You are not logged in.
They built a shuttle launch base in southern California and trashed it after blowing billions on it. Can't these guys make up their minds and stick with something!
Hmm, If I remember correctly, Vandenburg AFB was around before the shuttle, and is still in very good shape, and the STS launches would have only been a small part of the mission there.
I think most of the facilities they built are still there, but Vandenburg was meant for military flights, not civilian flights (for a higher polar orbit). Since the Air Force doesn't want the shuttle anymore, there's no need to launch from Vandenburg.
Vandenburg would be useless for anything other than polor orbit launches, for safety reasons. If there was an accident like Challenger, toxic substances would be sprayed all over California, Nevada, Utah, Colorado, Arizona, New Mexico, and I'm sure a few other states. A polar launch would take it along the coast line and over the ocean, however. In addition, I remember there being some safty issues with the launch itself (like sound waves bouncing off the near-by hills, and stuff like that).
Oddly enough, the facilities have been modified to accommodate EELV launches w/classified payloads. I worked on it back in the early '90's. The safety issues - apart from the old N2O4/UDMH toxicity conundrum - are irrelevent since the Challenger "incident" was intended as a warning(Star Wars et al): the REAL reason USAF shuttle ops were cancelled & Titan IV hung on so long. Go Atlas, Delta...and Soyuz!
Offline
Uh huh
[i]"The power of accurate observation is often called cynicism by those that do not have it." - George Bernard Shaw[/i]
[i]The glass is at 50% of capacity[/i]
Offline
Uh huh
whatever
Offline
I'm not certain about the hoop-la over ETs. To me it sounds little better than the hoop-la expressed over the Shuttle-C or the just-as-dead X-33.
If this ET-stuff is to continue or be applied, it needs to be adapted to the Ares V now. It will be QUITE some time before private space companies can launch something of ET-massed capacity even if you're an optimist, so this would be a major public contribution if not a traditional government-funded project.
It might have its advantages, maybe not. If the inflatables can be made more quickly and cheapy the ET as a space module will find itself out of the picture soon; certainly until Lunar Industry is established and modules of that size can be build and launched for future space colonies.
Offline
There just really isn't a practical use for the external tank:
-Its insulation is designed to protect against hot Florida air and not radiant heat from the Sun
-The tank itself has no provision to enter orbit, and doing so would signifigantly impact Ares-V payload
-The tank has no power, avionics, maneuvering capability, nor docking hatches
-Hatches would have to withstand exposure to the supercold fuel
-A tunnel between LOX and LH2 tank would be needed
-The outter skin of the tank is not well suited to micrometeorid nor ultraviolet radiation protection
-Internal additions that break off would enter the engine and likely cause catastrophic engine failure.
=This is a bad idea
As the saying goes, this isn't rocket science. And what is the need? What do you need it for? Its no good for a fuel depot, its no good for housing, its no good for anything without major changes that would add weight and reduce reliability.
Fuel tanks are cheap, so lugging the empty tank to orbit for a fuel depot doesn't save you much. You would have to launch another tank(s) of equal volume to fill it, which would need another HLLV flight (or more), and its very unlikely a fleet of little EELV class commercial rockets could lift that much fuel economically. Or else you'd need an RLV to fuel it up, and if you have any of these, why can't you just take fuel directly to the vehicles that would need it? Small vehicles could be fueled/loaded with only a few flights, and big ones like Mars ferries wouldn't be traveling often so you have plenty of time to fuel them up.
As a habitat, the tank would be pretty poor, just a thin under-protected under-insulated aluminum can. The modifications and orbital insertion to make it workable would reduce the rockets' payload too much. A purpose-built TransHab inflatable module would be much better, and the technology is already pretty much proven. Infact, if you used a telescopic core section, a single HLLV flight could launch a whole space station of comperable volume to ISS in one shot complete with docking adapter and limited solar power.
But why would you? Private spaceflight is, pardon the cliche', but they are light years from having vehicles that are practical to tend an orbiting outpost, perhaps many decades if they can't deliver on the promise of super-cheap launch.
So whats the point? We don't need it for a fuel station, we don't need a space station, and by the time private enterprise gets its act together, Ares-V will probably be retired.
[i]"The power of accurate observation is often called cynicism by those that do not have it." - George Bernard Shaw[/i]
[i]The glass is at 50% of capacity[/i]
Offline
I would not say its no good for housing. Skylab was to be wetstage. Ares V with a small payload remains attached to a foamless ET with another type of covering perhaps--and the two habs linked. Ares is very nearly stage-and-a half--so it can keep its attachment to the ET. Extra room. Soyuz docking allows tourists to use the simple side. An empty shell is good for just flying around.
Mark Holderman of JSE sees them as use for GEODEs.
Sea Dragon upper stages are rugged enough to be immune from most debris and they would be good liquid tanks being overbuilt.
Offline