|
Author
|
Topic: [Discuss] The deconstruction of launch pad 39B
|
astro-nut
Member Posts: 946
From: Washington, IL
Registered: Jan 2006
|
posted 06-11-2011 02:40 PM
   
What a shame to see these torn down like they had no purpose. |
MrSpace86
Member Posts: 1618
From: Gardner, KS, USA
Registered: Feb 2003
|
posted 06-14-2011 04:32 PM
I think we all hate those photos. And they keep getting worse too  Wait until 39A starts going down. It's like going through the funeral all over again. |
RocketmanRob
Member Posts: 268
From: New York City USA
Registered: Mar 2005
|
posted 06-14-2011 08:38 PM
What an absolute shame. Unbelievable watching this disappear. |
Robert Pearlman
Editor Posts: 42988
From: Houston, TX
Registered: Nov 1999
|
posted 07-07-2011 09:41 AM
quote:
Originally posted by capoetc:
Hmmm... end of June... I suppose once 39B is done they can start the deconstruction of 39A as well.
Pad 39A will remain in "shuttle shape," as described by launch director Mike Leinbach. It will be repaired (as necessary) after the launch of STS-135 and maintained with its fixed and rotating service structures standing so they are available for use, if desired, for the shuttle-derived heavy lift vehicle (Space Launch System). Pad 39B deconstruction continues and will be prepared as a "clean pad." SpaceX is currently weighing leasing 39B to launch its Falcon 9 Heavy booster. |
ea757grrl
Member Posts: 729
From: South Carolina
Registered: Jul 2006
|
posted 07-07-2011 11:09 AM
Those pictures may be sad to look at, indeed... but anyone who's been to the ruins of 14 and 19 knows what the alternative usually becomes, particularly in a harsh environment. Reconfiguring 39B, while it does take away significant structures to which many of us have an attachment, nonetheless means it can remain active and support future vehicles. Personally, I'd rather have an altered but live 39B... |
MrSpace86
Member Posts: 1618
From: Gardner, KS, USA
Registered: Feb 2003
|
posted 08-04-2011 10:48 PM
Yikes, those new photos are scary. But then again, it's nice that something new may be constructed in its place for future vehicles. After almost every Soyuz launch, the words "the crew launched from the same pad Yuri Gagarin launched from" appear somewhere in the story; future articles will read "same pad from where the mighty Saturns and Space Shuttles lifted off". I like the sound of that  |
nojnj
Member Posts: 503
From: Highland Heights, KY
Registered: Feb 2003
|
posted 09-21-2011 08:34 PM
So sad to see... |
p51
Member Posts: 1642
From: Olympia, WA
Registered: Sep 2011
|
posted 09-28-2011 11:27 PM
I was there the day before GRAIL was launched this month, and it was such a sad site to see that pad completely wiped clean. I was told by some of the people there that the remains were all scrapped. Pasco Iron & Metal and Green Tree Recycling got the remains and the plan is to melt it all down and recycle it. As nuts as people are for items from the space program that were there, it seems insane that in a pure business standpoint they aren’t trying to cash in. The remains broken down into paperweights or cast into coins are SO much more valuable than their pure scrap value. I tried to call Pasco today but they were closed by 4:30 local time. I'm tempted to call again and ask if they have a piece I could buy, but I bet they've gotten more than a few calls already and by now I'd have no idea if it was actually from the towers anyway (assuming any of that is still around). |
Robert Pearlman
Editor Posts: 42988
From: Houston, TX
Registered: Nov 1999
|
posted 09-28-2011 11:48 PM
NASA's contract with LVI Environmental Services required that all material be recycled and specifically prohibited the sale (or otherwise transfer) of any metal from the towers as souvenirs, mementos or artifacts. LVI subcontracted Pasco and other recyclers around the state of Florida to process the scrap metal. I spoke with Pasco earlier this year and they are unable to provide any metal. NASA's pad leader cited International Traffic in Arms Regulations (ITAR) as the primary reason why the restrictions were placed on the contract. |
Fra Mauro
Member Posts: 1587
From: Bethpage, N.Y.
Registered: Jul 2002
|
posted 09-29-2011 08:36 AM
It is sad. It's almost like they want to wipe away everything so people will start to forget about it. It's similiar to situations on old Civil War battlefields. |
Robert Pearlman
Editor Posts: 42988
From: Houston, TX
Registered: Nov 1999
|
posted 09-29-2011 08:42 AM
quote:
Originally posted by Fra Mauro:
It's almost like they want to wipe away everything so people will start to forget about it.
You're right. NASA should have never been allowed to fly the space shuttle from Complex 39 because it made everyone forget about Apollo.The loss of the historic towers and the way they were disposed is sad. One wishes the technology existed to preserve them elsewhere in a way that was both practical and economical. At the very least, it would have been better if museums and the public could have helped to save more parts of the towers from being recycled as scrap metal. But their demolition was not the result of a political agenda. They were erected to service the space shuttle. With that program now over, their purpose was over. |
GACspaceguy
Member Posts: 2475
From: Guyton, GA
Registered: Jan 2006
|
posted 09-29-2011 12:04 PM
quote:
Originally posted by Robert Pearlman:
NASA's pad leader cited International Traffic in Arms Regulations (ITAR) as the primary reason why the restrictions were placed on the contract.
I will never understand the ITAR issue here. Maybe it was made from Splendonium (that is machined out of a billet of Unobtainium). |
cspg
Member Posts: 6210
From: Geneva, Switzerland
Registered: May 2006
|
posted 09-29-2011 02:40 PM
quote:
Originally posted by Robert Pearlman:
NASA's contract with LVI Environmental Services required that all material be recycled and specifically prohibited the sale (or otherwise transfer) of any metal from the towers as souvenirs, mementos or artifacts.
Then you wonder why nobody cares about what NASA does- or used to do. It's beyond pathetic. Proceeds from souvenirs, mementos or artifacts (or even a tax on contractors manufacturing such items with the metal) could be used to finance, say, education in math and science. NASA probably can't do that because it's not supposed to "make money". Then change the law/statute. Nothing's carved in stone. |
Jay Chladek
Member Posts: 2272
From: Bellevue, NE, USA
Registered: Aug 2007
|
posted 09-29-2011 02:41 PM
My guess is that the steel alloy used to make the structures is a higher grade than some in order to resist the temperatures that it does without distorting. So there is probably some concern that the metallurgy could be analyzed if somebody got a piece of it (weird thinking I know, but one has to think like a bureaucrat sometimes to understand them).That type of industrial espionage has been done before though as when a contingent of Soviets were sent to the UK to acquire the Rolls Royce jet engines for study, they also had a KGB agent with special soles on his shoes which could pick up metal fragments from the work stations used to machine the parts. The engines were instrumental in deciphering how the designs worked, but the metal fragments were instrumental in determining how the things were built. A few years later, the Soviets had the engine for the MiG-15. Now I am not saying that a launch tower built over 30 years ago from some pieces that are almost 50 years old in some cases would cause an Earth shattering balance of power shift if their metal fell into the wrong hands, but I imagine an analysis of the metal itself, plus the microscopic traces of SRB exhaust on them could yield some interesting data for somebody who might want to study them. |
jscott1000
New Member Posts:
From:
Registered:
|
posted 11-14-2011 02:12 PM
As sad as this is, we must remember that the clean pad approach was a part of the plan ever since the retirement of the shuttle was enacted. So we mustn't blame the current status of NASA exploration for the deconstruction of Pad B.Yes there were many that wanted to save the Apollo Launch tower after it was removed from MLP3, and it sat rusting behind headquarters building in pieces until 2004 when it was finally declared environmental waste by the EPA and scrapped. Someone this time decided to scrap it immediately to save all the angst. |
LM-12
Member Posts: 3208
From: Ontario, Canada
Registered: Oct 2010
|
posted 10-15-2013 03:56 PM
quote:
Originally posted by GACspaceguy:
The current fixed service structure was created from the original Launch Umbilical Tower (LUT) used during the Apollo Program. - Pad 39A has the ML-2 section and was used for Apollo 4, 9, 12, 14 and the Skylab workshop.
- Pad 39B has the ML-3 and was used for Apollo 10, 13, 15, 16, and 17
Shouldn't that be: - Pad 39A FSS from ML-3 (Apollo 10, 13, 15, 16, 17)
- Pad 39B FSS from ML-2 (Apollo 6, 9, 12, 14 and Skylab 1)
|
advertisement