Unemployed Ares I Mobile Launcher set for Crawler trip

[Chris Bergin]

http://www.nasaspaceflight.com/2010/07/unemployed-ares-i-mobile-launcher-crawler-trip-august/

[Downix]

There is one other option, build a milkstool on it and use it for a hsf-rated Atlas, Taurus or Delta.  Just me thinking out loud.

[Tim S]

Bolden will probably give it away to SeaWorld to "inspire children about becoming an astronaut".

[Jim]

Bolden will probably give it away to SeaWorld to "inspire children about becoming an astronaut".

Sour grapes.   

[zerm]

What makes everyone so sure that this will not be used for another Ares I-X style test launch?

[Downix]

What makes everyone so sure that this will not be used for another Ares I-X style test launch?

No Ares IX to test launch nor money to build one.

[Mark Max Q]

And the latest vision of Ares tests were with two SRBs.

[brettreds2k]

I understand this was already in the budget for this year, and they cant stop work due to the law in congress, But I cant see how it can be justified to continue work and spend the money on a platform that will once is completed, It will just end up being scrapped anyways.

Why continue the work on it?? We all know there is no shot at Ares anymore, and if this is only limited to working with the Ares design, quit spending the damn money on it.

[zerm]

What makes everyone so sure that this will not be used for another Ares I-X style test launch?

No Ares IX to test launch nor money to build one.

And where exactly is that written? Ditto for the two SRB tests. I've read over both the House and Senate bills and I don't seem to see any of that. Can someone please provide a link?

[rcoppola]

I like the fixed tower idea. Then we would just need a new platform.
Well it's something anyway..

A question though. Can a SD HLV inline with upper stage and capsule, be transported with only base hold down support?

[Jim]

A question though. Can a SD HLV inline with upper stage and capsule, be transported with only base hold down support?

How do you think the shuttle is transported?

[rcoppola]

A question though. Can a SD HLV inline with upper stage and capsule, be transported with only base hold down support?

How do you think the shuttle is transported?

Hi Jim,
Yes I am aware, but wouldn't this inline be much taller then the shuttle stack? Or is there significant weight where stability is assured.

[TrueBlueWitt]

A question though. Can a SD HLV inline with upper stage and capsule, be transported with only base hold down support?

How do you think the shuttle is transported?

Although I do wonder about the taller 2-stage Inline design with a large fairing.. Would their have to be stringent constraints on max wind speeds during the trip to the pad? 

The first bending mode would be much lower(and max deflection higher) than for the Shuttle stack. 

I thought the DIRECT team(at least at some point) had suggested something more like the Atlas V LUT mounted on the Platform.

[renclod]

...
We all know there is no shot at Ares anymore, 

No, we don't.

What we do know - from NASA's Bolden and garver, is that the shot at by-passing Ares I and go straight to heavy lifted CEV, keeping schedule  and cutting funds is, to quote a famous re-vision committee, "an unsustainable trajectory".

==================

Thanks for the article, good news !
The ML will move !

[mr. mark]

Ares 1 if built will be the Amtrak of human spaceflight. With Boeing, Spacex and possibly Orbital most likely getting into the game around the same time what is the point.   

[ChrisGebhardt]

A question though. Can a SD HLV inline with upper stage and capsule, be transported with only base hold down support?

How do you think the shuttle is transported?

Hi Jim,
Yes I am aware, but wouldn't this inline be much taller then the shuttle stack? Or is there significant weight where stability is assured.

Ares I-X was considerably taller than Shuttle and it was rolled out with only four hold down bolts securing the stick to the MLP.

[zerm]

...
We all know there is no shot at Ares anymore, 

No, we don't.

What we do know - from NASA's Bolden and garver, is that the shot at by-passing Ares I and go straight to heavy lifted CEV, keeping schedule  and cutting funds is, to quote a famous re-vision committee, "an unsustainable trajectory".

Actually what we "know" right now is only what has been released in document by the United States Congress- all of which remains in process at this time. I would suggest that we all (including me) go back an read that material and consider what it says and what it does NOT say. Things will become much more clear... or at least as clear as they can be at the moment.

[Ronsmytheiii]

What makes everyone so sure that this will not be used for another Ares I-X style test launch?

Another question is why keep it if it is only for another Ares I-X style launch, MLP-1 did fine for the original Ares I-X

Sad that is will not be used, but hopefully something can be salvaged.

[zerm]

What makes everyone so sure that this will not be used for another Ares I-X style test launch?

Another question is why keep it if it is only for another Ares I-X style launch, MLP-1 did fine for the original Ares I-X

Sad that is will not be used, but hopefully something can be salvaged.

The likely answer there would be "sunk costs" and politically covering them. One shot from that ML covers a world of political be-hind. Additionally, recall that back in May, Nelson asked Bolden about such another test I-X style flight. Bolden answered that from a budget standpoint it would be a good thing, because using the launch vehicle (and the ML/LUT) to test hardware for a different program (now SLS) allows the cost of everything involved to be spread across both programs and thus from a budget standpoint makes the Ares I appear less expensive.

Everyone- please keep in mind that we're not talking engineering value here, we're talking political and budget points of view. Whether or not you think the Ares I(X) is worthwhile from an operational or engineering viewpoint is not the point I'm making here as it applies to Bolden's remarks. I'm citing them strictly from a political and budget point of view. Let us please not begin flame throwing.

[zerm]

That Q&A between Nelson and Bolden is in the May 12 hearing and it comes at 117:17 into the hearing on the archived video. Bolden estimates the savings at being .6B

[kraisee]

LOL.   "Unemployed" is only the tip of the iceberg for this not-so-little beasties issues.   They're having all sorts of fun with 'er...   You have no idea!

And just FYI, scrub what I may have said before about using this ML/LUT to launch Jupiter's from.   Turns out, that is probably not going to be possible after all.   You'll see...

Ross.

[kfsorensen]

I knew this would be how it would end four years ago.

[nooneofconsequence]

The likely answer there would be "sunk costs" and politically covering them.One shot from that ML covers a world of political be-hind. Additionally, recall that back in May, Nelson asked Bolden about such another test I-X style flight.

What if ... you can't even ... do that ... with this thing?

Sometimes even CYA maneuvers ... end up drawing attention to oversight  failures ... they were meant to hide.

Part of the "sunk cost" daemon.

"So Congressman X, how much did you spend on this useless item? And that one? And that other one ..."

[zerm]

The likely answer there would be "sunk costs" and politically covering them.One shot from that ML covers a world of political be-hind. Additionally, recall that back in May, Nelson asked Bolden about such another test I-X style flight.

What if ... you can't even ... do that ... with this thing?

Sometimes even CYA maneuvers ... end up drawing attention to oversight  failures ... they were meant to hide.

Part of the "sunk cost" daemon.

"So Congressman X, how much did you spend on this useless item? And that one? And that other one ..."

No argument there at all- you are quite correct.

[phred]

Bolden will probably give it away to SeaWorld to "inspire children about becoming an astronaut".

Maybe I'm crazy, but I'm still not convinced Ares 1 is dead.  Look at the HR proposal.  They want to demand that NASA

1) Use Constellation hardware
2) Build a human rated launcher and a spacecraft capable of BEO missions.
3) Maintain Ares 1 safety level.
4) Minimize the gap.

Sounds like code for "build the Ares 1."  I mean, is it possible to start over with another launcher and fulfill all these requirements?

[TrueBlueWitt]

Bolden will probably give it away to SeaWorld to "inspire children about becoming an astronaut".

Maybe I'm crazy, but I'm still not convinced Ares 1 is dead.  Look at the HR proposal.  They want to demand that NASA

1) Use Constellation hardware
2) Build a human rated launcher and a spacecraft capable of BEO missions.
3) Maintain Ares 1 safety level.
4) Minimize the gap.

Sounds like code for "build the Ares 1."  I mean, is it possible to start over with another launcher and fulfill all these requirements?

Which is why EVERYONE should Call/Write their congressman and tell them to support the Senate version of the bill.. or even FY2011 if you must.  Please do it today!

[JayP]

Bolden will probably give it away to SeaWorld to "inspire children about becoming an astronaut".

Maybe I'm crazy, but I'm still not convinced Ares 1 is dead.  Look at the HR proposal.  They want to demand that NASA

1) Use Constellation hardware
2) Build a human rated launcher and a spacecraft capable of BEO missions.
3) Maintain Ares 1 safety level.
4) Minimize the gap.

Sounds like code for "build the Ares 1."  I mean, is it possible to start over with another launcher and fulfill all these requirements?

That is what is called "Confimation bias". There are a lot of other opinions on this site that say all of those objectives could be met without Ares in the picture.

[zerm]

Bolden will probably give it away to SeaWorld to "inspire children about becoming an astronaut".

Maybe I'm crazy, but I'm still not convinced Ares 1 is dead.  Look at the HR proposal.  They want to demand that NASA

1) Use Constellation hardware
2) Build a human rated launcher and a spacecraft capable of BEO missions.
3) Maintain Ares 1 safety level.
4) Minimize the gap.

Sounds like code for "build the Ares 1."  I mean, is it possible to start over with another launcher and fulfill all these requirements?

That is what is called "Confimation bias". There are a lot of other opinions on this site that say all of those objectives could be met without Ares in the picture.

"Confimation bias" Agreed! It is hard for anyone on either side (haters or huggers) to avoid that trap- and that includes me.

The fate of the ML/LUT depends on the following- and nothing more. The Congress will send a budget for NASA to the president- if he signs it into law it will be turned over to NASA who will then work within it. Just how the cards in that budget will be stacked will cause NASA to direct efforts in one direction or another. Simple as that. Sure- we can all make predictions here on forums, but such should never be stated as fact (see the two earlier posts that I questioned). No matter how many times you say something or how dark and bold the font or how many posts you have in your username tally- the fact remains that no one here actually knows the final outcome for this launch tower or for the vehicle configuration that it was designed to serve. As I have said before, my 6 year old says she's a mermaid- she says it over and over and with great conviction... but she has yet to grow a tail, nor can she live under water.

[phred]

Which is why EVERYONE should Call/Write their congressman and tell them to support the Senate version of the bill.. or even FY2011 if you must.  Please do it today!

I've actually written them encouraging them to support Ares 1.  Unfortunately, my Representative is Henry Johnson, the guy that thinks Guam is going to capsize if we put too many military personnel there, and he wants whatever the President wants, same as Bolden.

[TrueBlueWitt]

Which is why EVERYONE should Call/Write their congressman and tell them to support the Senate version of the bill.. or even FY2011 if you must.  Please do it today!

I've actually written them encouraging them to support Ares 1.  Unfortunately, my Representative is Henry Johnson, the guy that thinks Guam is going to capsize if we put too many military personnel there, and he wants whatever the President wants, same as Bolden.

I think lack of common sense may a pre-requisite to be a member of the House.. 

And WHY IN THE WORLD.. would you want that Ares-1 debacle to continue?  I'm struggling to come up with any reasons to keep it alive.. But I'll entertain the thought if you think you have a strong case for it to continue(although you have to realize that HLV is deader than a door nail if it does.. right?).

[phred]

And WHY IN THE WORLD.. would you want that Ares-1 debacle to continue?  I'm struggling to come up with any reasons to keep it alive.. But I'll entertain the thought if you think you have a strong case for it to continue(although you have to realize that HLV is deader than a door nail if it does.. right?).

Because I don't think it's nearly the debacle that so many claim.  Anti-Ares sentiment has self-perpetuated among armchair engineers like me, but that doesn't appear to be the sentiment from serious engineers involved in the development.  That's my take anyway, and it is nothing but a take.  Anyway, my opinion isn't going to affect any flying machines.

[sdsds]

Sorry if this has been asked and answered somewhere, but is there a known list of places where the crawler-transporters can set down platforms like this?  Or can any conveniently empty plot of land be converted for the purpose?

Edit to add:  Maybe a 21st century spaceport needs a large parking lot for such platforms?

[Jim]

Sorry if this has been asked and answered somewhere, but is there a known list of places where the crawler-transporters can set down platforms like this? 

The pads, VAB or the MLP refurb area.   Also, those are only places that the crawlers can go

[kraisee]

phred,
Ares-I gets you nowhere.

Ares-I is/was scheduled to cost $15 billion (15 times as much as human rating Delta-IV Heavy to do the same job, in half the time) for a vehicle which still can't get you to the Moon, Mars or Asteroids.

Ares-I requires a second vehicle, a heavy lifter, to get you *anywhere* beyond ISS.

And the fact remains that once you have a heavy lifter, you don't need Ares-I any more.   You can save that $15bn, and just fly the heavy lifter twice instead of one of each.

There never was any reason for Ares-I except to pay for some of the hardware which Griffin needed as a down-payment towards his "bigger than von Braun built" uber-Mars-Booster.

He figured he might be able to make Congress swallow two $15bn projects instead of a single $30bn one.   He was very wrong.


PS -- Jim is one of the most highly respected engineers on the whole forum.   His record of being right on issues is nothing short of formidable.   Seriously, get him to pick your lottery numbers!

Ross.

[robertross]

Well I say if the Ares I ML can't be put to good use, scrap it, get 'some' money out of it, call it a jobs program for the last little while, and move on.

Wasting our time & energy over a few tons of steel is small potatoes in terms of spaceflight. We (general public & space community) have better & more pressing things to concern ourselves with.

[TrueBlueWitt]

Well I say if the Ares I ML can't be put to good use, scrap it, get 'some' money out of it, call it a jobs program for the last little while, and move on.

Wasting our time & energy over a few tons of steel is small potatoes in terms of spaceflight. We (general public & space community) have better & more pressing things to concern ourselves with.

Yes.. by all means.. take it down. So we don't contemplate how many other ways that money would have been better spent.  or leave it as a monument to Griffin's "complex" nature.

Also, Thanks Ross for saying what I was trying to say in what must not have been a politically correct enough way.. very strange having my post dissapear and not even a PM to explain why..  Unless i somehow deleted it accidently myself hitting the "back" button.. hmmm  Very puzzling.

[Chris Bergin]

Let's keep this on the ML, and not turn this into another Ares I debate.

[zerm]

A friend recently pointed out to me that the landscape around KSC as the shuttle program ends is very similar to what it was 30 years ago when it began. You have 39B not shuttle capable and one "unemployed" MLP/LUT sitting behind the VAB.

[Chris Bergin]

Was that one of the Saturn V MLP/LUTs? What eventually happened to it? Assume the MLP became a Shuttle MLP, but the LUT?

[kirghizstan]

Was that one of the Saturn V MLP/LUTs? What eventually happened to it? Assume the MLP became a Shuttle MLP, but the LUT?

i remember taking the tour while columbia was getting ready for its last flight and the tour guide pointing out the rusting remains of the old Saturn V launch tower.

[JayP]

Was that one of the Saturn V MLP/LUTs? What eventually happened to it? Assume the MLP became a Shuttle MLP, but the LUT?

It was ML-1 with the milkstool added on for the later Saturn 1B launches. MLs 2 and 3 were dissasembled and converted to MLPs 2 and 1 respectively, but they held off on the last one for several years becuse of budget constraints (and because they didn't have a flight rate that would have needed it) Eventually they removed the tower and converted the base to MLP-3. The tower sat in pieces in a field neatr the admin area for years until it was cut up and scrapped in 2004. There was a grassroots campaing to preserve and display it called "Save the LUT".

http://www.savethelut.org/

[kraisee]

Wow.   That's a blast from the past...

Jeez, I was COO for the short-lived Space Restoration Society, in charge of that Save the LUT project.

I recall Jim Kennedy, Center Director for KSC at the time, bending over backwards to try to buy us a few more weeks to find funding ($40 million) when the team came in to demolish that tower.   We got so very close too, but the developer we brought in had, lets say 'dubious', backers.   We pulled the plug ourselves to avoid any chance of ever embarrassing NASA.

So sad.

The tower that launched Apollo 11.   And 4, 8 and all the Skylab & Apollo/Soyuz Sat-1B's.

I still clearly recall the two days I had to walk around in the boneyard behind the O&C building with LUT-1.   I have a perfect condition stainless steel bolt from deck 320 (crew deck) from when I was walking on it...   Almost the last place on Earth where Armstrong & Aldrin walked before walking on the Moon.

Sadly, today the steel from Apollo LUT-1 resides inside the 3-gorges dam project in China.   I still say this was a travesty.

Sorry, I know it's completely off-topic, but JayP's post brought back so many good, and sad, memories...

Ross.

[Namechange User]

Just to put this in perspective:

Columbia arriving at KSC prior to STS-1: (L-2 thread)

http://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=13715.msg432276#msg432276

Atlantis rolling into the OPF after STS-132:

http://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=21764.msg596240#msg596240

[Chris Bergin]

Just to put this in perspective:

Columbia arriving at KSC prior to STS-1: (L-2 thread)

http://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=13715.msg432276#msg432276

Atlantis rolling into the OPF after STS-132:

http://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=21764.msg596240#msg596240

Great linkage!

[zerm]

I recall being there to see Columbia arrive that day- and seeing the old LUT in the background. The orbiter arrival was quite a sight, but the old LUT sat there like a silent reminder of how things used to be. A college pal and I drove down to the KSC area in March 79 to see the Columbia come in on the SCA- from across the river she looked pretty good to us, but on the news that evening we saw all of missing tiles. Later in May of 79 a couple of us took the bus tour and saw Enterprise on the pad- as well as the "unemployed" Apollo LUT. I recall thinking about Columbia in the OPF where they were trying to fix the tiles and looking at that old LUT and wondering if what we now had was worth what we gave up.

Funny how the Ares I ML/LUT can can bring about the same type of thinking.

Our bus driver on that tour back in 79 talked about the Apollo LUT and said that the reason why it had sat out on Pad 39 from 1975 to 1978 was because there was never anything budgeted to cover the cost of going out and picking it up and bringing it back to the VAB parking area. But, he said, the shuttle budget was used to cover that so they made the move in order to clear LC39 for shuttle modification. Now, whether or not what he said is factual, I don't know- but it sounded about right that day on the bus.

[JayP]

...Almost the last place on Earth where Armstrong & Aldrin walked before walking on the Moon...
Ross.

Ross's post reminded me of an interesting bit of trivia. It is well known that the structure of the LUTs and their hammerhead cranes were recycled to make the Fixed Service Structures at pads A and B, but what is less known is that some of the Swing arms were reused as well. Arm 8 (the service module service arm) was rebuilt as the GOX vent hood arm and Arm 9 (the Comand Module access arm) became the Crew Access Arm. I'm Not precisely sure, but I believe that the components from ML-3 went to pad A and ML-2 went to Pad B. If that is the case, then when a shuttle crew walks across the CAA to board the Shuttle, they are walking along the same steel as the crews of Apollo 10, 13, 15, 16 and 17.

I know it is a bit OT, but I thought I would share.

[Patchouli]

The best thing I can think of what to do with it is either sell it to ULA or Spacex or see if it could be re-purposed for the HLV.

[Lars_J]

I don't think either SpaceX, Orbital, or ULA even want to touch that structure with a 10-foot pole.

[kraisee]

I would agree with that assessment.

I have heard that KSC wants to turn LC-39 into a government subsidized facility to encourage commercial operators to come in.   If all of the costs of the Tower maintenance and the Crawlers were subsidized, that Tower might not be too bad...

But on the flip-side, if there are still SRB operations going on inside the VAB (SD-HLV), I doubt any other commercial operator will be interested in being in there as well, so this is probably a completely moot point anyway.

Ross.

[robertross]

But on the flip-side, if there are still SRB operations going on inside the VAB (SD-HLV), I doubt any other commercial operator will be interested in being in there as well, so this is probably a completely moot point anyway.

Ross.

Hmm...that's a good point (obviously OT though, so I'll leave it at that).

[nooneofconsequence]

But on the flip-side, if there are still SRB operations going on inside the VAB (SD-HLV), I doubt any other commercial operator will be interested in being in there as well, so this is probably a completely moot point anyway.

Ross.

Hmm...that's a good point (obviously OT though, so I'll leave it at that).

This point is under spoken. The SRB's carry considerable additional costs including opportunity cost like this. VAB as an asset has been considerably underutilized (offices, highbays, other).

Part of the total picture of a LV's financial impact include these items. One area this directly impacts is the attempt to revamp launch facilities as a multipurpose facility - SRB's make it 'single-use'.

The advantage of multiple use facilities is a industry that isn't 'single threaded' as Shuttle/USA. Now that we are at the end  of Shuttle and there's nothing to jump to - one can appreciate the rationale in having other concurrent activities.

If you use SRB's in the VAB ... there's really no point in improving the facilities much - no wide platform for cost sharing.

[Patchouli]

I don't think either SpaceX, Orbital, or ULA even want to touch that structure with a 10-foot pole.

You're probably right even though Spacex did buy Beal aerospace's old test stand they had the MSS at LC-40 demolished.

Though BFR if it's ever built probably would need a tower that high.
Heck they might even have to operate it out of a facility like LC-39 since it's supposed to be a Saturn V class LV well more specifically the INT-21 variant.

[Chris Bergin]

Now happening this week! CT already under the Ares I ML.

Will see about writing up an update.

[Chris Bergin]

MEDIA ADVISORY: M48-10

NASA INVITES MEDIA TO NEW MOBILE LAUNCHER MOVE TO PARK SITE

CAPE CANAVERAL, Fla. -- NASA's Kennedy Space Center, Fla., invites
media to view the new mobile launcher (ML) support structure's short
move from its construction site to the mobile launcher park site on
Friday, Oct. 1, at 9 a.m. EDT.

Media will be able to document the move, which is expected to take
about 30 minutes. Media need to be at Kennedy's Press Site by 8 a.m.
for transportation to the site.

Because the move time was changed on short notice, no new media badges
will be issued for this event. Only media who currently have Kennedy
credentials can attend the move.

All participants attending the event must be dressed in full-length
pants, flat shoes that cover the feet entirely and shirts with
sleeves.

Dates and times are subject to change. Please call the NASA News
Center information line at 321-867-2525 for updates.

At the park site, the ML can be outfitted with ground support
equipment, such as umbilicals and access arms, for future rocket
launches. It took about two years to construct the 355-foot-tall
structure, which will support NASA's future human spaceflight
program. The base of the launcher is lighter than space shuttle
mobile launcher platforms so the crawler-transporter can pick up the
heavier load of the tower and a taller rocket.

Video of the move will be available on NASA Television's Video File
Friday afternoon. For NASA TV streaming video, schedules and downlink
information, visit:

http://www.nasa.gov/ntv 

[Chris Bergin]

IF there's webcam coverage of this, we'll create a live thread, as it'll be a cool event.

[sdsds]

Let's keep this on the ML

Duly noted, though would it be on topic here to discuss the possibility of using this ML for a "I-Y" mission?  A mission that would use an SLS five-segment SRB flown singly in a single stage suborbital flight test?

[JosephB]

Let's keep this on the ML

Duly noted, though would it be on topic here to discuss the possibility of using this ML for a "I-Y" mission?  A mission that would use an SLS five-segment SRB flown singly in a single stage suborbital flight test?

Not a bad idea, further why not use the opportunity to test the J-2X as well? For test purposes only of course.

[Jim]

Let's keep this on the ML

Duly noted, though would it be on topic here to discuss the possibility of using this ML for a "I-Y" mission?  A mission that would use an SLS five-segment SRB flown singly in a single stage suborbital flight test?

Not a bad idea, further why not use the opportunity to test the J-2X as well? For test purposes only of course.

Very bad idea for just an engine test

Because it would require the same amount of support equipment as a full up Ares I.   The MT is just structure and it is not outfitted nor is the pad or VAB.  That is more than a 1/2 billion to finish.

[Chris Bergin]

Boooo KSC Webcam operator! No webcams pointing at the ML for the move.

http://science.ksc.nasa.gov/shuttle/countdown/video/

[zerm]

Boooo KSC Webcam operator! No webcams pointing at the ML for the move.

http://science.ksc.nasa.gov/shuttle/countdown/video/

I think it's a conspiracy

[savuporo]

The best thing I can think of what to do with it is either sell it to ULA or Spacex or see if it could be re-purposed for the HLV.

Can it be turned into a memorial of a certain recent NASA administrator instead ?

[Mark Dave]

Well why not put it in the Visitor Garden with the old rockets? If it's use for Ares 1 is no more then make the LUT part of the out door exhibit. This comes from when I was at Space Camp in Huntsville a decade ago and saw a life size replica of a Saturn V standing there. ( OT, but  now thinking on it the old Saturn V LUT could  have been put with the replica Saturn V)

I hope video will be shown soon of the Ares 1 ML being moved. I also hope it will be used for launching space vehicles instead of scrapping it.

[Chris Bergin]

I really hope they don't scrap it. But it's probably what will eventually happen.

Last update I saw was they had made the trip and were reversing into the parksite, so likely done. Will have an article on when that's confirmed.

[edkyle99]

The best thing I can think of what to do with it is either sell it to ULA or Spacex or see if it could be re-purposed for the HLV.

Can it be turned into a memorial of a certain recent NASA administrator instead ?

Or park it in front of a certain politician's house in Hyde Park, Illinois.

 - Ed Kyle

[TrueBlueWitt]

I really hope they don't scrap it. But it's probably what will eventually happen.

Last update I saw was they had made the trip and were reversing into the parksite, so likely done. Will have an article on when that's confirmed.

I thought I read that as part of this process they were supposed to "weigh" it. 

Does anyone know where it came in versus the original projection?

[robertross]

I really hope they don't scrap it. But it's probably what will eventually happen.

Last update I saw was they had made the trip and were reversing into the parksite, so likely done. Will have an article on when that's confirmed.

I thought I read that as part of this process they were supposed to "weigh" it. 

Does anyone know where it came in versus the original projection?

They weighed it yesterday apparently. No idea on mass, but figure whatever the crawler can handle, that was the maximum (actual) mass (plus/minus a few kilos)

[renclod]

http://twitpic.com/2tnyrc/full

New Mobile Launcher Catches Ride atop Crawler-Transporter
from @NASAKennedy

[Chris Bergin]

I really hope they don't scrap it. But it's probably what will eventually happen.

Last update I saw was they had made the trip and were reversing into the parksite, so likely done. Will have an article on when that's confirmed.

I thought I read that as part of this process they were supposed to "weigh" it. 

Does anyone know where it came in versus the original projection?

Yep indeed! They've weighed it twice, but we've not seen any figures. They expect it to come in much heavier than expected (or more so previously targetted), due to modifications during its frabrication.

[DaveS]

The first KSC PAO photos of the today's ML move is beginning to appear: http://mediaarchive.ksc.nasa.gov/search.cfm?cat=4

[renclod]

http://www-pao.ksc.nasa.gov/kscpao/images/large/2010-4963.jpg
http://www-pao.ksc.nasa.gov/kscpao/images/large/2010-4962.jpg
http://www-pao.ksc.nasa.gov/kscpao/images/large/2010-4961.jpg
http://www-pao.ksc.nasa.gov/kscpao/images/large/2010-4960.jpg
http://www-pao.ksc.nasa.gov/kscpao/images/large/2010-4959.jpg
http://www-pao.ksc.nasa.gov/kscpao/images/large/2010-4958.jpg
http://www-pao.ksc.nasa.gov/kscpao/images/large/2010-4957.jpg
http://www-pao.ksc.nasa.gov/kscpao/images/large/2010-4956.jpg
http://www-pao.ksc.nasa.gov/kscpao/images/large/2010-4955.jpg
http://www-pao.ksc.nasa.gov/kscpao/images/large/2010-4954.jpg
http://www-pao.ksc.nasa.gov/kscpao/images/large/2010-4953.jpg

[Chris Bergin]

Article:

http://www.nasaspaceflight.com/2010/10/ares-i-ml-takes-ride-crawler-transporter-relocation/

[Ronsmytheiii]