other programs. 4) The Air Force wanted to build another Titan IV, not Titan III launch pad. 5) Yes, it would probably cost more to convert SLC-6 to a marginally useful Titan IV launch site than it would to build a new SLC-7. --All the above words are my own. --Glenn Serre serre@tramp.colorado.edu
amichiel@rodan.acs.syr.edu (Michielsen) (12/20/89)
In article <15010@boulder.Colorado.EDU> serre@tramp.Colorado.EDU (SERRE GLENN) writes: >Info about Vandenberg: > >1) SLC-6 (Shuttle Launch Pad) was indeed mostly, if not completely, finished. > Finished Steel structures & Concrete LOOK but don't MAKE a Completed site >2) I get the impression that West Coast Launches were abandoned when it was > decided not to go ahead with composite SRBs for the shuttle. Without the > upgraded boosters, Shuttle payload would have been extremely limited. > Vandenberg is nearly the optimal launch site for Security Missions, but more importantly; for the orbital angle desired for many of the security missions, (i.e. most classes of semi-polar orbital spy sat's like keyholes) vandenberg offers the best launch angle. Ground security, nearby overflight ground/population exposure, foreign country isolation, electronic intell isolation (which is prohibited by law, but the U.S Violates flagrantly, but loudly complains when the soviets or chinese or japanese do it). IF HOWEVER, Vandenberg is considered as a REPLACEMENT for the Cape, & the typical (desired) traffic of commercial sat equip., THEN Vandenberg is 'virtually' useless with out GROSSLY more powerful SRB's. Even the 1 time SRB design would only make a marginally usefull facility for MOST Commercial traffic, simply because of the dramatically different launch angle. Vandenberg HOWEVER has GREAT problems that weren't properly evaluated BEFORE great GOB's of money were dumped there. 1. The environment is HOSTILE. Sand storms, Oxidation (rust), Solar damage (UV ray intensity, tenperature, etc.), and the intense lack of relative humidity; combine to cause GREAT AMOUNTS OF FANTASTIC DAMAGE to all kinds of equipment that NASA & the USAF has had NO similar experiences with any place else on earth. (remember the j. carter desert helo caper ?) 2. The close proximity to several GREAT NATIONAL Historic assets caused great consternation by all sorts of environmental, historical, animal, natural special intrest groups. Even the local (few, because the government owns like 90 % of the land already) landowners were loud because they didn't want their way of life disturbed. 3. When higher thrusts were made available from the main engines, better (slightly) fuel/thrust ratios were achieved from the main engines, and higher capacity (old style) SRB's were available. The recon payload limits from the Cape then moved from marginal to practical. Added to the GREAT cost over runs from vandenberg because of delays & all the problems above, the only rational move was to scrap vandenberg. However, congress didn't want the public relations nightmare of appearing to just JUNK the all the millions that went into it, and ordered the USAF to implement a expensive plan just to moth ball it. (moth balling it requires as many repair dollars as launch repairs have at the cape because of the hostile conditions.) SO, WHEN the USAF wanted $$$ to build a Titan site (for III's today, and IV's later). Congress Dumped on them, converting vandenberg to a titan site EVEN BEFORE ANY actual cost analysis was done. It WILL cost more, but was politically effective for the government from a PR standpoint. {more i edited out} >--All the above words are my own. > Me too >--Glenn Serre AL
serre@tramp.Colorado.EDU (SERRE GLENN) (12/20/89)
In article <1586@rodan.acs.syr.edu> amichiel@rodan.acs.syr.edu (A. Michielsen) writes: >>1) SLC-6 (Shuttle Launch Pad) was indeed mostly, if not completely, finished. >> > Finished Steel structures & Concrete LOOK but don't MAKE a Completed site - Maybe not, but SLC-6 was more than just steel and cocrete. For example, there was a lot of AGE installed. > Vandenberg is nearly the optimal launch site for Security Missions, but > more importantly; for the orbital angle desired for many of the security > missions, (i.e. most classes of semi-polar orbital spy sat's like keyholes) > vandenberg offers the best launch angle. Ground security, nearby overflight - Only the best continental U.S. launch site; trajectories still need to "steer" around Southern California. > IF HOWEVER, Vandenberg is considered as a REPLACEMENT for the Cape, & the > typical (desired) traffic of commercial sat equip., THEN Vandenberg is > 'virtually' useless with out GROSSLY more powerful SRB's. Even the 1 time - No one (well, no one I know about) considered Vandenberg as a replacement for the Cape. > Vandenberg HOWEVER has GREAT problems that weren't properly evaluated > BEFORE great GOB's of money were dumped there. >1. The environment is HOSTILE. Sand storms, Oxidation (rust), Solar damage > (UV ray intensity, tenperature, etc.), and the intense lack of relative > humidity; combine to cause GREAT AMOUNTS OF FANTASTIC DAMAGE to all kinds - Cape environment is just as hostile: T-storms, everything rusts (salt and humidity), high temperatures, high humidity. (BTW, why would UV be especially high at Vandenberg?) > SO, WHEN the USAF wanted $$$ to build a Titan site (for III's today, and > IV's later). Congress Dumped on them, converting vandenberg to a titan site - The USAF has no more Titan IIIs, they only have Titan IVs. The Commercial Titan is a Titan III, but will not launch out of Vandenberg. - Vandenberg is already a Titan site (it has SLC-4), it is SLC-6 (which is located on Vandenberg AFB) which would be converted to a Titan site. SLC-7 was to be the new Titan launch complex at Vandenberg. --Glenn Serre serre@tramp.colorado.edu
nickw@syma.sussex.ac.uk (Nick Watkins) (12/20/89)
In article <1989Dec14.171358.436@utzoo.uucp> henry@utzoo.uucp (Henry Spencer) writes: >The Vandenberg shuttle pad is theoretically only mothballed. There are no >plans to use it, but in principle it could be revived. It won't be. There There *are* plans to use it (SLC 6) for Titan IV launches, according to an article a few months ago in Aviation Week. Ironic, as it was originally built for the Titan IIIM booster that would have launched MOL. Nick -- Nick Watkins, Space & Plasma Physics Group, School of Mathematical & Physical Sciences, Univ. of Sussex, Brighton, E.Sussex, BN1 9QH, ENGLAND JANET: nickw@syma.sussex.ac.uk BITNET: nickw%syma.sussex.ac.uk@uk.ac
henry@utzoo.uucp (Henry Spencer) (12/21/89)
In article <1586@rodan.acs.syr.edu> amichiel@rodan.acs.syr.edu (A. Michielsen) writes: > ...[Vandenberg is good for...] electronic intell > isolation (which is prohibited by law, but the U.S Violates flagrantly, but > loudly complains when the soviets or chinese or japanese do it). Encrypted telemetry is (theoretically) prohibited only for ICBM tests, not for space launches, last I heard. And as I understand it, it's a gentleman's agreement, not a legally-binding treaty. >1. The environment is HOSTILE. Sand storms, Oxidation (rust), Solar damage > (UV ray intensity, tenperature, etc.), and the intense lack of relative > humidity... The sun shines just as brightly at KSC. And the humidity at Vandenberg is not particularly low; the suspected cause of the Amroc launch failure is icing, not seen in Amroc's tests because they were run at Edwards where the humidity *is* fairly low. Vandenberg is on the coast, remember. >2. The close proximity to several GREAT NATIONAL Historic assets caused great > consternation by all sorts of environmental, historical, animal, natural > special intrest groups... I don't know about "close proximity", but there is a problem in that Vandenberg itself is literally on top of some American Indian historical sites, and this causes hassles for planning and construction. > ... The recon payload limits > from the Cape then moved from marginal to practical... The recon payload limits from the Cape are still below what was originally forecast; they have *not* increased. And the Cape simply cannot reach the preferred orbits for most spysats without upsetting the range-safety folks a lot. The real reason Vandenberg shuttle launches stopped looking so useful was that the USAF won its battle to keep the Titans operating, and lost interest in using somebody else's launchers. -- 1755 EST, Dec 14, 1972: human | Henry Spencer at U of Toronto Zoology exploration of space terminates| uunet!attcan!utzoo!henry henry@zoo.toronto.edu
pflueger@thewav.enet.dec.com (Free speech is a sound investment) (12/21/89)
In article <1989Dec14.171358.436@utzoo.uucp>, henry@utzoo.uucp (Henry Spencer) writes... >In article <47679458.20b6d@apollo.HP.COM> waisnor_r@apollo.HP.COM (Robert Waisnor) writes: >>Is the west coast launch site ever going to be used for >>shuttle launches? I heard that NASA and/or the air force >>abandoned the site after the Challenger mission. > >Yet another Frequently Asked Question, sigh... (The sigh is directed not >at the questioner, but at our largely-useless f-a-q list.) > >The Vandenberg shuttle pad is theoretically only mothballed. There are no >plans to use it, but in principle it could be revived. It won't be. There >are too few missions interested in using it, and it would cost too much to >revive it, cure some minor technical problems, and operate it. Henry, What about *if* commercial launch business gets off the ground...would there be interest in revitalizing the site ?? +------------------------------------------------------------------------------+ Jim Pflueger(=Jp=)| "Idealism is fine, but as it | pflueger@thewav.dec.com Digital Equipment | approaches reality, the costs | pflueger@swam2.dec.com Costa Mesa, Ca. | become prohibitive" W.F. Buckley | (714) 850-7745 +------------------------------------------------------------------------------+