Of course if the SLS modifications are done properly, the same ML could be used for both vehicles, along with Atlas and Delta.
$129,834,000. $263,735,000. That was the cost to build the first one. Although perhaps the contractor would build a second for ATK at a slightly lower price?[EDIT: Oops, sorry! That might have been the price for two. The press release said, "The contract includes an option for an additional Ares I mobile launcher. It is a firm fixed-price contract with a value of $263,735,000, if all options are exercised." http://www.nasa.gov/home/hqnews/2008/may/HQ_C08025_Ares_MLP_contract.html][MORE: Contract Award Date: May 8, 2008Contract Award Number: NNK08EB10CContract Award Dollar Amount: 129834000Contract Line Item Number: 0001 1st ML ]
The clean pad concept uses vehicle unique MLP's on a common pad. It isn't a common MLP.
While it is theoretically possible to build a one-size-fits-all, it would seem to more cost effective to have custom built MLPs - which will also give you more operational flexibility.
Quote from: sdsds on 11/02/2011 10:57 pm$129,834,000. $263,735,000. That was the cost to build the first one. [...]Contract Award Date: May 8, 2008Contract Award Number: NNK08EB10CContract Award Dollar Amount: 129834000Contract Line Item Number: 0001 1st MLI thought it was $500 million.http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/44601423/ns/technology_and_science-space/t/million-launch-platform-may-find-new-life/#.TrHz_7Jwi8A
$129,834,000. $263,735,000. That was the cost to build the first one. [...]Contract Award Date: May 8, 2008Contract Award Number: NNK08EB10CContract Award Dollar Amount: 129834000Contract Line Item Number: 0001 1st ML
Would Liberty survive having to build a new ML?
Quote from: Lars_J on 11/03/2011 02:54 amWhile it is theoretically possible to build a one-size-fits-all, it would seem to more cost effective to have custom built MLPs - which will also give you more operational flexibility. I have no idea where and how you arrive at that insighthttp://www.unitedspacealliance.com/universal-launch-complex.cfm
All the complexity of the Shuttle launch pad with the RSS, yet they are supposed to haul it out from the VAB to the "clean" pad for every launch, then recycle it for a different launch vehicle?Wouldn't each of these vehicles be limited to a very low flight rate to avoid running into each others' schedules? Wouldn't this defeat the idea of economically sharing the platform and launch pad? If they need more than one for the launch rate, why not customize and do away with the adjustable platforms? And does anyone expect SpaceX to make use of this?
Quote from: OV-106 on 11/03/2011 03:26 amWhatever Jim. Think how much time it would take to convert between launches of two different vehicles and my description holds true.The existing Atlas MLP is very simple and does not rely on umbilical arms.
Whatever Jim.
The MLP for a specific launcher would have 'male' sockets only for the types of prop needed for that specific LV.
Propellents are not the only issue, there is electrical interfaces for power, data and commanding. This varies greatly between vehicles in location and types.
Quote from: Jim on 11/03/2011 12:49 pmPropellents are not the only issue, there is electrical interfaces for power, data and commanding. This varies greatly between vehicles in location and types.Time for at least national, if not international, standards? It's been done in so many other spheres it's hard to believe it's not been done here.
Quote from: Jim on 11/03/2011 12:49 pmPropellents are not the only issue, there is electrical interfaces for power, data and commanding. This varies greatly between vehicles in location and types.Of course. You don't think that has been considered?It really is rather funny in my opinion how people go on about innovation and commercial and all these great idealistic things. Then someone shows something that could help and it is immediately met with cries on how it won't work, it's a bad idea, recipe for disaster and low flight rate, etc just because it did not come from the internet "chosen ones".
Quote from: OV-106 on 11/03/2011 02:21 pmQuote from: Jim on 11/03/2011 12:49 pmPropellents are not the only issue, there is electrical interfaces for power, data and commanding. This varies greatly between vehicles in location and types.Of course. You don't think that has been considered?It really is rather funny in my opinion how people go on about innovation and commercial and all these great idealistic things. Then someone shows something that could help and it is immediately met with cries on how it won't work, it's a bad idea, recipe for disaster and low flight rate, etc just because it did not come from the internet "chosen ones". Speak for yourself please. Not a single person on this thread decried the ULA idea because it didn't come from the internet "chosen ones".However...several people did decry the ULA idea for the unavoidable technical hurdles that will be associated with it. Several of those hurdles have already been discussed, some of them in detail. More will likely come. That's unavoidable.
Quote from: OV-106 on 11/03/2011 02:21 pmQuote from: Jim on 11/03/2011 12:49 pmPropellents are not the only issue, there is electrical interfaces for power, data and commanding. This varies greatly between vehicles in location and types.Of course. You don't think that has been considered?It really is rather funny in my opinion how people go on about innovation and commercial and all these great idealistic things. Then someone shows something that could help and it is immediately met with cries on how it won't work, it's a bad idea, recipe for disaster and low flight rate, etc just because it did not come from the internet "chosen ones". No, I see a marketing pitch from a company trying to keep itself alive in an location where it is no longer relevant. It is a better idea for them vs the users.
I thought there were other unused MLPs now shuttle is retired.
Quote from: Jim on 11/03/2011 12:49 pmPropellents are not the only issue, there is electrical interfaces for power, data and commanding. This varies greatly between vehicles in location and types.Surely this could be fixed by having a hardware on the MLP to convert the juice to the voltage, amperage, frequency, etc. required.
You're joking, right? It's not a matter of plugging in a universal wall adapter or anything. The physical interfaces are different: for electrical and data alone you have different physical geometry, different connector design, different pin counts and arrangements, different locations on the launch vehicles, different data formats and data rates . . . Now let's talk about physical interfaces for fuel/oxidizer, purge gases, coolants, etc. . . ."Rockets are not Legos!"
Quote from: woods170 on 11/03/2011 02:59 pmQuote from: OV-106 on 11/03/2011 02:21 pmQuote from: Jim on 11/03/2011 12:49 pmPropellents are not the only issue, there is electrical interfaces for power, data and commanding. This varies greatly between vehicles in location and types.Of course. You don't think that has been considered?It really is rather funny in my opinion how people go on about innovation and commercial and all these great idealistic things. Then someone shows something that could help and it is immediately met with cries on how it won't work, it's a bad idea, recipe for disaster and low flight rate, etc just because it did not come from the internet "chosen ones". Speak for yourself please. Not a single person on this thread decried the ULA idea because it didn't come from the internet "chosen ones".However...several people did decry the ULA idea for the unavoidable technical hurdles that will be associated with it. Several of those hurdles have already been discussed, some of them in detail. More will likely come. That's unavoidable.Yeah, sure. Words like "unavoidable technical hurdles" seems to cast judgement right there. So let's go back and look what I said:1. Regarding Jim's initial comment, I said it "does not have to be the case". That is a true statement.2. I said, "there are concepts and designs in work now for otherwise". That is a true statement.3. It was immediately called a "kludge" and dismissed by others declaring why it cannot happen.Is it the ultimate solution? I don't know. There are a host of questions that need to be answered and concept of operations defined. That however, does NOT mean a possible solution should be dismissed outright calling it a "kludge" and specifically saying it will not work because of reasons X, Y, Z.
Or condensing into one line: Just because it *can* be done, doesn't mean that it *should* be done.