Sorry, Bob. I meant to respond to your e-mail, but forgot.

Anyway, as Shuttle-C was originally envisioned, it would be designed to fit exactly into the existing KSC infrastructure. The idea was for Shuttle and -C to operate side-by-side. That original vision didn't last long as the study progressed, and was modified into a vehicle with a payload bay sized 15x81 ft. The 81 ft. length was determined to be the longest length that could be accomodated without extensive mods to existing facilities. Personally, I don't see how the mods required at the pads to accomodate 81 ft. payload bay doors wouldn't be considered "extensive"! The reconfiguration of the Payload Changeout Room would be quite a piece of work.

Further studies continued to diverge from the baseline design as requirements changed and missions reconsidered. In the end, the vehicle and the mods it would require became so expensive and single-vehicle dedicated that the project was dropped.

If Shuttle-C could have been realized in its original form, then, yeah, it could've operated out of KSC without impacting Shuttle ops at all. There would've been no need for expansion of the VAB or a dedicated pad. We could've had a launch vehicle that would handle payloads up to 170,000 lb. Simpler construction of SS Freedom would've resulted. Simpler return-to-the-Moon scenarios could've been considered. Even assembly of a Mars vehicle in LEO would've been possible (given the funding) in a much shorter timeframe. Surprisingly, planners were looking at a launch rate of 14 orbiters AND 10 Shuttle-Cs per year! And this was in 1989, when it was already known that launch rates like that were a dream only! I don't know what those people were thinking - or smoking.

But, like most government studies, too much thought was applied to it, which made it more complex, more expensive and less likely to win political approval. Congress killed it in 1991.

-Kim-
*my opinions, not my employers'*
http://www.geocities.com/kimekeller