Why don't we store the shuttle and rockets underground?

[yoda9999]

An underground silo or bunker could protect the shuttle and future rockets from bad weather and terrorist attacks. We could slide the shuttle and rockets along rails like a mine shaft car from the VAB to the underground launch site. We launch ICBM's from underground, right?

 

[jschaef5]

This might be fairly difficult to do in Florida. I am assuming the cape is only few feet above sea level so digging down into the ground a hundred feet and keeping the hole dry would be quite difficult. It might be easier to just build a giant building that has a roof that opens... <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>

 

[edkyle98]

An underground site large enough to handle shuttle would cost a horrendous amount of money. Think Big Dig $Billions.<br /><br /> - Ed Kyle

 

[yoda9999]

Yeah I forgot its a swamp over there. I thought maybe we could build a trench, tunnel or a pit for the shuttle. Anything to protect against weather or terrorists.

 

[tomnackid]

The VAB protects the shuttle from weather and its a heck of a lot cheaper and safer to drive the shuttle stack over a gravel road on the back of a modified open pit mining excavator (the ancestor of NASA's crawlers) than to dig giant tunnels and underground hangers. How would you move it from the launch pad to the hanger? Vertically? That's one mighty tall tunnel! Horizontally? The shuttle stack isn't designed to be hoisted into vertical position after assembly. You could have a an underground lair with a top that opens up for launches as Blofelt and Drax had in "You only Live Twice" and "Moonraker" respectively. (Using an extinct volcano is optional--not to mention difficult to find in Florida). Of course you run the risk of destroying your entire complex if something goes wrong during launch.<br /><br />As for terrorism I've been told by NASA workers that being in the middle of a wildlife preserve surround by miles of alligator infested open water, swamp and scrub is a big security plus. Apparently the few people fool hardy enough to try an approach the launch pad unauthorized (usually for nothing more notorious than to get a good picture) are quickly spotted. Besides I hate giving in to "war on terror" hysteria in any case (and I lived in NYC durring 9/11).

 

[barrykirk]

The best way to protect against terrorists in this country would be to do the following.<br /><br />a) Go on a mass program of building fission reactors.<br /><br />b) Tax oil to raise the the price of gas to $10 / gallon.<br /><br /><br />This will provide a massive incentive to switch to alternative energy sources.<br /><br />1) Bio Diesel<br />2) Ethanol<br />3) Electric<br /><br />It will reduce the incentive to purchase foreign oil.<br /><br />I will continue this post later when I have time.

 

[yoda9999]

Well, you could build a trench. Also an elevator to lower the shuttle into a pit during a storm. But I guess the swamp precludes these things.

 

[barrykirk]

Well,a couple of ways to protect a rocket that won't be applicable to the shuttle.<br /><br />1) Launch from a different location that has better weather.<br /><br />2) Use a smaller rocket, smaller (volume) that is to make it easier to build a protective building around the thing.

 

[josh_simonson]

Yup, that'll work with the likes of Timothy McVeigh, Aum Shinrikyo and ALF no problem...<br /><br />Terrorism isn't an enemy, it is a methodology. The only way to 'defeat' a methodology is to take action such that it ineffective or counterproductive.

 

[MeteorWayne]

Hey, ALF was no threat unless you were a cat! <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p><font color="#000080"><em><font color="#000000">But the Krell forgot one thing John. Monsters. Monsters from the Id.</font></em> </font></p><p><font color="#000080">I really, really, really, really miss the "first unread post" function</font><font color="#000080"> </font></p> </div>

 

[nyarlathotep]

"An underground silo or bunker could protect the shuttle and future rockets from bad weather and terrorist attacks. "<br /><br />The thing is drawing six billion dollars a year from the federal budget and its primary function is trash return, why the hell would Al-Qaeda want to blow it up? Seriously, they'd be doing us a massive favour.

 

[scipt]

I've always wondered.. Isn't there a large enough exclusion zone around the shuttle to prevent rifle attacks anyway? <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>

 

[nyarlathotep]

>"You could have a an underground lair with a top that opens up for launches as Blofelt and Drax had in "You only Live Twice" and "Moonraker" respectively."<br /><br />You could make a 250 metre dome out of 20m thick reinforced concrete and use it as a new VAB. Might be a bit spendy, but it would withstand a several kiloton blast.

 

[qso1]

BarryKirk:<br />1) Launch from a different location that has better weather.<br /><br />Me:<br />Here in the USA, the most ideal locations have been taken. KSC was chosen as were others, based on range safety and relative isolation from population centers. Since the launch sites existing today were chosen, population centers have grown around them. This is especially true at KSC which is surrounded by small towns. Access to orbits is another factor. Ideally a launch site should be as close to the equator as possible, especially for satellite launches to GEO.<br /><br />BarryKirk:<br />Use a smaller rocket, smaller (volume) that is to make it easier to build a protective building around the thing.<br /><br />Me:<br />The rocket size will depend on what its to be used for. The VAB was not built for shuttle so its already twice as large as it needed to be for the task of housing shuttle stacks. Had a VAB been built for shuttle, it might have prompted a different method of stacking. The advantage that shuttle planners had when the VAB was selected, high bay areas high enough to hoist the orbiter above the ET before lowering it for mating. I don't recall why they hoist the orbiter so high before lowering it parallel to the ET for mating. <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>

 

[willpittenger]

<blockquote><font class="small">In reply to:</font><hr /><p>I don't recall why they hoist the orbiter so high before lowering it parallel to the ET for mating.<p><hr /></p></p></blockquote><br />Probably something to do with how the orbiter mates. The designers must have thought it advantagous to do that for some reason. <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>

 

[qso1]

Could be, and they got lucky in that the existing VAB provided them with more than enough room to hoist it high. <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>

 

[willpittenger]

Shuttle_Guy would know. <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>

 

[qso1]

Yep. <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>

 

[barrykirk]

Well, one of the ways to get a smaller vehicle is to use a denser vehicle.<br /><br />Hydrogen has got a very ISP but a very low density.<br /><br />Going with a higher density fuel like RP-1 means that even though you need more total weight for the same lift mass to orbit, the total rocket volume is lower.

 

[qso1]

Thats true but size is also dictated by how much propellant is required to do the job. The most obvious example being the rocket for which the VAB was built. The 363 foot Saturn V which was fueled with RP-1 in the first stage. The shuttle is half the height of the Saturn and is propelled by LH2 and LOX from liftoff to orbit (SRBs the first two minutes in conjunction with LH2/LOX). Yet it would take at least two shuttle missions to send an Apollo mass payload to the moon.<br /><br />For earth orbit applications I can see a smaller building, or a smaller building for a 180 foot squat version of a Saturn class vehicle. Ultimately, cost is going to be factored in and if there were to be a cat 5 hurricane making landfall directly onto KSC. A new building would have to be rated to take 155 to 175 mph plus winds. The VAB was rated for 125 mph winds IIRC and built when cat 5 storms were relatively rare. Don't know which would be more expensive, beefing up the VAB or building a building tailored to a smaller launch system.<br /><br />A new building could be built however since there are no insurmountable obstacles. <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>

 

[oscar1]

I actually thought that KSC was chosen because of the tilt of the earth. And that also a Jules Verne figured along those lines, since he had his moon-vehicle blasted into space from Tampa Town.

 

[qso1]

Oscar1:<br />I actually thought that KSC was chosen because of the tilt of the earth.<br /><br />Me:<br />The cape was selected for a number of reasons and you alluded to one when you mentioned earths tilt. One major reason was the proximity to the equator. Such a location requires minimal energy to transfer payloads to GEO. Even launches that are 28 degree azimuths can put up more payload than a launch to ISS inclination which is 51.6 degrees.<br /><br />And the cape is on the east coast with nothing but ocean east of it. Allowing the easterly directed launches to take advantage of earths approximate 1,000 mph rotational velocity at the equator.<br /><br />Next up, location as far from populated areas for security and range safety reasons.<br /><br />Range safety dictated another feature. A long enough downrange corridor for testing rockets in. The U.S. had outgrown White Sands New Mexico which was what prompted the search for a new launch site. One where first stages could fall into the ocean without potentially harming populated areas.<br /><br />As for Verne, AFAIK, the decision in selecting the cape had nothing to do with Verne. It just so happened that selecting the cape made his vision of travel to the moon somewhat prophetic. <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>

 

[PistolPete]

With the gap in time between the Shuttle and the CEV there may be time for a complete overhaul of the VAB, perhaps even time to build a new one. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p> </p><p><em>So, again we are defeated. This victory belongs to the farmers, not us.</em></p><p><strong>-Kambei Shimada from the movie Seven Samurai</strong></p> </div>

 

[CalliArcale]

<blockquote><font class="small">In reply to:</font><hr /><p>Well, you could build a trench. Also an elevator to lower the shuttle into a pit during a storm. But I guess the swamp precludes these things.<p><hr /></p></p></blockquote><br /><br />It's more than just the swamp -- the "soil" there is mostly sand. Not very structurally sound. Building anything larger than a farmhouse out there is a major enterprise, and when they built KSC back in the 60s, it drove a lot of innovation in general construction work. I think it's worse out by the pad than it is at the VAB; I seem to recall reading in the book "Moonport" (a fascinating read) that even building the crawlerway was a serious challenge, given the unsteady terrain. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p> </p><p><font color="#666699"><em>"People assume that time is a strict progression of cause to effect, but actually from a non-linear, non-subjective viewpoint it's more like a big ball of wibbly wobbly . . . timey wimey . . . stuff."</em>  -- The Tenth Doctor, "Blink"</font></p> </div>

 

[olivebird111]

1. building fission reactors is the same as building nuclear war atomic bomb, it just hasnt exploded yet.<br />2. $10 a gallon would cause a revolution of the american people, it would make so many people poor and they wouldnt be able to pay taxes. They will get so mad they go attack who ever started this nousance.