Available to Rent: One VAB High Bay, three Mobile Launcher Platforms

[Chris Bergin]

http://www.nasaspaceflight.com/2015/06/available-one-vab-high-bay-three-mlp/

[RichAM]

Very interesting, although you should go straight to rocket jail for mentioning Liberty!

Whatever happened to that awful rocket?

[Chris Bergin]

Very interesting, although you should go straight to rocket jail for mentioning Liberty!

Whatever happened to that awful rocket?

Heh. I see no love for sticks remains the case.

Shelved, as noted. Would make for an interesting media request and see what fluffy line we get back.....

[notsorandom]

Presumably any potential rocket to use the VAB which was not small enough to fly from the new pad would use 39B. That pesents some issues in terms of pad infrastructure. Unless this hypothetical vehicle exclusively used solid and LH2/LOX additional propellant infrastructure would have to be added. Also that and any other modifications couldn't impact SLS.

[edkyle99]

Very interesting, although you should go straight to rocket jail for mentioning Liberty!

Whatever happened to that awful rocket?

It was too much rocket for Commercial Crew, and its team was behind on the spacecraft side, so it lost the competition to Boeing and another company. 

A misapplication, really.  SRB in-line would be better applied as a solution for the RD-180 problem. 

People need to understand that the VAB is at risk of demolition if a user like Liberty can't be found.

 - Ed Kyle

[Hauerg]

Now I am waiting for a tweet from@elonmusk: Interesting offer, but too small. 

[411rocket]

Very interesting, although you should go straight to rocket jail for mentioning Liberty!

Whatever happened to that awful rocket?

It was too much rocket for Commercial Crew, and its team was behind on the spacecraft side, so it lost the competition to Boeing and another company. 

A misapplication, really.  SRB in-line would be better applied as a solution for the RD-180 problem. 

People need to understand that the VAB is at risk of demolition if a user like Liberty can't be found.

 - Ed Kyle

No use in keeping it around, for SLS, by the sounds of it.

[OnWithTheShow]

What good is an MLP without a crawler transporter?

[darkenfast]

What good is an MLP without a crawler transporter?

With all the money they've put into upgrading the Crawlers, I'm sure they're available to charter for moving anybody's MLP/rocket.  Makes sense to use them.

[R7]

Whatever happened to that awful rocket?

Who cares as long as it remains dead and buried. If you hear scratching against the coffin lid drive another oak stake thru it.

[woods170]

Very interesting, although you should go straight to rocket jail for mentioning Liberty!

Whatever happened to that awful rocket?

It was too much rocket for Commercial Crew, and its team was behind on the spacecraft side, so it lost the competition to Boeing and another company. 

A misapplication, really.  SRB in-line would be better applied as a solution for the RD-180 problem. 

People need to understand that the VAB is at risk of demolition if a user like Liberty can't be found.

 - Ed Kyle

That would only be the case if SLS goes away. Oh wait...

[Chris Bergin]

Now I am waiting for a tweet from@elonmusk: Interesting offer, but too small. 

I don't think he'd like the paperwork. Typical NASA with the conditions and jumping through hoops:

http://prod.nais.nasa.gov/eps/eps_data/165724-SOL-001-001.docx

[notsorandom]

I'm still trying to figure out a realistic scenario for a non SLS rocket to live in the VAB. The small rockets being talked about don't need a high bay or perhaps not even a transfer isle. VAB for something the size of a Falcon 1 is overkill. All the existing rockets already have a place to roost. There are only two new rockets being worked on, Vulcan and Blue's Big Brother. Vulcan is already got a nice facility to launch from. Presumably Blue has already figured out where they will be taking off from though they are the only potential user that might make sense. They did want 39A.

[edkyle99]

Whatever happened to that awful rocket?

Who cares as long as it remains dead and buried. If you hear scratching against the coffin lid drive another oak stake thru it.

I don't understand what was "awful" about the idea.  It would have used existing propulsion, allowing cost sharing with other rockets.  It could have handled nearly EELV-Heavy missions with an essentially-existing third stage (and probably more with purpose-developed stages).  It would have avoided the RD-180 issue, an engine with uncertain future upon which commercial crew now depends.  And, the basic idea (launching a big rocket using a 3 million pound thrust class solid motor) is already flight proven.

 - Ed Kyle

[Thorny]

Regarding the High Bays. High Bay 2 (west-facing) is available for lease. SLS is using either High Bay 1 or 3. What will happen to the other east-facing High Bay?

[Heinrich]

Nice article Chris.
I'm struggling to make some time to keep up to date recently, so i might not have read all the news. But isn't SLS using one of the MLPs? I thought one of the MPLs was converted for the Ares I-X test, which since then has become/will become the SLS MLP. But you article suggests that all 3 are available for commercial parties. Did I miss anything?

[Chris Bergin]

Nice article Chris.
I'm struggling to make some time to keep up to date recently, so i might not have read all the news. But isn't SLS using one of the MLPs? I thought one of the MPLs was converted for the Ares I-X test, which since then has become/will become the SLS MLP. But you article suggests that all 3 are available for commercial parties. Did I miss anything?

Thanks! And as noted in the article, SLS is using the former Ares I ML, which is nearing the end of its conversion for SLS use.

Articles: http://www.nasaspaceflight.com/?s=%22Mobile+Launcher%22

It's brand new, not a former Shuttle MLP. Ares I-X used a Shuttle MLP, riding over one of the two SRB ducts.

So they've got three former Shuttle MLPs and one SLS ML. Below is Ares I-X on the Shuttle MLP.

[Jim]

1.  A misapplication, really.  SRB in-line would be better applied as a solution for the RD-180 problem. 

2.  People need to understand that the VAB is at risk of demolition if a user like Liberty can't be found.

1.  Not at all true.  It is not a solution.  It is just a problem looking for money.

2.  So what?  Why should it be kept if there is no need for it?  It is more of a hindrance than an asset at this point.

[Jim]

[quote author=edkyle99
I don't understand what was "awful" about the idea.  It would have used existing propulsion, allowing cost sharing with other rockets.  It could have handled nearly EELV-Heavy missions with an essentially-existing third stage (and probably more with purpose-developed stages).  It would have avoided the RD-180 issue, an engine with uncertain future upon which commercial crew now depends.  And, the basic idea (launching a big rocket using a 3 million pound thrust class solid motor) is already flight proven.

 - Ed Kyle

Every you list is awful.

1.  The cost "sharing" is a poor reason since the flight rates are still too low to matter. 
2.  3 different stages for EELV heavy would be much more expensive than existing vehicles.  And there is no pad access.
3.  The vehicle is too costly for RD-180 EELV missions.
4.  It is not a safe vehicle as existing, since it has a low flight rate
5.  It is not flight proven

[butters]

The requirement to use the high bay and MLPs for commercial aerospace means that it could only be plausibly rented to Blue Origin. Nobody else would have any interest.  Otherwise this infrastructure might be useful for building offshore oil rigs.

Good luck KSC...

[Prober]

1.  A misapplication, really.  SRB in-line would be better applied as a solution for the RD-180 problem. 

2.  People need to understand that the VAB is at risk of demolition if a user like Liberty can't be found.

1.  Not at all true.  It is not a solution.  It is just a problem looking for money.

2.  So what?  Why should it be kept if there is no need for it?  It is more of a hindrance than an asset at this point.

2. Take I down now, never get a replacement.  Buildings might be cheap by comparison to some other items. The fight as a budget item is another matter.
 

[Zed_Noir]

SpaceX could use the VAB as a barn for vertically stored Falcon cores. How many cores can fitted in a high bay?

[woods170]

Whatever happened to that awful rocket?

Who cares as long as it remains dead and buried. If you hear scratching against the coffin lid drive another oak stake thru it.

I don't understand what was "awful" about the idea.  It would have used existing propulsion, allowing cost sharing with other rockets.  It could have handled nearly EELV-Heavy missions with an essentially-existing third stage (and probably more with purpose-developed stages).  It would have avoided the RD-180 issue, an engine with uncertain future upon which commercial crew now depends.  And, the basic idea (launching a big rocket using a 3 million pound thrust class solid motor) is already flight proven.

 - Ed Kyle

The idea just simply was not a good one. The whole idea behind the stick was to develop it first and hence have key-technology for the big lifter (Ares  V) good to go (SRB, J-2X). But the fact remains that it was a kludge and particularly a kludge that generated a host of problems on it's own. Like the need for a unnecessarily powerfull (and thus unnecessarily heavy) LAS to out-run an exploding solid motor. Or the need for an unneccesarily roomy (and thus heavy) boost protective cover to sufficiently cancel out the accoustics (SRB's are very noisy by nature). Or the fact that SRB's inherently come with thrust oscillation that required multiple years of investigation in- and development of (heavy) mitigation. Or the fact that upper stage was wider than the first stage, in turn requiring an interstage very prone to buckling which in turn required serious beefing-up (adding more mass). Or the fact that such a tall and slender vehicle is very prone to drifting-with-the-wind upon lift-off which in turn seriously restricted the allowed-for wind conditions upon launch (to prevent the vehicle from drifting into the LUT). Most of these problems were inherent to the choice of a large solid rocket motor as the first stage of a manned vehicle. It was simply a bad idea. And the funny thing is that Werner von Braun had already pointed that out half a century earlier.

The re-incarnation of Ares-1, aka Liberty, had going for it that it was supposed to be an unmanned vehicle and thus doing away with many of the above-mentioned problems.
Oh wait, that's not true. It was supposed to be manned thus inheriting most problems associated with Ares-1. So, by definition Liberty was a bad idea also. Fortunately the folks at NASA had finally realized this and rightfully denied the Liberty consortium any chance in competing for commercial crew.

[edkyle99]

1.  The cost "sharing" is a poor reason since the flight rates are still too low to matter. 
2.  3 different stages for EELV heavy would be much more expensive than existing vehicles.  And there is no pad access.
3.  The vehicle is too costly for RD-180 EELV missions.
4.  It is not a safe vehicle as existing, since it has a low flight rate
5.  It is not flight proven

RD-180 is history for EELV, so that cost comparison is also history.  But since an SRB In-Line would be best aimed at Heavy missions, the comparison should be versus Delta 4 Heavy, which has four "stages" for all practical purposes with its triple core and costs $$$$. 

But that comparison is also soon history, isn't it?  So the comparison should be against this new Vulcan rocket that might or might not fly next decade, which will need not just the new first stage powered by a new engine using new propellants but also a completely new second stage and six solid motors to do Heavy. 

I get it.  SRB In-Line doesn't fit the launch landscape, and isn't cheap, and doesn't seem to have any benefactors.  But the landscape is quickly changing, and those SRBs work, and LC 39 is built to handle them.

 - Ed Kyle

[woods170]

1.  The cost "sharing" is a poor reason since the flight rates are still too low to matter. 
2.  3 different stages for EELV heavy would be much more expensive than existing vehicles.  And there is no pad access.
3.  The vehicle is too costly for RD-180 EELV missions.
4.  It is not a safe vehicle as existing, since it has a low flight rate
5.  It is not flight proven

RD-180 is history for EELV, so that cost comparison is also history.  But since an SRB In-Line would be best aimed at Heavy missions, the comparison should be versus Delta 4 Heavy, which has four "stages" for all practical purposes with its triple core and costs $$$$. 

But that comparison is also soon history, isn't it?  So the comparison should be against this new Vulcan rocket that might or might not fly next decade, which will need not just the new first stage powered by a new engine using new propellants but also a completely new second stage and six solid motors to do Heavy. 

I get it.  SRB In-Line doesn't fit the launch landscape, and isn't cheap, and doesn't seem to have any benefactors.  But the landscape is quickly changing, and those SRBs work, and LC 39 is built to handle them.

 - Ed Kyle

Yup. But they won't be used in an in-line configuration. Just sayin'

[Hotblack Desiato]

this article just forced me to start this thread in the ksp-board

http://forum.kerbalspaceprogram.com/threads/125766-one-VAB-high-bay-for-rent

seems as if there are some people interested in renting it (yet lacking the necessary funds)

[Prober]

SpaceX could use the VAB as a barn for vertically stored Falcon cores. How many cores can fitted in a high bay?

better yet, setup a historical display of a Saturn 5 vertical.   It has to be done right however, and show the full majesty.   Sure they would sell a few tickets to see this

 

[R7]

better yet, setup a historical display of a Saturn 5 vertical.   It has to be done right however and show the full majesty.   Sure they would sell a few tickets to see this

Stacked STS in another bay and SLS (as much of it as gets built before the axe falls) in the third. Roc hanging from wing tip in the fourth bay.

Really, becoming a museum seems a likely fate for the VAB. For BFR operations it is too tall and too short