-
#40
by
jml
on 17 Feb, 2009 20:24
-
So, at what point can NASA decide that this is far enough along that Ares I-X won't need the lightning tower extension for the FSS on 39B?
-
#41
by
padrat
on 18 Feb, 2009 18:57
-
Well, just to give you an idea, they are currently scheduled to begin taking down the wires and FSS lightning mast next week. Will be bringing a big crane on to the pad surface next week, but obviously not one of the 21000's scale.
-
#42
by
John44
on 19 Feb, 2009 15:14
-
-
#43
by
JayP
on 19 Feb, 2009 19:42
-
Well, just to give you an idea, they are currently scheduled to begin taking down the wires and FSS lightning mast next week. Will be bringing a big crane on to the pad surface next week, but obviously not one of the 21000's scale.
Are they finaly going to remove the old crane equipment room like they did years ago at pad A?
-
#44
by
Pheogh
on 19 Feb, 2009 20:23
-
Sorry if this has been asked already but are there any new camera's up there? for launch viewing.
-
#45
by
punkboi
on 19 Feb, 2009 20:38
-
-
#46
by
padrat
on 20 Feb, 2009 16:31
-
Well, just to give you an idea, they are currently scheduled to begin taking down the wires and FSS lightning mast next week. Will be bringing a big crane on to the pad surface next week, but obviously not one of the 21000's scale.
Are they finaly going to remove the old crane equipment room like they did years ago at pad A?
Haven't heard about it, but I imagine that would stay on the tower until it's demolished so the cost can be rolled into the demo contract. Just my thoughts.
-
#47
by
iamlucky13
on 20 Feb, 2009 21:20
-
For that matter, what's the point of getting rid of the FSS lightning mast? Will it draw strikes away from the new one?
-
#48
by
sbt
on 20 Feb, 2009 21:43
-
The way I read it is that the cable it supports has to come down, otherwise it gets in the way of lifting the cables that will be strung between the new towers. You could probably work out a way of leaving it up but it would cost time and money now and, to maintain it, in the future and the cable is redundant anyway.
Once you have a crane in place to remove the cable you might as well remove the, relatively light, tower as it won't cost much more and leaving it in place means you have to check and maintain it.
The old machinery room however is much bigger and lower and therefore relitively structurally sound and so can be more easily effectively 'abandoned in place'. Which is good because it would require a larger crane and more money and time (which potentially cause problems for both Constellation and the Shuttle) to remove right now. Removing it when you have the heavy lifting and cutting people in to remove the rest of the Service Structures makes more sense in terms of both time and money.
Rick
-
#49
by
khallow
on 21 Feb, 2009 00:57
-
Couple weeks ago, I visited Canaveral National Seashore and saw the lightning masts (third one incomplete at the time with the crane at full extension). Thanks to Ron's aerial photos, a question of mine has been answered, namely, how are those situated around the pad.
However, I now have a second question. I note that the triangle formed by the three towers is off-center with respect to the launch pad. What's the reason for the asymmetry?
-
#50
by
Scotty
on 21 Feb, 2009 01:14
-
Available space.
Pad 39B is becoming a very congested place.
Remember they have to leave space for the roller coaster emergency escape system.
-
#51
by
gladiator1332
on 21 Feb, 2009 05:32
-
Available space.
Pad 39B is becoming a very congested place.
Remember they have to leave space for the roller coaster emergency escape system.
I forgot about that...man, with all of this clutter, we're never going to be able to see Ares I when it's on the pad!
-
#52
by
AnalogMan
on 22 Feb, 2009 00:48
-
Couple weeks ago, I visited Canaveral National Seashore and saw the lightning masts (third one incomplete at the time with the crane at full extension). Thanks to Ron's aerial photos, a question of mine has been answered, namely, how are those situated around the pad.
However, I now have a second question. I note that the triangle formed by the three towers is off-center with respect to the launch pad. What's the reason for the asymmetry?
Although the towers are not arranged as an equilateral triangle, they are located on the vertices of an isosceles triangle. The axis of symmetry of this triangle does pass through the center of the launch pad.
Location of the towers (detailed site plans are posted on the L2 section of the forum) seems to suggest that they are located to avoid existing facilities and elevated contours within the site.
Hope this helps.
-
#53
by
punkboi
on 26 Feb, 2009 17:49
-
The way I read it is that the cable it supports has to come down, otherwise it gets in the way of lifting the cables that will be strung between the new towers. You could probably work out a way of leaving it up but it would cost time and money now and, to maintain it, in the future and the cable is redundant anyway.
Once you have a crane in place to remove the cable you might as well remove the, relatively light, tower as it won't cost much more and leaving it in place means you have to check and maintain it.
The old machinery room however is much bigger and lower and therefore relitively structurally sound and so can be more easily effectively 'abandoned in place'. Which is good because it would require a larger crane and more money and time (which potentially cause problems for both Constellation and the Shuttle) to remove right now. Removing it when you have the heavy lifting and cutting people in to remove the rest of the Service Structures makes more sense in terms of both time and money.
Rick
An image of a crane at Pad 39B is captured on the KSC Video Feed
-
#54
by
Ronsmytheiii
on 28 Feb, 2009 15:36
-
the crane seems to have been raised, also cleaned up the image:
-
#55
by
sbt
on 28 Feb, 2009 16:28
-
From the looks of it what we are seeing is the lowered Flying Jib in front of the Main Boom. You can see that the hauling cable and some stay cables are closer to the camera than the truss-work and that you see the main cable again behind the truss-work
Think of it as the boom being bent in the middle, in an inverted V.
And it sounds like I was wrong about the machinery – but then if the best crane to remove the mast has the capacity to take away the machinery, or the extra cost is marginal, then you take away the machinery
BTW I think I remember reading elsewhere on the site that the Hammerhead Crane was, apart from construction work, originally used to lift required items on and off the MLP during the launch campaign . I suspect that the Apollo crane was also used similarly and in the first stage of the lift of the Lightning Protection cable to the top of the tower (which had to be done for every launch). Once close to the top you could rig a realisticly short purchase from the tip of the tower to the cable.
As time has gone on mobile cranes have developed into larger and more portable versions and in both the US and the UK it has become both feasible and economically advantageous where lifts are intermittent to hire in mobile cranes as required rather than maintain rarely used static equipment. The crane hire firm is able to spread the maintenance costs over a large number of lifts, and therefore customers. The crane firm is also able to justify holding spares for the vehicles and spare vehicles so the risk of critical lifts not taking place on time is mitigated. Finally crane operation is a specialist skill that is expensive to maintain – so hiring the operator with the crane makes sense.
Hence the retirement of the Hammerhead.
Similar factors apply to other construction plant which is why fewer and fewer of the smaller firms use their own plant. They are also able to get up to date equipment and get access to rarely used specialist plant. If they own their own plant it will often be a transporter to move on-hire plant between jobs or reduce the transport charges from the Plant Hire firm. (Obviously the very big firms are in a different situation.)
Rick
-
#56
by
Ronsmytheiii
on 03 Mar, 2009 12:15
-
Seems work on the FSS has begun:
Edit up close view of the FSS extension, wonder what is going to happen to it:
-
#57
by
punkboi
on 04 Mar, 2009 19:01
-
-
#58
by
Bubbinski
on 05 Mar, 2009 01:35
-
That is one funky looking launch tower without the lightning mast.
I look forward to seeing those 3 lightning towers when I visit Florida for the STS-125 launch.
Edited to add: Where will this lightning mast end up? Might it go to the KSC visitor center display? I think that's what I'd do if I were in charge, unless there's someplace it can still be used. It is after all, a (small) piece of history.
-
#59
by
charlieb
on 05 Mar, 2009 12:01
-
Mount it on the pre-fabbed extention tower that was to be used at 39-B FSS, but mount all of this at the KSC Visitors Center - as a functional display - cantenary wires and all protecting the Visitors Center, instead of scrapping everything.
