Sign in to follow this  
fredinno

Could LC-39C be built?

Recommended Posts

What if, say, SLS has a launch failure of the SLS, and the pad comes crashing down to LC-39B. Would that validate the construction of a 2nd SLS pad north of LC-39B (LC-39C) designed in the same way as LC-39B, similar to how a pad explosion at LC-36A prompted NASA to complete LC-36B. Giving SLS a backup pad has been proposed for LC-39A (before it was leased out to SpaceX), and since SLS uses a clean pad infrastructure, NASA could lease it out to ULA for Atlas V/Vulcan's second/backup pad (as was proposed for both LC-39B and A).

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

There's already an LC-39C . Leaving that aside, NASA is very unlikely to get funding for a second LC-39A/B class pad any time soon, even with an accident; there's just no compelling case for it. They only need it every 18 months or so anyway, and don't need to beat the russians with it this time.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 minutes ago, Frybert said:

That's not what I meant. 'LC-39C' is actually technically LC-39B-2, being built on LC-39B's pad space, and being absolutely nothing like LC-39B and A. I meant LC-39C, as a Saturn-level pad.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Well in that case it would be 39D (39C is still officially the designation for the other pad). At any rate, given that its a clean pad, I would think if there was some type of catastrophic explosion at the pad they would either cancel SLS outright or simply repair/rebuild 39B.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, Frybert said:

Well in that case it would be 39D (39C is still officially the designation for the other pad). At any rate, given that its a clean pad, I would think if there was some type of catastrophic explosion at the pad they would either cancel SLS outright or simply repair/rebuild 39B.

Yes, they would repair LC-39B, which would take a year or two, but would it validate LC-39(D?) to be made north of LC-39B as a backup pad, in case it happens again? Some congressmen DID want LC-39A to be SLS' backup...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
57 minutes ago, fredinno said:

Yes, they would repair LC-39B, which would take a year or two, but would it validate LC-39(D?) to be made north of LC-39B as a backup pad, in case it happens again? Some congressmen DID want LC-39A to be SLS' backup...

SLS even being a thing is very fortunate for the politicians that want it. From a practical standpoint a second pad would be something you would very much want. From a political standpoint I doubt it. Unless of course government funded manned space exploration suddenly became very popular in the US.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

if SLS comes back crashing into the pad, guess the investigation time, then modifications of incriminated parts and their recertification would give them the time to repair the damaged pad :) (especially if they also need to rebuild the payload, if it was a non manned version)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
This thread is quite old. Please consider starting a new thread rather than reviving this one.

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Sign in to follow this