Avron - 16/8/2006 3:02 PMWhy can we not stack at the pad???
zerm - 16/8/2006 12:29 PMQuoteJim - 16/8/2006 10:58 AMA "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 shuttleI 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?
Jim - 16/8/2006 10:58 AMA "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
Jim - 16/8/2006 3:06 PMQuoteAvron - 16/8/2006 3:02 PMWhy 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.
Jim - 16/8/2006 3:28 PMDefine '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.
MKremer - 16/8/2006 4:03 PMI 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?
Avron - 16/8/2006 4:12 PMQuoteMKremer - 16/8/2006 4:03 PMI 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...
mauk2 - 16/8/2006 6:56 PMYou 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.pdfhttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Blue_Marlin_transporting_sea-based_X-band_radar.jpgThat 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.
Jim - 16/8/2006 8:28 PMQuoteAvron - 16/8/2006 4:12 PMQuoteMKremer - 16/8/2006 4:03 PMI 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.
Avron - 16/8/2006 11:43 PMI 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...