home *** CD-ROM | disk | FTP | other *** search
- Path: sparky!uunet!portal!cup.portal.com!BrianT
- From: BrianT@cup.portal.com (Brian Stuart Thorn)
- Newsgroups: sci.space
- Subject: Re: Let's be more specific (was: Stupid Shut Cost arguement
- Message-ID: <72802@cup.portal.com>
- Date: Sat, 2 Jan 93 18:15:42 PST
- Organization: The Portal System (TM)
- References: <1992Dec28.172953.26161@ke4zv.uucp>
- <1992Dec28.202920.5932@iti.org> <1993Jan1.030602.21051@ke4zv.uucp>
- <1i2lnqINN50b@mirror.digex.com>
- Lines: 29
-
-
- > Shuttle could have lower costs then NASA currently has,
- > but it still needs a tremendous infrastructure. The OPF,
- > the VAB, Tilting bay, the crawler/transporter. Launch towers.
- >
- > The DC will not need much more infrastructure, then a
- > airline hangar. Henry, alan and I all believe that eliminating
- > all this structure and cost will make up for any lower
- > vehicle lift capacity.
- >pat
-
- Pat, the SLC-6 facility at Vandenberg did not have a VAB,
- "tilting bay" (that's ths same as the VAB, though) or a Crawler.
- SLC-6 reversed the action at the Cape's Complex 39. At 39,
- the Shuttle moves from facility to facility to pad. At SLC-6
- the Shuttle was to move from OPF straight to pad, eliminating
- the VAB. Orbiter, ET, and SRBs were to be stacked on the pad.
-
- Apparently, somebody said that NASA could save money on the
- Shuttle if they used the Saturn 5 facilities. Another blunder.
-
- -Brian
-
-
- -------------------------------------------------------------------------
- Brian S. Thorn "If ignorance is bliss,
- BrianT@cup.portal.com this must be heaven."
- -Diane Chambers, "Cheers"
- -------------------------------------------------------------------------
-