Author Topic: The Crawler-Transporter thread  (Read 279918 times)

Offline Jim

  • Night Gator
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 37440
  • Cape Canaveral Spaceport
  • Liked: 21451
  • Likes Given: 428
Re: The Crawler-Transporter thread
« Reply #40 on: 08/16/2006 07:19 pm »
Quote
Avron - 16/8/2006  3:02 PM

Why can we not stack at the pad???

It ties up the pad for weeks to months and you need a huge MST.  look at the trend, Atlas, Delta IV, Ariane, Soyuz, Proton are stack off the pad.  Still need a recieving facility for  all the parts.

Offline Jim

  • Night Gator
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 37440
  • Cape Canaveral Spaceport
  • Liked: 21451
  • Likes Given: 428
Re: The Crawler-Transporter thread
« Reply #41 on: 08/16/2006 07:22 pm »
Quote
zerm - 16/8/2006  12:29 PM

Quote
Jim - 16/8/2006  10:58 AM

A "VAB" type facility will always be required.  A method of transporting components to the pad is required.  the RSS is not required for any concepts, except the shuttle

I agree with Jim 100% here. I wonder if either the Ares I (just humor me Jim and pretend that it may actually come into existance)  ;)  or the Ares V will need Mobile Service Structures to enclose them on the pad in a similar fashion to the Saturns?

depends how the vehicles are designed.

Offline Avron

  • Canadian Member
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 4930
  • Liked: 156
  • Likes Given: 160
Re: The Crawler-Transporter thread
« Reply #42 on: 08/16/2006 07:32 pm »
Quote
Jim - 16/8/2006  3:06 PM

Quote
Avron - 16/8/2006  3:02 PM

Why can we not stack at the pad???

It ties up the pad for weeks to months and you need a huge MST.  look at the trend, Atlas, Delta IV, Ariane, Soyuz, Proton are stack off the pad.  Still need a recieving facility for  all the parts.

And what does a pad cost... worst case....?

Offline Jim

  • Night Gator
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 37440
  • Cape Canaveral Spaceport
  • Liked: 21451
  • Likes Given: 428
Re: The Crawler-Transporter thread
« Reply #43 on: 08/16/2006 07:41 pm »
Define 'pad"   Currently LC-39 pads will require some mods (mostly removal of hardware).  VAB will require plaform mods.  MLP/CT are tbd.

New pad for " build on the pad concept", which can't use LC-39 pads, $3-4B a pad.  Need 3-4 pads  for Mars missions.

Offline Avron

  • Canadian Member
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 4930
  • Liked: 156
  • Likes Given: 160
Re: The Crawler-Transporter thread
« Reply #44 on: 08/16/2006 08:06 pm »
Quote
Jim - 16/8/2006  3:28 PM

Define 'pad"   Currently LC-39 pads will require some mods (mostly removal of hardware).  VAB will require plaform mods.  MLP/CT are tbd.

New pad for " build on the pad concept", which can't use LC-39 pads, $3-4B a pad.  Need 3-4 pads  for Mars missions.

Ok... 3-4 pads.. bulk deal.. Cost? and toss in two RSS for each pad...New.. Total cost?

Offline MKremer

  • Elite Veteran
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 4034
  • Liked: 69
  • Likes Given: 1275
Re: The Crawler-Transporter thread
« Reply #45 on: 08/16/2006 08:16 pm »
I can't imagine NASA deciding to go with a stack-on-pad choice for something like a "Magnum"-style CaLV (or any tall heavy-lift vehicle). Can you imagine what a 500'+ mobile service structure (with cranes) would cost to develop and build, on top of the new pad and pad support hardware?

Offline Avron

  • Canadian Member
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 4930
  • Liked: 156
  • Likes Given: 160
Re: The Crawler-Transporter thread
« Reply #46 on: 08/16/2006 08:25 pm »
Quote
MKremer - 16/8/2006  4:03 PM

I can't imagine NASA deciding to go with a stack-on-pad choice for something like a "Magnum"-style CaLV (or any tall heavy-lift vehicle). Can you imagine what a 500'+ mobile service structure (with cranes) would cost to develop and build, on top of the new pad and pad support hardware?

No.. I cannot.. but I would love to know.. I dont imagine NASA would go for it, but it could be a lot more flexiable... Dont move the LV, move the Service structure and pad support hardware...???

Offline mauk2

  • Veteran
  • Full Member
  • *
  • Posts: 106
  • Liked: 0
  • Likes Given: 0
Re: The Crawler-Transporter thread
« Reply #47 on: 08/16/2006 11:09 pm »
You guys are onto something here.

I've often wondered why we don't go to launching off semi-submersible ships like the Blue Marlin.

http://www.wartsila.com/Wartsila/_docs/en/ship_power/media_publications/marine_news/2004_1/conversion.pdf
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Blue_Marlin_transporting_sea-based_X-band_radar.jpg

That gigantic radar in the second picture is about 250 feet high, if I remember correctly.

Build several semi-submersibles like that, build a VAB-style building over a dock or three, stack the vehicles up on pylons and sail them out and launch them from wherever you want to launch them. Given the dollar figures being bandied about, shouldn't be THAT far out of line, cost-wise.  I think the Blue Marlin cost less than 500 million, even with the expansion.

Offline Jim

  • Night Gator
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 37440
  • Cape Canaveral Spaceport
  • Liked: 21451
  • Likes Given: 428
Re: The Crawler-Transporter thread
« Reply #48 on: 08/17/2006 12:41 am »
Quote
Avron - 16/8/2006  4:12 PM

Quote
MKremer - 16/8/2006  4:03 PM

I can't imagine NASA deciding to go with a stack-on-pad choice for something like a "Magnum"-style CaLV (or any tall heavy-lift vehicle). Can you imagine what a 500'+ mobile service structure (with cranes) would cost to develop and build, on top of the new pad and pad support hardware?

No.. I cannot.. but I would love to know.. I dont imagine NASA would go for it, but it could be a lot more flexiable... Dont move the LV, move the Service structure and pad support hardware...???

They have been moving away from stack on pad since the 60's.  Stack on pad is not flexible, it is the exact opposite.  The mobile concept is flexibility.   Only 2 pads but more MLP's and VAB High bays.

Offline Jim

  • Night Gator
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 37440
  • Cape Canaveral Spaceport
  • Liked: 21451
  • Likes Given: 428
Re: The Crawler-Transporter thread
« Reply #49 on: 08/17/2006 12:42 am »
Quote
mauk2 - 16/8/2006  6:56 PM

You guys are onto something here.

I've often wondered why we don't go to launching off semi-submersible ships like the Blue Marlin.

http://www.wartsila.com/Wartsila/_docs/en/ship_power/media_publications/marine_news/2004_1/conversion.pdf
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Blue_Marlin_transporting_sea-based_X-band_radar.jpg

That gigantic radar in the second picture is about 250 feet high, if I remember correctly.

Build several semi-submersibles like that, build a VAB-style building over a dock or three, stack the vehicles up on pylons and sail them out and launch them from wherever you want to launch them. Given the dollar figures being bandied about, shouldn't be THAT far out of line, cost-wise.  I think the Blue Marlin cost less than 500 million, even with the expansion.

The money would be in the docks.  Just traded one pot of money for another.

Also LV's would be too tall.

Offline Avron

  • Canadian Member
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 4930
  • Liked: 156
  • Likes Given: 160
Re: The Crawler-Transporter thread
« Reply #50 on: 08/17/2006 03:56 am »
Quote
Jim - 16/8/2006  8:28 PM

Quote
Avron - 16/8/2006  4:12 PM

Quote
MKremer - 16/8/2006  4:03 PM

I can't imagine NASA deciding to go with a stack-on-pad choice for something like a "Magnum"-style CaLV (or any tall heavy-lift vehicle). Can you imagine what a 500'+ mobile service structure (with cranes) would cost to develop and build, on top of the new pad and pad support hardware?

No.. I cannot.. but I would love to know.. I dont imagine NASA would go for it, but it could be a lot more flexiable... Dont move the LV, move the Service structure and pad support hardware...???

They have been moving away from stack on pad since the 60's.  Stack on pad is not flexible, it is the exact opposite.  The mobile concept is flexibility.   Only 2 pads but more MLP's and VAB High bays.

The last time NASA designed/built a human spacecraft without wings was also in the 60's and its also in the 60's that Man first walked on the moon and has not done so since..

I agree a mobile concept is flexiable .. move the support, keep the LV in one place... No rollback required, no chance of bearing faliures.. or LV that get damaged in transit to the pad, no Crawlers, No issues with space in the VAB, and if soemthing does not go as planned, use the next pad... lots of fun options to play with.. but what I would like is a simple ballpark number to build a PAD.. something like 39.. without all the STS support items... and build four of them.. simple basic pads... something a platform (support structure) can be moved over  and bolted to the pad to support a LV of any realistic design.. new LV ... new Platform....

Pad cost please.. very worst case...







Offline Jim

  • Night Gator
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 37440
  • Cape Canaveral Spaceport
  • Liked: 21451
  • Likes Given: 428
Re: The Crawler-Transporter thread
« Reply #51 on: 08/17/2006 11:44 am »
Quote
Avron - 16/8/2006  11:43 PM

I agree a mobile concept is flexiable .. move the support, keep the LV in one place... No rollback required, no chance of bearing faliures.. or LV that get damaged in transit to the pad, no Crawlers, No issues with space in the VAB, and if soemthing does not go as planned, use the next pad... lots of fun options to play with.. but what I would like is a simple ballpark number to build a PAD.. something like 39.. without all the STS support items... and build four of them.. simple basic pads... something a platform (support structure) can be moved over  and bolted to the pad to support a LV of any realistic design.. new LV ... new Platform....

Pad cost please.. very worst case...


No rollback?  Then destack is your only alternative.  Also all the lifting operations are out in the weather, not good thing for solids.  VAFB Shuttle operations were going to be stack on the stack because of low flight rates and existing facilites.   They found because weather and winds that the whole pad would have to be enclosed in a large building.   The building still exists.

No LV has ever been damaged during transit.  See above, more risk to vehicle from lifting outside.

bearing Failures?  The MST at the pad will have them and on launch day, they can failure at a more inopportune moment

there is no issue with space in the VAB.

It isn't just that easy to pick the next pad

Pads are the most expensive pad of the ground infrastructure and also the most costly to maintain.

Since the CLV and CLV don't need the FSS and RSS, what will remain on LC-39 are two "simple basic pads"

What you are proposing is not "simple basic pads" the MST required would be huge and almost the size of a quarter of the VAB  and for the  ESAS, you would need 3-5 pads, all with this hugh structure that has to roll away before launch.

 $3-5 B.

The existing method is the cheapest, less risky and more flexible there is.  That's why most the current  LV's use variations of the moble concept.

Because of experience with the Saturn I and IB and other LV's  ( it constrained flight rates), NASA decided on the mobile method for the Saturn V.   Titan ITL was built before LC-39.  Arianespace use/d it for   Arianes 1, 4 and 5.  EELV's (Delta IV  and Atlas V)use variations.  Russians use/d for Soyuz, Proton, Zenit, Energia, N1, etc

Are all these people wrong?




Offline Avron

  • Canadian Member
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 4930
  • Liked: 156
  • Likes Given: 160
Re: The Crawler-Transporter thread
« Reply #52 on: 08/17/2006 05:11 pm »
No.. none of them are wrong..  1B per pad (must get into this business) and 2B for new transporters... Transporters win..

Offline Wisi

  • Veteran
  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 310
  • Liked: 0
  • Likes Given: 1
Re: The Crawler-Transporter thread
« Reply #53 on: 10/18/2006 05:12 pm »
Another question: Came to my mind when watching the rolloff from the pad 39B that occured a few hours ago: Who drives this enormous vehicle? Is it a single person who controlls the vehicle or are there several Crawler-Driver who drive the crawler? Is there a cockpit somewhere? Are there images of this cockpit? Tank you for your answers!

wisi

Offline Jim

  • Night Gator
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 37440
  • Cape Canaveral Spaceport
  • Liked: 21451
  • Likes Given: 428
Re: The Crawler-Transporter thread
« Reply #54 on: 10/18/2006 09:35 pm »
There is a cab on each end (it doesn't turn around) and one driver but up to 10? operators (they monitor the diesels, electrical, hydraulics sytems and perform walkarounds)

Offline sprtnsky

  • Member
  • Full Member
  • *
  • Posts: 110
  • Liked: 0
  • Likes Given: 0
Re: The Crawler-Transporter thread
« Reply #55 on: 10/19/2006 01:39 am »
Take a look here.

this will explain some of what you are looking for.

http://www.apollosaturn.com/release/bndx2.htm

Offline Rocket Guy

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1349
  • Liked: 7
  • Likes Given: 1
Re: The Crawler-Transporter thread
« Reply #56 on: 10/19/2006 02:01 am »
And they rotate drivers througout the roll.

Offline Wisi

  • Veteran
  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 310
  • Liked: 0
  • Likes Given: 1
Re: The Crawler-Transporter thread
« Reply #57 on: 10/19/2006 06:27 am »
Thank you all, guys!!

Offline sprtnsky

  • Member
  • Full Member
  • *
  • Posts: 110
  • Liked: 0
  • Likes Given: 0
Re: The Crawler-Transporter thread
« Reply #58 on: 06/11/2007 01:36 am »

Offline Launch Fan

  • Veteran
  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1317
  • Liked: 59
  • Likes Given: 44
Re: The Crawler-Transporter thread
« Reply #59 on: 06/28/2007 01:56 am »
Just wait for the monster crawlers for Ares V!

Tags: CT 
 

Advertisement NovaTech
Advertisement Northrop Grumman
Advertisement
Advertisement Margaritaville Beach Resort South Padre Island
Advertisement Brady Kenniston
Advertisement NextSpaceflight
Advertisement Nathan Barker Photography
0