How long would it take to convert KSC/Houston to CEV duty?

[willpittenger]

How long is it going to take to convert everything (pads, transporters, VAB, processing facilities, control areas, etc) from STS to lunar missions based around CEV? Also, what do you think it would cost to implement these changes?<br /><br />It might be a good idea if Shuttle Guy responded first. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <hr style="margin-top:0.5em;margin-bottom:0.5em" />Will Pittenger<hr style="margin-top:0.5em;margin-bottom:0.5em" />Add this user box to your Wikipedia User Page to show your support for the SDC forums: <div style="margin-left:1em">{{User:Will Pittenger/User Boxes/Space.com Account}}</div> </div>

 

[rogers_buck]

KSC hands off to Houston after they light the fuse, so you need to include Houston in your quest. Seems like the effort in Houston will be procedural and software. That might actually take longer than cutting torches and welders at the pad...<br />

 

[rogers_buck]

Don't want to hijack your thread, but this has given me a couple of thoughts. Last time I looked the CEV was going to be launched atop a stick of solids. This is hardly an accurate synopsis, but it seems that many launch scrubs are related to sensor and other problems associated with liquid fueled rockets. Within reason, does this mean that weather might well turn out to be 99% of all reasons for a CEV launch hold?<br /><br />If so, what would this do to the space launch watch tourist industry in Florida? I'd like to go see a shuttle lift off, but the odds of it departing on schedule are poor at best.<br /><br />Also, delays cost $$$. If every CEV errected experiences only weather delays, what kind of savings could be realized from that?<br /><br />The final question I have relates to the cost of JSC itself. Would it be practical to make the CEV automonous enough not to require that level of husbandry after the fuse is lit? Fire and forget sort of thing. After all, there isn't that much to do with an SRB that wouldn't be obvious to the software and crew onboard the vehicle.<br /><br />I realize these are soft money questions, so feel free to take an educated guess.<br />

 

[qso1]

The entire complex, that is, two pads, three LUTs as they were called originally, two crawlers, the VAB/LCC and MSS...all were nonexistent beyond planning in 1961-62. The first Saturn-V to be launched from complex 39 was just five years later (9 November 1967).<br /><br />Conversion to the shuttle operation began probably around 1975-76 (After ASTP in 1975). The first shuttle of course, launched in April of 1981 a two year delay from the original launch date of September 1979. Pad 39-A was ready for fit checking Enterprise in IIRC, May 1979. Shuttle major mods were mainly to the pads and LUTs which became MLPs by name once the 380 foot towers were removed. The tower portion becoming fixed and rotating service structures and no MSS required.<br /><br />For VSE, the timeline will probably be about the same or maybe shorter given the planned 2014 launch date with mods starting around 2009-10. So far, all I have seen documented as far as what they are planning, looks like the MLP will get a tower again. The FSS would not be tall enough to reach the top of the CaLV or CLV.<br /><br />Hope this answer will hold you over till S-G can answer. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p><strong>My borrowed quote for the time being:</strong></p><p><em>There are three kinds of people in life. Those who make it happen, those who watch it happen...and those who do not know what happened.</em></p> </div>

 

[qso1]

Weather probably will be the larger percentage of CEV launch scrubs but I suspect the vehicle itself will be the product of lessons learned with shuttle. That plus the fact its inherantly less complex or should be, means it will probably achieve a higher rate of ontime launches compared to shuttle.<br /><br />Launch watchers in Florida will probably flourish for a decade or so to come. Go to major airports and you still see people who watch jets come and go.<br /><br />Shuttle departing on schedule is iffy but Discovery has had a pretty decent record of on time launches for some reason.<br /><br />CEV cost savings if only weather delays occur, too early to tell. Don't really have a good baseline estimate yet for launch cost.<br /><br />Cost of JSC. I'd be willing to bet CEV could be launched without JSC. JSC is largely a political situation from the 1960s. Launch control logically could have been built right in or near KSC but President Johnson, the good political Texan he was, saw to it his state got a piece of the moon pie and JSC was ready just in time for Gemini.<br /><br />The Delta Clipper prototype was launched by a few people using a van for an LCC in the early 1990s. With computer technology of today and beyond, the same or similar is possible with CEV but politics will probably not allow it and thats just simple reality. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p><strong>My borrowed quote for the time being:</strong></p><p><em>There are three kinds of people in life. Those who make it happen, those who watch it happen...and those who do not know what happened.</em></p> </div>

 

[rogers_buck]

That's the problem with my particular state (Texas). It has too much political power... Kind of nostalgic for those 60s scifis when the generals shake hands with the explorers and say things like "let us know what you find when you get back." The intrepid astronauts then have a cup of java, go to the can, and then ask each other if they should blast off now or after the ball game.<br /><br />

 

[edkyle98]

"For VSE, the timeline will probably be about the same or maybe shorter given the planned 2014 launch date with mods starting around 2009-10. So far, all I have seen documented as far as what they are planning, looks like the MLP will get a tower again. The FSS would not be tall enough to reach the top of the CaLV or CLV. "<br /><br />The interesting June 30 press conference with Horowitz, Jeff Hanley (sp?), and Steve Cook provided some interesting info on this. Officially, NASA hasn't decided what the "Ares I" (CLV) test schedule will be, or where the initial launches will take place from (SLC 40 and Complex 39 are in trade). Unofficially, decision makers are leaning heavily toward launching the first Ares I test from Pad 39B in 2009. By then, the shuttle program will be finished with Pad B, and, since this initial launch will involve a 4 segment booster with a dummy upper stage and dummy payload, the launch pad mods for this particular test could be quite minimal. For example, no umbilical tower would be needed, etc.<br /><br />The first manned CEV mission would occur near the end of 2014, so there is plenty of time to build the required launch infrastructure for that mission.<br /><br /> - Ed Kyle

 

[qso1]

Without seeing detailed plans its hard to know what the exact configurations of the facilities will be but the average timeline from start to finish at complex 39 has been 5 years. This could be up to a year or so shorter or longer depending on how things go.<br /><br />They would be doing pretty well to do without a tower for the dummy launch as that would save some time. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p><strong>My borrowed quote for the time being:</strong></p><p><em>There are three kinds of people in life. Those who make it happen, those who watch it happen...and those who do not know what happened.</em></p> </div>

 

[erioladastra]

"How long is it going to take to convert everything (pads, transporters, VAB, processing facilities, control areas, etc) from STS to lunar missions based around CEV? Also, what do you think it would cost to implement these changes? "<br /><br />I can't say much for Houston at this time since plans are still preliminary, but as of right now it sounds like to save money/time the same architecture, and the even the same hardware will be used.