| T.R | Title | User | Personal
Name | Date | Lines |
|---|
| 188.1 | Vandenberg | PRAGMA::GRIFFIN | Dave Griffin | Tue Jun 24 1986 19:38 | 20 |
| The Vandenberg site was built using typical military quality assurance
- nearly none.
The shuttle launch site was "inherited". Some of the problems with
the ducts we see now are not design flaws - they were there for
some other vehicle and adapted (apparently unsuccessfully) for the
shuttle.
The site is almost always shrouded in fog/clouds. Originally thought
to be a benefit (no prying eyes from above), it is now considered
a flight/launch hazard (emergencies and ice buildup).
The blockhouse is VERY VERY close to the pad. Once again the
inherited site was not designed for a vehicle the size of the
shuttle.
The workmanship was considered flawed in a number of areas.
- dave
|
| 188.2 | Clarification | LYMPH::INGRAHAM | Programmer Bob | Wed Jun 25 1986 10:16 | 14 |
| Oops - when I stated that satellites could be placed in highly
elliptical orbits, I was pointing out a capability from Kennedy,
not from Vandenberg. The implication is that recon satellites can
be placed in an orbit from KSC which will cover MOST of the Soviet
Union, reducing the need for truely polar orbits for which Vandenberg
launches are necessary. If a polar orbit is really needed, the
spook can be launched via Titan from Vandenberg.
As a comment, the Vandenberg and Shuttle/Centaur projects always
seemed needlessly risky to me and I for one am relieved that these
two have been canceled. Unfortunately we probably could have built
one or two new orbiters for the money we've already spent on both
these projects.
|
| 188.3 | IUS | CYGNUS::ALLEGREZZA | George Allegrezza, ISWS Writing Services | Wed Jun 25 1986 10:27 | 12 |
| How many remember the genesis of the Shuttle Centaur program? It was a
kludge to provide a geosynchronous orbit or escape capability after the
three-stage IUS was canceled. It seemed like a bad idea at the time;
but, like so many other things, it promised to save some money. I wonder
what will be the next portion of our once-formidable spaceflight capability
to crumble?
If a poll was taken of NASA and Air Force people today, and the question
was, "Should we have taken the Saturn V out of production," I wonder what
the results would be.
And the Soviet juggernaut rolls on and on and on . . .
|
| 188.4 | | SARAH::TODD | | Wed Jun 25 1986 12:03 | 2 |
| Glad SOMEONE's still rolling... - Bill
|
| 188.5 | Some history of SLC-6 | MONSTR::HUGHES | Gary Hughes | Wed Jun 25 1986 14:18 | 16 |
| FWIW, SLC-6 at Vandenburg was originally built for the MOL (Manned
Orbiting Laboratory) program and was to have launched the Titan-IIIM.
The Titan propellants do not present the explosion hazard in the
event of shutdown that LH2/LOX does so the current problems do not
seem suprising (with 20/20 hindsight). Unfortunately, adapting
exisiting facilities (SLC-6, Centaur) is often more palatable to
the people who control the dollars that starting afresh, even though
the hacking required usually ends up costing more.
If Martin go ahead with the Titan 34D7, it has the lifting capability
to launch the payloads planned for Shuttle/Centaur although I suspect
it would require new payload fairings on the Centaur.
Maybe the US could buy a Proton launch from the Soviets :-)
gary
|
| 188.6 | It just gets worse and worse | CYGNUS::ALLEGREZZA | George Allegrezza, ISWS Writing Services | Mon Jul 07 1986 15:23 | 13 |
| It seems that the Galileo mission could be in jeopardy no matter
what launch vehicle is used. Aviation Week says that with the planned
six-year delay in the program (three and a half to develop/integrate
a new launch vehicle and two and a half for a lower-energy trajectory)
the radioisotope thermoelectric generator (RTG) on board may not
have enough power to complete the mission. No need to worry, however,
the bureaucrats have thought of everything: the DOE's Savannah
River Plant no longer has the capability to produce RTG fuel and
it would take "years" to restore that production base.
Maybe we could develop a launch vehicle that could fire all the
bean counters into solar orbit. Any volunteers for that program?
(Idea courtesy VNS).
|
| 188.7 | Isn't it U* and not G*? | SKYLAB::FISHER | Burns Fisher 381-1466, ZKO1-1/D42 | Tue Jul 08 1986 10:40 | 5 |
| re .6: Wasn't that the European Solar Polar mission that might
have RTG trouble, and not Galileo? (I would have called it by
its correct name, but I don't know how to spell it!)
Burns
|
| 188.8 | Reading system failure | CYGNUS::ALLEGREZZA | George Allegrezza, ISWS Writing Services | Tue Jul 08 1986 10:44 | 1 |
| Absolutely. My apologies.
|
| 188.9 | We have enough junk for one solar system | ALIEN::MCCARTHY | | Tue Jul 08 1986 19:46 | 5 |
| re: .6
Solar orbit is to good for 'em. Why clutter up the place?
-Brian
|