home bbs files messages ]

Forums before death by AOL, social media and spammers... "We can't have nice things"

   sci.space.tech      Technical and general issues related to      3,113 messages   

[   << oldest   |   < older   |   list   |   newer >   |   newest >>   ]

   Message 1,507 of 3,113   
   Kim Keller to ed kyle   
   Re: High-flight rate Medium vs. New Heav   
   07 Feb 04 06:28:15   
   
   XPost: sci.space.policy   
   From: kimekeller@yahoo.com   
      
   "ed kyle"  wrote in message   
   news:88d21cfd.0402041954.6220439c@posting.google.com...   
   > If the money isn't there, then the U.S. is not going to the   
   > Moon.   
      
   You may very well be right. Bush did what makes himself look good, not what   
   insures the project will survive future administrations.   
      
   > Any lunar mission is going to require new launch   
   > facilities, whether it be via EELV or not.   
      
   More than likely.   
      
   > The most efficient   
   > way to salvo launch is to assemble vehicles (ideally with   
   > payloads) off-pad in an assembly building, then scoot 'em and   
   > shoot 'em off of one or two pads.  An extra one or two VIF   
   > bays could turn SLC 41 into a salvo launcher.   
      
   We priced that option this past summer. Even that ain't cheap.   
      
   > NASA, of course,   
   > will have an unused assembly building with a pair of launch   
   > pads after 2010.   
      
   Yeah. That's why I think there'll be a push to develop Shuttle-C or   
   something similar.   
      
   > The old Air Force Titan ITL complex and   
   > Pad 40 will be available after this year or next, as will   
   > SLC 36A and B.   
      
   We looked at modifying SLC-40, too - there are a lot of "landmines" that   
   would drive up the cost and stretch out construction schedules. Bottom line   
   was it would cost a lot of money to turn -40 into something usable.   
      
   As for -36, a line was drawn on the CCAFS map with the words, "No Heavy   
   Rockets South Of This Line" above it. That line was a bit north of -36.   
      
   > If NASA doesn't build a new pad somewhere,   
   > Cape Canaveral/KSC will be left with only four or so active   
   > launch pads in a few years, less than half of today's number.   
      
   Just how many do we need?   
      
   -Kim-   
      
   --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05   
    * Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)   

[   << oldest   |   < older   |   list   |   newer >   |   newest >>   ]


(c) 1994,  bbs@darkrealms.ca