From: BrianT@cup.portal.com (Brian Stuart Thorn)
Newsgroups: sci.space
Subject: Re: Let's be more specific (was: Stupid Shut Cost arguement
Date: Sat,  9 Jan 93 10:08:26 PST
Organization: The Portal System (TM)
  <1992Dec28.202920.5932@iti.org> <1993Jan1.030602.21051@ke4zv.uucp>
  <1i2lnqINN50b@mirror.digex.com> <1993Jan7.072839.1460@ke4zv.uucp>
  <ewright.726516760@convex.convex.com>

>>Of course Shuttle *already* has this infrastructure, and it's paid
>>for whether Shuttle continues to use it or not.
>
>Not using that infrastructure for the Shuttle would allow you to use
>it for a rebuilt Saturn V, Russian-built Soyuz or Energia boosters,
>etc.  There are alternatives.

    There is no reason we couldn't build and launch a Saturn 5 from
    KSC if we want to. The VAB has *four* High Bays only two of which
    were remodeled for Shuttle. The other two were never equipped at
    all, and that space is being used for SSME maintenance, I think.
    SSME maintenance could be moved to another site and those two
    bays equipped for Saturn 5.
    Despite what the FAQ file says, I don't think the mods at KSC were
    that severe. We'd have to build the Mobile Service Structure again
    and reconstruct a Mobile Launch Platform for Saturn 5 (or stretch the
    Shuttle's Fixed Service Structure to do the same job from a slightly
    different position and distance... no big design problem).
    By the way, there is one complete Saturn Launch Umbilical Tower
    sitting in storage at KSC... four were built, two were converted
    for Shuttle, one was scrapped, and one is in storage. Maybe the
    MSS is there somewhere, too.
    The KSC Launch Control Center similarly has two empty Firing Rooms.
    Most everything else (Crawlers, the pads themselves, tanks farms,
    tracking stations, etc.) are still in place and would need little
    mods to work for Saturn as well as Shuttle (a new RP-1 tank, maybe...)
    They'd probably modify Saturn to use modern electronics and the
    TDRS system instead of all those downrange tracking stations.
    
    But what would be the point in this? We can do better with a new
    design, and almost as fast with a big Shuttle-derived booster
    using almost the same facilities and suppliers as Shuttle.
    
>>Currently there aren't that many missions needing heavy lift, seven
>>people on orbit, remote manipulation, long duration experiments, or
>>payload return. Shuttle does it with less than 8 launches a year. DC
>>may put Atlas, Delta, Titan, and Pegasus out of business, but it doesn't
>>have the capacity to match Shuttle or a true HLV for the times they're
>>needed.

>Can you give an example of a mission that needs *all* of those
>things, on a single vehicle?
>
>Of course, the Shuttle does it with less than 8 missions a year,
>because at Shuttle prices, that's all anyone can afford.

     If Endeavour flies on Wednesday, that will be the ninth Shuttle
     mission in the past 365 days (January 22, 1992 - January 13, 1993).
     Of course, NASA spent alot of last year preparing a new Orbiter for
     maiden flight and Discovery spent the year in its hangar.

>Why does this have to wait for Freedom?  We could do that right now.
>In fact, we'd save money launching Freedom on Energia instead of Shuttle.

    But Freedom is not a Salyut/Mir station, it's going to need *alot*
    of assembly... I don't think Soyuz could handle it in terms of
    orbital staytime and payload handling.

    -Brian

-------------------------------------------------------------------------
Brian S. Thorn                                    "If ignorance is bliss,
BrianT@cup.portal.com                               this must be heaven."
                                                -Diane Chambers, "Cheers"
-------------------------------------------------------------------------