|
Author
|
Topic: Cost of converting SLC-6 for space shuttle
|
kr4mula
Member Posts: 642
From: Cinci, OH
Registered: Mar 2006
|
posted 03-04-2015 03:03 PM
   
Does anyone know how much the Air Force spent modifying and preparing SLC-6 and Vandenberg for the shuttle program? I'm trying to figure out how much money the Air Force spent related to the shuttle program and figure this to be one of the major direct expenditures. If anyone has figures for other areas, I'd be interested in seeing them, as well. |
Lunar Module 5
Member Posts: 370
From: Wales, UK
Registered: Dec 2004
|
posted 03-09-2015 01:38 PM
According to Wikipedia it cost $4 billion. |
dabolton
Member Posts: 419
From: Seneca, IL, US
Registered: Jan 2009
|
posted 03-10-2015 09:22 AM
I'd be interested to know what the contingency landing sites would have been for a polar launch. |
onesmallstep
Member Posts: 1310
From: Staten Island, New York USA
Registered: Nov 2007
|
posted 03-10-2015 10:11 AM
That would have been a dicey proposition, even in the best of circumstances. According to a passage in Deke! a once-around abort profile without a cross range capability meant a landing somewhere in the Pacific-specifically, downrange on Easter Island!And the Air Force had some interesting plans for single-orbit polar reconnaissance or 'quick' satellite deployment missions from SLC-6. They would launch from Vandenberg, deploy a payload over the South Pole or Indian Ocean in an orbit where it would be hard to track, and then reenter and land ninety minutes later at Vandenberg. Talk about a pucker factor! |
Jim Behling
Member Posts: 1463
From: Cape Canaveral, FL
Registered: Mar 2010
|
posted 03-10-2015 10:31 AM
Back when TAL (Trans Atlantic Landing) aborts were formulated, there were also TPL (Trans Pacific Landing) aborts. NASA later used the same term, Transoceanic Abort Landing for both launch sites. Easter Island was the west coast TAL site. Eielson and Elmendorf AFB were looked at as AOA sites, due to shortfalls in shuttle cross range. |
dabolton
Member Posts: 419
From: Seneca, IL, US
Registered: Jan 2009
|
posted 03-10-2015 11:46 AM
$1.5 billion for a 90 minute flight seems more than a bit wasteful when a unmanned booster could have done the same flight. If you're gonna go up, might as well get some duration out of it. |
Jim Behling
Member Posts: 1463
From: Cape Canaveral, FL
Registered: Mar 2010
|
posted 03-10-2015 03:30 PM
quote:
Originally posted by dabolton:
$1.5 billion for a 90 minute flight seems more than a bit wasteful when a unmanned booster could have done the same flight.
How? There is no performance to do anything else. The mission was to covertly deploy or retrieve a spacecraft. |
OV-105
Member Posts: 816
From: Ridgecrest, CA
Registered: Sep 2000
|
posted 03-10-2015 11:50 PM
quote:
Originally posted by dabolton:
$1.5 billion for a 90 minute flight seems more than a bit wasteful when a unmanned booster could have done the same flight. If you're gonna go up, might as well get some duration out of it.
Remember there were not going to be anymore expendable boosters, everything was going up by shuttle. |
RichieB16
Member Posts: 552
From: Oregon
Registered: Feb 2003
|
posted 03-11-2015 03:27 PM
I think in time they would have eventually figured out the economics and decided that disposable boosters were the way to go, which is what happened. Losing Challenger only expedited that. This was still back when it was believed that the shuttle program could be self sufficient financially... they were wrong. |
kr4mula
Member Posts: 642
From: Cinci, OH
Registered: Mar 2006
|
posted 03-12-2015 01:04 PM
The Air Force never wanted to get away from expendables in the first place. While they weren't exactly dragged kicking and screaming, you can read in the documents at the time that the Air Force took something like a "build it and we will come" approach. They tried to avoid any investment in the program at every turn, while hanging on to their expendables program as long as possible. |
Jim Behling
Member Posts: 1463
From: Cape Canaveral, FL
Registered: Mar 2010
|
posted 03-12-2015 05:00 PM
The Titan IV (CELV) and Titan II SLV programs were started before the Challenger accident. quote:
Originally posted by kr4mula:
They tried to avoid any investment in the program at every turn, while hanging on to their expendables program as long as possible.
IUS, SPIF, VLS and CSOC (SAFB) were paid for by the USAF. |
advertisement