Air Force To Take Over Two Ex-Shuttle Hangers In Florida For Its X-37B Program

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

Air Force To Take Over Two Ex-Shuttle Hangers In Florida For Its X-37B Program

Posted by samzenpus on Thursday October 9, 2014 @12:28PM from the new-quarters-on-campus dept.

schwit1 writes In an effort to find tenants for its facilities, the Kennedy Space Center is going to rent two former shuttle processing hangers to Boeing for the Air Force's X-37B program. "NASA built three Orbiter Processing Facilities, or OPFs, to service its space shuttle fleet between missions. All three are located next to the iconic Vehicle Assembly Building at the Florida spaceport where Apollo Saturn 5 moon rockets and space shuttles were 'stacked' for launch. Under an agreement with NASA, Boeing will modify OPF bays 1 and 2 for the X-37B program, completing upgrades by the end of the year. The company already has an agreement with NASA to use OPF-3 and the shuttle engine shop in the VAB to assemble its CST-100 commercial crew craft being built to ferry astronauts to and from the International Space Station. The company says up to six capsules can be processed in the facility at the same time."

48 comments

Min score:

Reason:

Sort:

HangArs by Anonymous Coward · 2014-10-09 12:34 · Score: 4, Informative

It's hangars, for god's sake. Even tfa says so, which suggests the editor a) didn't read it and/or b) doesn't know the difference. Let me go see if I have some hangers in my closet.
1. Re:HangArs by ColdWetDog · 2014-10-09 12:38 · Score: 2
  
  Today is spelling optional day. Besides, the PDP-11 that runs Slashdot doesn't have a spell checker (or Unicode).
  Anyway, I'm wondering when the Air Force plans on putting people in that thing. There are drawings floating around that have seating for, IIRC, up to five astronauts. They've got to be considering it.
  
  --
  Faster! Faster! Faster would be better!
2. Re:HangArs by ColdWetDog · 2014-10-09 12:40 · Score: 1
  
  Link.
  Further, the Slashdot PDP-11 doesn't have an editing capability.
  Amazing.
  
  --
  Faster! Faster! Faster would be better!
3. Re:HangArs by ogdenk · 2014-10-09 13:01 · Score: 1
  
  Besides, the PDP-11 that runs Slashdot doesn't have a spell checker (or Unicode).
  Pretty sure you could get a spellchecker and VI to run well under 2.11BSD. Maybe even 7th Edition. You might be right on the Unicode aspect.
  
  Anyway, I'm wondering when the Air Force plans on putting people in that thing. There are drawings floating around that have seating for, IIRC, up to five astronauts. They've got to be considering it.
  It'll probably end up being 2 astronauts and a bunch of ammo/missiles.
4. Re: HangArs by rickb928 · 2014-10-09 15:02 · Score: 1
  
  Once Slashdot ditches the Therac-25 system there's a chance the mobile site might not suck so hard.
  
  --
  deleting the extra space after periods so i can stay relevant, yeah.
5. Re: HangArs by ogdenk · 2014-10-09 15:27 · Score: 1
  
  Therac-25? LOL For a second there I thought that was totally made up. Turns out the Therac 25 was a radiotherapy machine responsible for cooking several patients due to horrible code. That's awesome. I learned something new today.
6. Re: HangArs by Anonymous Coward · 2014-10-09 16:01 · Score: 0
  
  If you want to learn something new tomorrow, and the next day, and probably several days thereafter, grab a copy of James Mahaffey's new book Atomic Accidents. Very well written and quite informative. Lots of examples of how not to manage radioactive materials.
7. Re: HangArs by rickb928 · 2014-10-09 16:44 · Score: 1
  
  Not so much bad code as a lesson in testing software.
  
  --
  deleting the extra space after periods so i can stay relevant, yeah.
8. Re:HangArs by Z00L00K · 2014-10-09 17:07 · Score: 1
  
  PDP-11? That's modern stuff... You can even find emulators for it.
  
  --
  If builders built buildings the way programmers wrote programs, then the first woodpecker would destroy civilization.
9. Re: HangArs by K.+S.+Kyosuke · 2014-10-09 20:38 · Score: 5, Funny
  
  There used to be a hanger for Space Shuttles. I believe it used to be called the External Tank. You could conveniently hang your shuttle onto it. ;-)
  
  --
  Ezekiel 23:20
10. Re:HangArs by gl4ss · 2014-10-09 21:26 · Score: 1
  
  I don't think a spellchecker would catch hangers, after all it's a perfectly valid word.
  
  --
  world was created 5 seconds before this post as it is.
11. Re:HangArs by VoiceOfSanity · 2014-10-10 00:37 · Score: 1
  
  Those plans were for the X-37C, which would have been a version of the X-37B that would be nearly twice as large. And yes, the plans would include a pressurized compartment that would hold up to six occupants.
  
  Mind you, the Air Force has always had plans of putting up some kind of orbiting platform ever since the 1960's. The Manned Orbiting Laboratory (using Gemini capsules and the Titan II) was actually going to be launched and occupied by a group of USAF-trained astronauts, but it was eventually killed. Meanwhile, the Russians went ahead with their plans, culminating in the Almaz/Salyut space station which led into Mir, then finally the International Space Station.
12. Re:HangArs by Rxke · 2014-10-10 00:42 · Score: 1
  
  https://drive.google.com/file/...
  that's a shuttle hanger....
13. Re:HangArs by Eunuchswear · 2014-10-10 02:39 · Score: 1
  
  No, they plan to hang the X37-B's out to dry after washing them.
  
  --
  Watch this Heartland Institute video
Why aren't we using these space shuttles? by Anonymous Coward · 2014-10-09 13:04 · Score: 0

....
1. Re:Why aren't we using these space shuttles? by Anonymous Coward · 2014-10-09 13:14 · Score: 0
  
  Because space is an empty deadly wasteland? So sorry, all your religious texts are wrong.
2. Re:Why aren't we using these space shuttles? by BarbaraHudson · 2014-10-09 13:20 · Score: 3, Insightful
  
  Because they're NOT space shuttles. They're spy vehicles. They can change orbit, eavesdrop and peak at places at unpredictable times, etc.
  
  --
  "Transparent" is a shit show that trades on every stereotype going. A man in drag is NOT a transsexual.
3. Re:Why aren't we using these space shuttles? by Anonymous Coward · 2014-10-09 13:21 · Score: 1
  
  Define "we."
  Who said "they" aren't using them?
4. Re:Why aren't we using these space shuttles? by Luckyo · 2014-10-09 14:30 · Score: 1
  
  Not only that, but the main advantage of this thing is that it's apparently a space drone.
  Carrying life support would remove its main advantage, ability to loiter.
5. Re:Why aren't we using these space shuttles? by Teresita · 2014-10-09 15:34 · Score: 1
  
  Life support isn't a big deal. 80% of the mass of your propellant is oxidizer anyway, carried in liquid form, so it's no big deal to boil some of that off and breath it.
6. Re:Why aren't we using these space shuttles? by beelsebob · 2014-10-09 16:07 · Score: 1
  
  Not if you design your space plane right...
7. Re: Why aren't we using these space shuttles? by K.+S.+Kyosuke · 2014-10-09 20:30 · Score: 1
  
  And by "to peak", presumably you mean "to reach the apogee"? ;-)
  
  --
  Ezekiel 23:20
8. Re:Why aren't we using these space shuttles? by freak0fnature · 2014-10-10 00:35 · Score: 1
  
  If any more blow up, there won't be as many trophies to have in museums.
9. Re: Why aren't we using these space shuttles? by kellymcdonald78 · 2014-10-10 01:31 · Score: 1
  
  The propulsion system uses hydrazine, Rudy. We wanna breathe, not dry clean our lungs.
10. Re: Why aren't we using these space shuttles? by Luckyo · 2014-10-10 05:22 · Score: 1
  
  And there's a whole lot more to life support than oxygen. People need to eat, shit, piss. Air pressure and humidity needs to be just right. Compartment needs to be kept at right temperature. And countless other features.
  Space is an extremely hostile environment for species evolved to operate at a bottom of an atmosphere, and maintaining a habitable environment is extremely resource consuming endeavour.
Passing of an era by Anonymous Coward · 2014-10-09 13:36 · Score: 0

Funny, the last time I was on a tour at KSC, two shuttles were in those processing buildings and one was on the pad. Sigh. That one on pad 39A was Atlantis soon to fly on STS-135.
There may be a upside, though. Back during the Apollo program, the tour let people go inside the VAB. It was impressive. They had to stop doing that because of the hazardous fuels on the shuttles. I'm hoping that now they'll be able to letting the public back into the VAB.
1. Re:Passing of an era by beelsebob · 2014-10-09 16:08 · Score: 2
  
  Why did I read "KSC" as "Kerbal Space Centre"?
2. Re:Passing of an era by fuzzyfuzzyfungus · 2014-10-09 16:32 · Score: 1
  
  The guys with the space program get to use the acronym. Those are the rules.
congrats to the DoD and NASA by Anonymous Coward · 2014-10-09 13:44 · Score: 1

The only parts of the government that seem to be able to set goals and accomplish them.
Probably good by eclectro · 2014-10-09 14:00 · Score: 2

With congress in reckless cut everything sequestration mode, this will help NASA hold onto the infrastructure and programs that they already have. Even though it involves mixing NASA with the military once again.

--
Take the cheese to sickbay, the doctor should see it as soon as possible - B'Elanna Torres, "Learning Curve"
1. Re:Probably good by ColdWetDog · 2014-10-09 14:04 · Score: 1
  
  The military never left. Remember the Air Force only Shuttle launches?
  
  --
  Faster! Faster! Faster would be better!
2. Re:Probably good by Virtucon · 2014-10-09 14:21 · Score: 1
  
  They still have Canaveral Air Force Base. The Air Force were to get two shuttles of their own and built a launchpad out at Vandenburg AFB in California. Unfortunately funding was cut after they spent the money building the launchpad. So there were those times when they borrowed a shuttle or two from NASA.
  
  --
  Harrison's Postulate - "For every action there is an equal and opposite criticism"
3. Re:Probably good by Anonymous Coward · 2014-10-09 22:37 · Score: 0
  
  The military never left. Remember the Air Force only Shuttle launches?
  Also, the astronaut corps still recruits a lot from the military. The last group had 6/8 active military.
  http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/NASA_Astronaut_Group_21
  The previous group had 6 military and 1 CIA out of 9 American candidates and 3 out of 6 military among the international candidates.
  http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/NASA_Astronaut_Group_20
WTF? by YrWrstNtmr · 2014-10-09 14:10 · Score: 1

NASA is renting hangar space to the Air Force, on a co-located patch of ground, for the USAF to store and maintain its space vehicles.
Please tell me why optimal use of existing facilities is 'news'?

Do the words 'Cape Canaveral Air Force Station' mean anything to you?
1. Re:WTF? by Jahoda · 2014-10-09 14:14 · Score: 1
  
  You're right. Certainly no one reading Slashdot is interested in NASA-related events.
2. Re:WTF? by YrWrstNtmr · 2014-10-09 14:20 · Score: 1
  
  NASA related is fine. This is merely building management.
  
  Go back 70 years. "NASA sharing runway space with Langley AFB". Whoop-de-do.
3. Re:WTF? by Virtucon · 2014-10-09 14:22 · Score: 1
  
  too much public view over there. For a time I worked with the folks down at Hanger A-F on RSRM recovery and most of those hangars are well past it.
  
  --
  Harrison's Postulate - "For every action there is an equal and opposite criticism"
4. Re:WTF? by Jahoda · 2014-10-09 14:46 · Score: 1
  
  https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki...
5. Re:WTF? by Livius · 2014-10-09 15:03 · Score: 2, Interesting
  
  Please tell me why optimal use of existing facilities is 'news'?
  Government being efficient is quite newsworthy.
6. Re:WTF? by BringsApples · 2014-10-09 21:03 · Score: 1
  
  I'm with you on this. I didn't understand why it's news worthy either. I came here to look at comments and hopefully learn something. Nada. This is strictly, as you said, building management. But hey, NASA has to get money from somewhere.
  
  But still better than, yet another, "You're loosing more rights" article.
  
  --
  Politics; n. : A religion whereby man is god.
Ironic by Anonymous Coward · 2014-10-09 14:34 · Score: 0

The NASA VAB today is to NASA engineers as the Slab in 2001: A Space Odyssey is to the Australopithecus afarensis depicted in the film.
Yes, at least 3 million years needed before return to the Moon.
The Future by Anonymous Coward · 2014-10-09 16:15 · Score: 0

Land acidity levels today and for the next 3 million year indicate that evidence of our civilization, or Homo Sapiens, will not be found.
In 5 million years, interstellar Archaeologists exploring the remnants of what was once known as 'Earth' will find nothing! Only a 2 micron layer of oxidized silica and smectite will be all that is left of Global Human Warming and Homo Sapiens Alarminious. Yet they will never know that.
NASA is civilian by AndyKron · 2014-10-09 23:24 · Score: 0

So NASA is now military. Fuck NASA then.
hanger vs hangar by argStyopa · 2014-10-10 00:38 · Score: 2

http://grammarist.com/usage/ha...
How does one get the job of "editor" exactly?

--
-Styopa
1. Re:hanger vs hangar by jittles · 2014-10-10 05:35 · Score: 1
  
  http://grammarist.com/usage/ha...
  How does one get the job of "editor" exactly?
  It's only two more steps than those required to get an insightful post on Slashdot:
  1. Forget Everything you know
  2. Loudly opine on everything you think you know
  3. Sensationalize everything
  4. ????
  5. Profit
2. Re:hanger vs hangar by CmdrTamale · 2014-10-10 13:14 · Score: 1
  
  How does one get the job of "editor"
  Perhaps it is a punishment for not using all those moderator points.
  --
  If you believe everything you read, you are a fool. Believe me.
Where does SpaceX assemble? by Anonymous Coward · 2014-10-10 06:03 · Score: 0

Do they get the 4th bay?