hwt@.uucp (Henry Troup) (09/20/89)
In article <1989Sep14.161150.25944@utzoo.uucp> henry@utzoo.uucp (Henry Spencer) writes: >thoroughly mothballed and would be quite expensive to revive. Much of the >support equipment has dispersed to other uses, the skilled crews have done >likewise, and in general the USAF has completely lost interest. Are we using mothballed as a polite term for abandoned ? It seems to me that the picture of I have of mothballed is 'put away with some thought for reactivation' - not canibilized! utgpu!bnr-vpa!bnr-fos!hwt%bnr-public | BNR is not | All that evil requires hwt@bnr.ca (BITNET/NETNORTH) | responsible for | is that good men do (613) 765-2337 (Voice) | my opinions | nothing.
henry@utzoo.uucp (Henry Spencer) (09/20/89)
In article <251@bmers58.UUCP> bnr-public!bmerh490!hwt writes: >>thoroughly mothballed and would be quite expensive to revive... > >Are we using mothballed as a polite term for abandoned ? It seems to >me that the picture of I have of mothballed is 'put away with some >thought for reactivation' - not canibilized! Nothing has actually been torn down, although portable equipment has been moved elsewhere so it can be useful. In principle reviving the Vandenberg pad would be straightforward: a large influx of people and minor bits of equipment, and a fair bit of work to sweep the cobwebs :-) off the fixed stuff. In practice, "mothballed" in this connection *means* "abandoned". The site could be revived but won't be. It would probably have been scrapped, rather than just mothballed, were it not for the political uproar that would have resulted. -- "Where is D.D. Harriman now, | Henry Spencer at U of Toronto Zoology when we really *need* him?" | uunet!attcan!utzoo!henry henry@zoo.toronto.edu
dal@tasmania.micro.umn.edu (David A. Larsen) (09/20/89)
In article <251@bmers58.UUCP>, hwt@.uucp (Henry Troup) writes: > In article <1989Sep14.161150.25944@utzoo.uucp> henry@utzoo.uucp (Henry Spencer) writes: > >thoroughly mothballed and would be quite expensive to revive. Much of the > >support equipment has dispersed to other uses, the skilled crews have done > >likewise, and in general the USAF has completely lost interest. > I heard from a pretty reliable source that they are converting that pad to a Titan 4 pad. In addition the USAF ( or military in general) plans to use the Titan 4's for most, if not all, of their payloads. BTW I stood on that a few years ago. It is amazing how BIG every thing is. Dave Larsen dal@boombox.micro.umn.edu
nickw@syma.sussex.ac.uk (Nick Watkins) (09/21/89)
In article <118@tasmania.micro.umn.edu> dal@tasmania.micro.umn.edu (David A. Larsen) writes: >I heard from a pretty reliable source that they are converting that pad >to a Titan 4 pad. In addition the USAF ( or military in general) plans >to use the Titan 4's for most, if not all, of their payloads. From AW&ST (July 17, p.34): "Complex 4E will be completed for Titan 4 at Vandenberg in about a year, Cogliatore [Titan 4 programme director] said. The second West Coast Titan 4 pad - Complex 6/7 - will be on line in the mid 1990s, he said". As it was SLC 6 ("slick six") that the shuttle was to use, I guess that's about it for the West Coast shuttle. Current USAF motto seems to be "rather a straight eight than a slick six" :-) 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