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

[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