Conference 7.286::space

Who would launch them?   I mean, are you proposing that a non-U.S. government
body purchase an orbiter and that NASA sells them launch services?  Or are
you suggesting that we sell an orbiter plus the plans for the Kennedy Space
Center?

- dave

    Re .1
    
    By all means we should build launch places for them as well. 
    Its more bussiness, thus more money for us.
    
    What I mean is that we sell everything that we can sell. Weather
    the launch sites are here or there it really doesn't matter.
    
    	Gil

  If we charged a retail price, no one could afford it. Each shuttle costs a
billion or so. The launch facilities would run into the billions (just think
how much it would cost to build a VAB), building shuttle processing facilities
would be billions and a shuttle processing team would be another billion,
setting up a maned space program more billions, landing facilities, shuttle
carriers, TDRS systems to track the thing, manufacturing for LH and LOX fuels,
another billion, and now you are ready for your 1st launch.

  Now if you are buying a shuttle, that implies you need maned presence in
space so a space station or space lab, more billions, etc.

  George

    The VAB and carriers were built for Apollo and were a given for the
    shuttle.  If you were to do it from scratch you could probably come up
    with something cheaper.  For instance, you might consider stacking the
    vehicle at the pad. Likewise, if you were to build lots of shuttles the
    unit cost could come down.  That's not to say that it's ever going to be
    cheap though.
    
    Mike Hughes 

re Note 617.4 by LEVERS::HUGHES:

>     The VAB and carriers were built for Apollo and were a given for the
>     shuttle.  If you were to do it from scratch you could probably come up
>     with something cheaper.  

        In fact, we did build another set of shuttle launch
        facilities (not quite from scratch, but not from Apollo
        leftovers, either) at Vandenberg AFB.

        Bob

re .5:  and .4 was right; it was not cheap!

Burns

    It would be nice if the Air Force ran tours through Vandenberg (sp?).
    I'd pay a couple of bucks for a close look at even a mothballed
    launch facility.
    
    I don't think even this facility was built completely from scratch
    because I seem to recall the launch pad was an adaptation of an
    existing facility.  A somewhat less than successful adaptation since
    there was some concern that hydrogen could accumulate under the pad
    after an abort.
    
    Does anyone recall how the shuttle was to be transfered from the
    assembly building to the pad?  Or was the stack assembled on the
    pad?
    
    Mike H 

  I think the stack was to be assembled on the pad. There was suppose to
be a large gantry that could be rolled up to cover most of the shuttle and
rolled away for launch.

  George

    Re .3
    
    You are right it would be billions. Just think of the help to
    the National deficit.
    
    Re .rest
    
    Yes that is right Vanderberg already exists, so we should either
    rent it or sell it. Get back the money spent on it.
    As things are, it doesn't look like we are going to have much use 
    for it ourselves.
    
    Gil

I was just reading a little about the Vandenberg Shuttle facility last night.
It started life as a missile pad, and was converted for shuttle use.  After
the decision was made not to launch Shuttles from Vandenberg, many components
of the facility were removed for other uses (at other pads).  According to the
book, it would be very difficult an expensive (if possible at all) to renovate
it for flight use.
						-- Tom

    SLC-6 was originally built as a Titan III launch complex, specifically
    with the MOL and Titan IIIM in mind (which were cancelled). I'm not
    certain, but I don't thing it has ever been used (other Titan 3s were
    launched from SLC-4).
    
    It was converted to a Shuttle launch complex and was in the process of
    being upgraded to support the Centaur G upper stage. It was deactivated
    and 'mothballed', but will soon be 'de-mothballed' and be converted
    back to a Titan facility to support the Titan 4, specifically the Titan
    402 variant which uses the Centaur G Prime upper stage.
    
    gary

Re. 0
    
>	I mean its clear that the USA is unwilling or unable to
>	build more shuttles. Even in the face of the clear need for
>	more to handle lunching needs.
			.
			.
			.

>	The shuttle private lunching 
>	bussines isn't really much. 


I had thought that our current restaurants could handle the US's lunching needs
- though I  had not considered the possibility of using a space shuttle as a
luncheon area. I'd suppose that if carefully designed, the cargo bay could hold
a large number of diners, though the kitchen facilities are rather cramped.

I would imagine, though, that Zero-G luncheon (especially if served while
delivering the passengers to another continent after a few orbits) could become
the ultimate status business meeting.....

Or are you proposing a set of ground mockups to serve as restaurants?



Sorry, I couldn't resist  :-)  :-)  ;-)  :-)

					-**Ted**-