mong' - 30/5/2006 2:56 PMjust found that on the ESA websitehttp://www.esa.int/externals/images/estec-photo-archive/142.jpginteresting...
Jim - 30/5/2006 5:30 PM1. Whatever is under the "new"exhaust duct will have to be moved. Things like winches for engine platforms, hydraulic power units for the SSME's and SRB's, etc2. The holddown posts for the SRB's will have to moved and this will affect the structure as a whole.3. TSM's will have to be moved. This means propellant, electrical, data, AC, and freon lines will have to be rerouted.4. Water deluge rerouting5. This will waterfall into changes of the routing of the basic utilities of the MLP.
HailColumbia - 30/5/2006 5:39 PMhmmmm....Think it would be cheaper to just build some new MLPs? how many more years can we get out of them anyway?
bad_astra - 30/5/2006 7:57 PMQuoteJim - 30/5/2006 5:30 PM1. Whatever is under the "new"exhaust duct will have to be moved. Things like winches for engine platforms, hydraulic power units for the SSME's and SRB's, etc2. The holddown posts for the SRB's will have to moved and this will affect the structure as a whole.3. TSM's will have to be moved. This means propellant, electrical, data, AC, and freon lines will have to be rerouted.4. Water deluge rerouting5. This will waterfall into changes of the routing of the basic utilities of the MLP.1: exaust could be diverted to the ducts already created for the SRBS, or else the J2 (or linear aerospike) could start seconds after liftoff2, 3, 4: why? We are talking about a standard size LWET here with standard RSRB'sOnly minor rewiring, plumbing, for the main engine apart from the service tower additions for the CEV. I can't see how this would require Major modifications to the MLP.
Jim - 30/5/2006 8:31 PMWRT #1, you are not going to launch without starting (totally stupid) and verifying that the main engine is working, therefore a new hole below the ET is required in the MLP.
Jim - 30/5/2006 8:31 PM#3 The TSM's are mounted close to the orbiter which doesn't exist in this configuration, so they have to be moved to new points on the aft of the new ET aft structure (which is no longer a SLWET)
kevin-rf - 31/5/2006 10:08 AMThe VAB is 40 years old, has limited capabilities (Max four assembled birds at any one time), dictates the size and shape of the vehicle (by it's doors), dictates verticle assembly, and really was designed for the Saturn V.While the whole system is being redesigned a steely eyed look needs to made at the VAB/Crawlers... What trade offs are we making to reuse this hardware? They where built for big hardware, but are they right for CALV?...Honestly I can not see how modifying a MLP would be cheap. Other than saving the cost of a new MLP frame (Steel prices are in an orbit of there own) I would bet it would cost as much as building a new one.
Jim - 30/5/2006 3:30 PMQuoteSMetch - 30/5/2006 4:29 PMQuoteJim - 28/5/2006 7:56 PMCaLV is not designed yet and won't be for a while. Shuttle still needs to use the pads."Moving" holes in an MLP is not minor. ET is 27' dia and CLaV is 33' can't use the same SRB hole config.Costs per flight would be 2x moreThe MLP should be lowest cost change altogether. For goodness sake it’s an over designed piece of welded plate steel. This aspect of the change anything and it will cost astronomical sums of money continues to amaze me. It looks like we need to get into the welded plate steel fabrication business for KSC. They have obviously lost all sense of what it should cost to do this.You obviously don't know what is in the MLP. It is the most costly part, because it is the interface with the vehicle. 1. Whatever is under the "new"exhaust duct will have to be moved. Things like winches for engine platforms, hydraulic power units for the SSME's and SRB's, etc2. The holddown posts for the SRB's will have to moved and this will affect the structure as a whole.3. TSM's will have to be moved. This means propellant, electrical, data, AC, and freon lines will have to be rerouted.4. Water deluge rerouting5. This will waterfall into changes of the routing of the basic utilities of the MLP.
SMetch - 30/5/2006 4:29 PMQuoteJim - 28/5/2006 7:56 PMCaLV is not designed yet and won't be for a while. Shuttle still needs to use the pads."Moving" holes in an MLP is not minor. ET is 27' dia and CLaV is 33' can't use the same SRB hole config.Costs per flight would be 2x moreThe MLP should be lowest cost change altogether. For goodness sake it’s an over designed piece of welded plate steel. This aspect of the change anything and it will cost astronomical sums of money continues to amaze me. It looks like we need to get into the welded plate steel fabrication business for KSC. They have obviously lost all sense of what it should cost to do this.
Jim - 28/5/2006 7:56 PMCaLV is not designed yet and won't be for a while. Shuttle still needs to use the pads."Moving" holes in an MLP is not minor. ET is 27' dia and CLaV is 33' can't use the same SRB hole config.Costs per flight would be 2x more
bad_astra - 31/5/2006 6:07 PMThen yet another argument for EELV. The pads already exist.
Jim - 31/5/2006 9:19 AMLimited? 4 vehicles at once? Apollo/Skylab never used more than 3 bays at once.