Re: Space Access Update #111 04/05/05 2nd try


Ed Kyle wrote:
>
> A look at a Vandenberg map in the Cambridge Encyclopedia
> of Space shows that SLC 4E (Titan 4 pad) is 2 km south-
> southwest of SLC 4W (Falcon 1) and is pretty close to
> being in line with (perhaps 200-300 hundred meters west
> of) the standard space launch azimuth. For that matter,
> SLC-6 (the Delta IV pad) isn't far from an overflight
> path either, though it is 8 km downrange.
>

Is it possible that the Falcon I pad isn't actually qualified for a
full hotfiring of the booster? I can't imagine that kind of oversight,
but if the pad was originally intended just to take the energy of a
launch--there's a lot more energy in a full holddown firing of the
booster. Could that be a concern?

Tom

.

Relevant Pages

  • Re: The reason for the poor m.p.g. on my PT
    ... that the machining on the casting is any worse than the wear the rotor is ... vehicle not all of the energy is being absorbed by the friction components. ... So the brakes will get hotter. ... think about the difference between a hard and a soft pad. ...
    (rec.autos.makers.chrysler)
  • Re: More detailed info on SRB-J2S CEV launcher.
    ... thread mentioned version where the second stage was basically a shortened SRB with a redesigned nozzle for high altitude flight. ... BTW, if you want an impressive heavy lift booster that uses the shuttle pad, stick three SRBs together side-by-side with the central one mounted forward of the outside ones. ... But even that is not a big deal for a space launch, because it will be astronaut readiness and prep time that will be the limiting factor - unless you want to always keep a crewed CEV on the pad in "hot standby", the way they did back in SAC days. ...
    (sci.space.policy)
Loading