 |
 | Home | Contact Us | FAQ | Search & Site Map | Link to Us |
 | Sign In | Join | Other 45 Sites in Network |
| HomeDiscussion GroupsSpace ScienceAstronomyAmateur AstronomySpace FlightSpace StationShuttleSpace HistorySpace PolicySETI SpaceKB.com Contact UsLink To UsSearch & Site Map |
Space Forum / Space History / December 2006Ares V to require construction of a new "super crawler"?
This from nasaspaceflight.com: Around the same time, modifications will take place on MLP-1 - a current Shuttle Mobile Launch Platform - to support the Ares I test flights. This will be a phased modification, with the eventual change to a ML (Mobile Launcher) - and then the construction of a 'super crawler' able to carry the huge weight of the Ares V. So Ares V can't reuse the crawlers as-is? Too much weight with the five segment SRB's and the launch tower integrated on the MLP? Will this require brand new crawlers, or would the old ones be refitted and strengthened? Jeff  Signature"They that can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety" - B. Franklin, Bartlett's Familiar Quotations (1919) >So Ares V can't reuse the crawlers as-is? Too much weight with the five >segment SRB's and the launch tower integrated on the MLP? Will this require >brand new crawlers, or would the old ones be refitted and strengthened? The NASA crawler carrying rockets standing up has always seemed a bit precarious compared to the primitive simplicity of the R7/Soyuz horizontal transport on a train. If we have to build a supercrawler, then it would be a good opportunity to revisit that decision. It would also be a good time to revisit the model of constructing the launcher in the VAB and transporting it to the pad. The "occupied pad" model with a rocket on it being built on it may be a better alternative for a rocket that is only going to launch a couple of times a year. A lot of our infrastructure and launch model is based on frequent launches (we never had 4 bays filled with Saturn V rockets, even though the rocket scientists dreamed of it). In another thread, the explaination of loading payloads at the pad vs VAB had to do with VAB scheduling, and was an assumption based on a high flight rate. If we admit that the flight rate of Aries V is going to be low, then can make different decisions that make more sense for the flight rate. >The NASA crawler carrying rockets standing up has always seemed a bit >precarious compared to the primitive simplicity of the R7/Soyuz horizontal >transport on a train. To be fair, Saturn V was enormous compared to R7. Shuttle inherited Saturn's infrastructure, so vertical assembly and rollout wasthe easiest to use with the existing assets (although some fanciful early paintings show horizontal mothership/orbiter rollout.) >If we have to build a supercrawler, then it would be a good opportunity to >revisit that decision. As long as you're using segmented SRBs, you're almost certainly better off with vertical integration. And NASA seems hellbent on using the SRBs. >It would also be a good time to revisit the model of >constructing the launcher in the VAB and transporting it to the pad. Not in Florida's weather and seaside launch pads. >(we never had 4 bays filled with Saturn V rockets, even though the >rocket scientists dreamed of it). That's because NASA only outfitted three of the bays, leaving the fourth free for future upgraded vehicles that never appeared. And in the spring of 1969, all three functional bays were in use by Apollos 9, 10, and 11. Brian >>The NASA crawler carrying rockets standing up has always seemed a bit >>precarious compared to the primitive simplicity of the R7/Soyuz horizontal >>transport on a train. >To be fair, Saturn V was enormous compared to R7. Shuttle inherited >Saturn's infrastructure, so vertical assembly and rollout wasthe >easiest to use with the existing assets (although some fanciful early >paintings show horizontal mothership/orbiter rollout.) It Sure Would be Nice if someone had a graphic comparing oh, Saturn_V stack vs Shuttle vs Soyuz vs CEV etc. Each one with size, gross mass, cargo mass, etc. I find it hard to get a good feel for such from just raw numbers.. SignatureA host is a host from coast to coast.................wb8foz@nrk.com & no one will talk to a host that's close........[v].(301) 56-LINUX Unless the host (that isn't close).........................pob 1433 is busy, hung or dead....................................20915-1433 > It Sure Would be Nice if someone had a graphic comparing oh, > Saturn_V stack vs Shuttle vs Soyuz vs CEV etc. Each one with size, > gross mass, cargo mass, etc. I find it hard to get a good feel for > such from just raw numbers.. Everything is on teh interweb, it's just a matter of finding it. http://www.merzo.net/index.html Try the 1x page, go to the bottom. SignatureDavid M. Palmer dmpalmer@email.com (formerly @clark.net, @ematic.com) >It Sure Would be Nice if someone had a graphic comparing oh, >Saturn_V stack vs Shuttle vs Soyuz vs CEV etc. Each one with size, >gross mass, cargo mass, etc. I find it hard to get a good feel for >such from just raw numbers.. Although it doesn't have the numerical details, Peter Alway's "Rockets of the World" poster is interesting for a size comparison. It shows all (okay, nearly all) of the research rockets and satellite launchers, arranged in rows by length. The top row is the little stuff, including Goddard's rocket and a bunch of little sounding rockets. The next row gets taller, including Black Arrow, DC-X, etc. Two more rows of medium-sized rockets. Then two final rows of big ones, including most of today's big launchers -- Shuttle, the Titans, Soyuz, Proton, Saturn IB, etc. (It's too old to show the Areses.) Except that the bottom two rows aren't as wide as the previous rows; they stop short of the right side of the poster. Because in the lower right corner, in a class all by themselves, towering the full height of *both* bottom rows put together, are the two giants: the N1 and the Saturn V. Signaturespsystems.net is temporarily off the air; | Henry Spencer mail to henry at zoo.utoronto.ca instead. | henry@spsystems.net >>> The NASA crawler carrying rockets standing up has always seemed a bit >>> precarious compared to the primitive simplicity of the R7/Soyuz horizontal [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] >> easiest to use with the existing assets (although some fanciful early >> paintings show horizontal mothership/orbiter rollout.) Both the N1 (size comparable to Saturn 5) and the Buran (Shuttle sized) were assembled and transported horizontal, and only raised when reaching the platform, similar to the R7 and Proton rockets. The SRB cant be tilted, they have to be assembled vertical.. >If we have to build a supercrawler, then it would be a good opportunity to >revisit that decision. It would also be a good time to revisit the model of >constructing the launcher in the VAB and transporting it to the pad. Herm Astropics http://home.att.net/~hermperez >>brand new crawlers, or would the old ones be refitted and strengthened? > >The NASA crawler carrying rockets standing up has always seemed a bit >precarious compared to the primitive simplicity of the R7/Soyuz horizontal >transport on a train. Bear in mind that NASA adopted the crawler scheme for LC-39 after some bad experiences with rail systems for moving service towers etc. at LC-37. Even "primitive simplicity" can get very expensive if you scale it up far enough. >...It would also be a good time to revisit the model of >constructing the launcher in the VAB and transporting it to the pad. The >"occupied pad" model with a rocket on it being built on it may be a better >alternative for a rocket that is only going to launch a couple of times a >year... That's pretty definitely what you'd do, for that launch volume, if you were starting from scratch. It's not entirely clear that it's the right thing to do when you've got an existing VAB to work with. >...In another thread, the explaination of >loading payloads at the pad vs VAB had to do with VAB scheduling, and was an >assumption based on a high flight rate. Actually, that's sort of an intermediate case: it's what you end up doing if you can't just roll out and launch -- if you still have to sit on the pad for a while -- but you nevertheless want to be able to accommodate substantial traffic. For a *high* flight rate, what you want to do is roll out only a few hours before launch, with everything possible already ready, and only cryo fueling and crew loading to be done on the pad. (As witness how Ariane 5 does things.) That way, *all* the preparations are done in a controlled environment, which is easier, cheaper, and quicker. Signaturespsystems.net is temporarily off the air; | Henry Spencer mail to henry at zoo.utoronto.ca instead. | henry@spsystems.net >Bear in mind that NASA adopted the crawler scheme for LC-39 after some bad >experiences with rail systems for moving service towers etc. at LC-37. >Even "primitive simplicity" can get very expensive if you scale it up far >enough. Every time I see the N-1/Energia transporter, I keep thinking: "Didn't Wings Over The World have one of these in 'Things To Come' "? You know full well that Tupolev wanted to make something like this: http://www.stomptokyo.com/badmoviereport/pics/T/Things2Come07.jpg :-) Just like you know full well that somebody who saw this in that movie as a kid grew up to design the Fairey Gyrodyne: http://www.cshobbies.com/images/gyrocopter4.jpg Just like the kid in the U.S. grew up to design the McDonnell XV-1. http://avia.russian.ee/helicopters_eng/fairey_gyrodyne.php http://avia.russian.ee/helicopters_eng/mcdonnell_xv-1-r.html Pat >You know full well that Tupolev wanted to make something like this: >http://www.stomptokyo.com/badmoviereport/pics/T/Things2Come07.jpg :-) ...Tupolev? Hell, Frank Lloyd Wright and Jack Northrup would have had a better chance! OM Signature]=====================================[ ] OMBlog - http://www.io.com/~o_m/omworld [ ] Let's face it: Sometimes you *need* [ ] an obnoxious opinion in your day! [ ]=====================================[ >...Tupolev? Hell, Frank Lloyd Wright and Jack Northrup would have had >a better chance! > Don't forget Norman Bel Geddes: http://home.att.net/~dannysoar/BelGeddes.htm Even the A-380 isn't in this thing's league. Here's other shots of the W.O.W. planes: http://home.att.net/~dannysoar3/ThingsToCome.htm Wouldn't you like to have a pressure suit helmet that makes you look like a self-mobile vacuum tube? Pat > Don't forget Norman Bel Geddes: > http://home.att.net/~dannysoar/BelGeddes.htm > Even the A-380 isn't in this thing's league. Notice the upper engine deck wing BTW? http://home.att.net/~dannysoar/BGDECK9ENGINESa.gif You can go out into the wing and work on the engines on the B-36 and Maxim Gorky. On this thing you bring six extra engines along in case one or more of the twenty engines needs to be replaced in flight. :-D Considering that this design dates from 1929, this must have been the inspiration for the giant flying wings in "Things To Come". Pat >> Don't forget Norman Bel Geddes: >>http://home.att.net/~dannysoar/BelGeddes.htm >> Even the A-380 isn't in this thing's league. > >Notice the upper engine deck wing BTW? >http://home.att.net/~dannysoar/BGDECK9ENGINESa.gif As usual, I trimmed that to <http://home.att.net/~dannysoar/> to look at his home page. Try it :-) > As usual, I trimmed that to <http://home.att.net/~dannysoar/> to look > at his home page. > Try it :-) Yeah, he's got lots of fun stuff. :-) I was the one who put him onto the "Things To Come" stuff BTW. That single-seater "Bolide" still looks nose heavy to me. I've read somewhere that they built that full-size for the movie and actually glided it down for the landing scene. Pat >> ...Tupolev? Hell, Frank Lloyd Wright and Jack Northrup would have had >> a better chance! [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > http://home.att.net/~dannysoar/BelGeddes.htm > Even the A-380 isn't in this thing's league. Whoa. Seen this before, but always a fave. I can't help wondering if Bel Geddes had thought about turbulence, weight, flexibility before designing a transatlantic airliner with a promenade deck, a squash court, and staterooms in the wings. Signature. "Though I could not caution all, I yet may warn a few: Don't lend your hand to raise no flag atop no ship of fools!" --grateful dead. _______________________________________________________________ Mike Flugennock, flugennock at sinkers dot org "Mikey'zine": dubya dubya dubya dot sinkers dot org > I can't help wondering if Bel Geddes had thought about turbulence, > weight, flexibility before designing a transatlantic airliner with a > promenade deck, a squash court, and staterooms in the wings. I built a four-foot span balsa flying wing very similar to that in design; those elevated control surfaces at the wingtips don't work worth a damn. If you get near a stall they get caught in the turbulence over the top of the wing and completely lose their effectiveness. Mine ended up as a pile of kindling on a road after a backslide and vertical dive off of a bridge. The only way to get it to work is keep your wing loading very low, and that thing is anything but light looking. If you are going to do something along those lines the control surfaces belong on the trailing edge or bottom of the wing; not the top. Of course, NBG also designed this: http://shl.stanford.edu/Bucky/dymaxion/flyingcar.jpg Now, call me old fashioned, but I think the yaw stability of an aircraft is improved by having its vertical surfaces to the _rear_ of the CG. Having control surfaces and a horizontal stabilizer of some sort helps also. The Russians actually tried out something with a similar wing layout to that, the Kalinin K-12: http://www.umt.fme.vutbr.cz/~ruja/modely/podklady/Kalinin/K-12/k-12c.jpg http://www.umt.fme.vutbr.cz/~ruja/modely/podklady/Kalinin/K-12/1.jpg It proved to be virtually uncontrollable. Comrade! You will ask "Why is this aircraft painted so strangely?" Comrade! It is painted to resemble a firebird! "Why should it resemble a firebird?" you will no doubt ask. Because, much like a firebird, those who fly it must end their lives in flames, and achieve new life as their ashes are entombed in the the nest of rebirth that is the Kremlin Wall! "Comrade Kalinin is a genius! I must see if he built other aircraft!" you will now yell, as the very wonder of Marxist-Leninist aircraft design enraptures your revolutionary, yet completely atheistic, Red Soul! Comrade! Behold the Kalinin K-7! Look upon historically perfected Air-Communism without error!: http://vintage-aviation.hp.infoseek.co.jp/ussr_kalinin-k7_1933.jpg http://www.umt.fme.vutbr.cz/~ruja/modely/podklady/Kalinin/K-7/k7-1.jpg http://www.umt.fme.vutbr.cz/~ruja/modely/podklady/Kalinin/K-7/k7-2.jpg Comrade! The thing fell apart in midair, and comrade Kalinin was liquidated during a purge...but this should not sway us from attempting to design aircraft "as radical as reality itself!" as Comrade Lenin would say. He was no doubt a Trotskyite Wrecker.* Aerodynamics? Mathematics? Wind Tunnels? COMRADE! The True Revolutionary Aero-Plane Designer Strides Forward Bravely, and does not rely on such hobbling counterrevolutionary crutches! * Kalinin or Lenin? Both? Neither? When in doubt, anyone other than Comrade Stalin is a Trotskyite Wrecker! As Maxim Gorky once said: "If you can keep your head while all about you are losing theirs…then you respect Comrade Stalin's wisdom, and that Gawd-awful big knife that Comrade Beria carries around with him." Let Socialism Be Your Guide! :-) Pat >>...Tupolev? Hell, Frank Lloyd Wright and Jack Northrup would have had >>a better chance! > >Don't forget Norman Bel Geddes: http://home.att.net/~dannysoar/BelGeddes.htm ...I take it you have the _Crash Ryan_ miniseries too? OM Signature]=====================================[ ] OMBlog - http://www.io.com/~o_m/omworld [ ] Let's face it: Sometimes you *need* [ ] an obnoxious opinion in your day! [ ]=====================================[ >...I take it you have the _Crash Ryan_ miniseries too? > > I never heard of that one till I looked it up on Google. Here's a model of The Spider Gang's flying wing from the Dick Tracy serials: http://www.fantastic-plastic.com/SPIDER'S%20WING%20MAIN.jpg Pat >>...I take it you have the _Crash Ryan_ miniseries too? >I never heard of that one till I looked it up on Google. ...I'll see if I can't get someone to post that one on one of the binary groups and then shoot it your way. I'm convinced that whoever wrote "Sky Captain" had to have read "Crash Ryan" beforehand, because the influences in the basic plot are there. "Crash" would have been the better way to go, IMO, especially with the way the events of the series totally fracked the Nazis and the Japs, and either prevented or significantly delayed WWII. >Here's a model of The Spider Gang's flying wing from the Dick Tracy serials: >http://www.fantastic-plastic.com/SPIDER'S%20WING%20MAIN.jpg ...You know, I once asked Allen Ury if he has a life, and if not, is he addicted to paint and glue fumes from the constant, 29/8 exposure. OM Signature]=====================================[ ] OMBlog - http://www.io.com/~o_m/omworld [ ] Let's face it: Sometimes you *need* [ ] an obnoxious opinion in your day! [ ]=====================================[ >Just like you know full well that somebody who saw this in that movie as >a kid grew up to design the Fairey Gyrodyne: >http://www.cshobbies.com/images/gyrocopter4.jpg ...I wonder if anyone ever did a version of this for X-Plane or some other flight sim? OM Signature]=====================================[ ] OMBlog - http://www.io.com/~o_m/omworld [ ] Let's face it: Sometimes you *need* [ ] an obnoxious opinion in your day! [ ]=====================================[ >The NASA crawler carrying rockets standing up has always seemed a bit >precarious compared to the primitive simplicity of the R7/Soyuz horizontal >transport on a train. > The N-1/Energia transporter makes our crawler look positivly simple: http://www.hrw.com/science/si-science/earth/spacetravel/spacerace/SpaceRace/sec3 00/img/381L1bP1b.JPG http://www.electronicintellect.net/Baikonur/crawler/4.jpg >If we have to build a supercrawler, then it would be a good opportunity to >revisit that decision. It would also be a good time to revisit the model of [quoted text clipped - 10 lines] >different decisions that make more sense for the flight rate. > >> The NASA crawler carrying rockets standing up has always seemed a bit >> precarious compared to the primitive simplicity of the R7/Soyuz [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > The N-1/Energia transporter makes our crawler look positivly simple: > http://www.hrw.com/science/si-science/earth/spacetravel/spacerace/SpaceRace/sec3 00/img/381L1bP1b.JPG Yeeow, no sh.t. Every time I see a foto of that thing being stood up, I have to ask myself how long it took them to come up with something that worked that way without the vehicle breaking in half or falling off. Still, I honestly couldn't guess which method is the greater risk or bigger pain in the a.s -- stacking/rolling out vertically, or rolling it out on a railroad and then using some huge-assed rig to stand it up. I can't recall even from my repeated re-readings of "Stages to Saturn" how many possibilities were considered for stacking/transporting the booster, including riding it out on a rail (so to speak). Signature. "Though I could not caution all, I yet may warn a few: Don't lend your hand to raise no flag atop no ship of fools!" --grateful dead. _______________________________________________________________ Mike Flugennock, flugennock at sinkers dot org "Mikey'zine": dubya dubya dubya dot sinkers dot org > Yeeow, no sh.t. Every time I see a foto of that thing being stood up, > I have to ask myself how long it took them to come up with something > that worked that way without the vehicle breaking in half or falling off. The structure to support the rocket as it was raised must really have been something to design, you can't have the thing bend any too much or you'll damage it, and trying to keep it rigid to that degree must have really been challenging. I'd love to see how those raising rams got made; they must use thousands of gallons of hydraulic fluid or air at very high pressure to get the whole thing upright. I assume why the assembly building was built horizontal was due to Kazakhstan's terrible windstorms (much like here in North Dakota) and the challenge of building a vertical structure capable of tolerating them, and the severe thunderstorm's lightning...if you have a flat desolate plain with a 400' high building sticking out of it, guess where all the lightning strikes? The lightning arrestor towers around the N-1 pads were quite something in their own right: http://www.aerospaceweb.org/question/spacecraft/russia/n1-2.jpg Those are what? Around 500' high each? > Still, I honestly couldn't guess which method is the greater risk or > bigger pain in the a.s -- stacking/rolling out vertically, or rolling > it out on a railroad and then using some huge-assed rig to stand it up. > I can't recall even from my repeated re-readings of "Stages to Saturn" > how many possibilities were considered for stacking/transporting the > booster, including riding it out on a rail (so to speak). To get this to work it traveled out on four parallel railway tracks. Down at the Cape, I doubt the wet ground would ever have taken the weight to lay railway tracks on that scale without huge amounts of concrete being used to build a base under them. Pat >To get this to work it traveled out on four parallel railway tracks. >Down at the Cape, I doubt the wet ground would ever have taken the >weight to lay railway tracks on that scale without huge amounts of >concrete being used to build a base under them. Hmm, yes, that may be part of why the LC-37 rail setup was so expensive. Signaturespsystems.net is temporarily off the air; | Henry Spencer mail to henry at zoo.utoronto.ca instead. | henry@spsystems.net > > [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] >Hmm, yes, that may be part of why the LC-37 rail setup was so expensive. > What means was going to be used to move Nova around? Pat >>>To get this to work it traveled out on four parallel railway tracks. Down >>>at the Cape, I doubt the wet ground would ever have taken the weight to [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > > What means was going to be used to move Nova around? Hmm, somehow the old joke about where does an 800lb gorilla sleep? comes to mind. How does a Nova move around... any way it wants! My real guess though is initially with pure liquid fuel designs, the MLP could handle a lot more weight and with a newer/larger design, even more so. > Pat >My real guess though is initially with pure liquid fuel designs, the MLP >could handle a lot more weight... Also, it was possible to do some on-pad assembly even at LC-39. The ideas for using 260in solids as Saturn V strap-ons generally envisioned adding them after the rocket was on the pad. If you stick to liquids, though, the platforms and crawlers can handle rockets much larger than a Saturn V. The limitation then is probably the VAB. A 400ft rocket twice the diameter of the Saturn V will just fit through the doors... Signaturespsystems.net is temporarily off the air; | Henry Spencer mail to henry at zoo.utoronto.ca instead. | henry@spsystems.net >Also, it was possible to do some on-pad assembly even at LC-39. The ideas >for using 260in solids as Saturn V strap-ons generally envisioned adding >them after the rocket was on the pad. ...Which begs the question - shaddap, Pegg! - as to how they would have modified the base of the pad to accommodate the strap-on exhaust. OM Signature]=====================================[ ] OMBlog - http://www.io.com/~o_m/omworld [ ] Let's face it: Sometimes you *need* [ ] an obnoxious opinion in your day! [ ]=====================================[ > > [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] >have modified the base of the pad to accommodate the strap-on exhaust. > The Novas were supposed to have new pads at the north end of KSC, maybe the intention was to use those. Pat >>...using 260in solids as Saturn V strap-ons generally envisioned adding >>them after the rocket was on the pad. > >...Which begs the question - shaddap, Pegg! - as to how they would >have modified the base of the pad to accommodate the strap-on exhaust. Also of note -- something that occurred to me as I was typing my earlier comment -- is the question of just how you would do an emergency rollback due to an approaching hurricane, if you have to get rid of four huge solids before you can move the thing. Maybe you just don't launch the maximum configuration in hurricane season... Signaturespsystems.net is temporarily off the air; | Henry Spencer mail to henry at zoo.utoronto.ca instead. | henry@spsystems.net >>>...using 260in solids as Saturn V strap-ons generally envisioned adding >>>them after the rocket was on the pad. [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > solids before you can move the thing. Maybe you just don't launch the > maximum configuration in hurricane season... Or just launch the thing through the hurricane. ;-) On Mon, 27 Nov 2006 17:59:57 -0600, Greg D. Moore \(Strider\) wrote (in article <1_Kah.3905$ql2.88@newsread3.news.pas.earthlink.net>): >>>> ...using 260in solids as Saturn V strap-ons generally envisioned adding >>>> them after the rocket was on the pad. [quoted text clipped - 9 lines] > > Or just launch the thing through the hurricane. ;-) Or design the launcher and the entire complex to be "hurricane-proof" with a very strict emphasis of FOD-safety during weather lock-downs. SignatureHerb Schaltegger "You can run on for a long time . . . sooner or later, God'll cut you down." - Johnny Cash <http://www.angryherb.net> >Or just launch the thing through the hurricane. ;-) > > This sounds like something associated with the Skylab "Wet Lab" program. I love you Marriette Hartley! Don't trust Brett Maverick, he is a scoundrel! It is this dink you must use your stim on!* Wanna see a ballsy launching? http://spaceflightnow.com/proton/expressam22/ Comrade! If you can see the top of the rocket on the pad, the ceiling is not too low! :-) * Anyone who gets this should give themselves double Roddenberry bonus points. Pat On Mon, 27 Nov 2006 22:23:59 GMT, in a place far, far away, henry@spsystems.net (Henry Spencer) made the phosphor on my monitor glow in such a way as to indicate that: >>>...using 260in solids as Saturn V strap-ons generally envisioned adding >>>them after the rocket was on the pad. [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] >solids before you can move the thing. Maybe you just don't launch the >maximum configuration in hurricane season... Yes, that will maximize flight rate... >Also of note -- something that occurred to me as I was typing my earlier >comment -- is the question of just how you would do an emergency rollback >due to an approaching hurricane, if you have to get rid of four huge >solids before you can move the thing. Maybe you just don't launch the >maximum configuration in hurricane season... > You're right... that could be a real problem... some sort of extremely protective launch tower? Pat >>Also of note -- something that occurred to me as I was typing my earlier >>comment -- is the question of just how you would do an emergency rollback [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > >Pat Like a huge armored missile launch canister... or, a "Thunderbirds Are Go" underground facility. snipped: "or, a "Thunderbirds Are Go" underground facility." In Brevard County, Florida???? One way it could have worked is if the facility construction contract was awarded to Electric Boat? > snipped: "or, a "Thunderbirds Are Go" underground facility." > > In Brevard County, Florida???? > > One way it could have worked is if the facility construction contract > was awarded to Electric Boat? last sentence should have ended with a *S* . . . not a "?" John [...] > ...Which begs the question - shaddap, Pegg! - as to how they would > have modified the base of the pad to accommodate the strap-on exhaust. Mary Shafer would rap your knuckles, too, but there seems to be a growing sense that ignorance of usage is going to overwhelm us all. <http://groups.google.com/group/alt.usage.english/browse_frm/thread/630791c88ad41 f9b/1da48b173771c67e#1da48b173771c67e> /dps >If you stick to liquids, though, the platforms and crawlers can handle >rockets much larger than a Saturn V. The limitation then is probably the >VAB. A 400ft rocket twice the diameter of the Saturn V will just fit >through the doors... ...Let's keep in mind that the VAB was designed with essentially the "Saturn 8" Nova concept as the largest common denominator. In fact, had the Michoud facility been tall enough to allow for the 1st stage to fit on its side, that's most likely how Von Braun would have preferred to go. After all, he was always in favor of Direct Ascent, and a "Saturn 8" would have been in that class. And besides, he was always shooting high with the lift capabilities of the S-1x stages knowing full well the payloads were going to keep getting heavier. Eight engines would have fit his bill perfectly. OM Signature]=====================================[ ] OMBlog - http://www.io.com/~o_m/omworld [ ] Let's face it: Sometimes you *need* [ ] an obnoxious opinion in your day! [ ]=====================================[ >>...A 400ft rocket twice the diameter of the Saturn V will just fit >>through the [VAB] doors... > >...Let's keep in mind that the VAB was designed with essentially the >"Saturn 8" Nova concept as the largest common denominator. I don't think it was that specific. Even most of the "Saturn C-8" concepts still had plenty of room, with a diameter of about 15m, vs. the Saturn V's 10m and the VAB's door width of 22m. The VAB designers thought (correctly) that they were building infrastructure which would outlast any single rocket design, so generous margins were appropriate. Simple thrust/weight considerations indicate that a launcher twice the diameter of the Saturn V, with all other things roughly comparable, is going to need about 20 F-1s, not a mere 8. Signaturespsystems.net is temporarily off the air; | Henry Spencer mail to henry at zoo.utoronto.ca instead. | henry@spsystems.net >I don't think it was that specific. Even most of the "Saturn C-8" >concepts still had plenty of room, with a diameter of about 15m, vs. the >Saturn V's 10m and the VAB's door width of 22m. The VAB designers thought >(correctly) that they were building infrastructure which would outlast any >single rocket design, so generous margins were appropriate. ...Yeah, but again, the Michoud facility was the limiting factor, and IIRC the tallest they could handle for the S-Ix stages was about 14m. Hence the reason there wasn't a "Saturn 8" with eight F-1 engines. <thinks> ...Funny, IIRC I got that bit of info confirmed by *you* once, a long time ago, Henry. Do we get T-Shirts for covering for your Alzheimer's? OM Signature]=====================================[ ] OMBlog - http://www.io.com/~o_m/omworld [ ] Let's face it: Sometimes you *need* [ ] an obnoxious opinion in your day! [ ]=====================================[ >...Funny, IIRC I got that bit of info confirmed by *you* once, a long >time ago, Henry. Do we get T-Shirts for covering for your Alzheimer's? > You think that's bad? I took Henry on once regarding the Energia/Buran launch having been done during a blizzard... But no... Not even despite the lack of any possible weasel language on his part, and despite photographic proof on my part showing the launch...no T-shirt whatsoever. COMRADES! TOMORROW WAITS BEFORE US! THE REIGN OF THE "STEELY-EYED" COUNTERREVOLUTIONARY "OLD USENET" GUARD MUST FALL BEFORE THE BOLD, BOASTFUL, AND ONLY SEMI-COMPETENT WAVE OF THE FUTURE! TO HELL WITH FORTRAN! THE HERO-CYBER-WORLD DEMANDS NEW HEROES! >:o Patsky >>I don't think it was that specific. Even most of the "Saturn C-8" >>concepts still had plenty of room, with a diameter of about 15m, vs. the [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > >...Yeah, but again, the Michoud facility was the limiting factor... For meeting the immediate requirements, yes. But building a taller rocket factory would be a lot easier than building a larger VAB; it was proper for the VAB designers to think farther out, and allow for rockets that were too big for Michoud. Signaturespsystems.net is temporarily off the air; | Henry Spencer mail to henry at zoo.utoronto.ca instead. | henry@spsystems.net > it was proper > for the VAB designers to think farther out, and allow for rockets that > were too big for Michoud. No t-shirt for you, OM! >If you stick to liquids, though, the platforms and crawlers can handle >rockets much larger than a Saturn V. The limitation then is probably the >VAB. A 400ft rocket twice the diameter of the Saturn V will just fit >through the doors... > Which is probably why most of those later Nova proposals tend to be wide and squat. http://www.astronautix.com/lvfam/nova.htm Pat >>Hmm, yes, that may be part of why the LC-37 rail setup was so expensive. > >What means was going to be used to move Nova around? None whatsoever. :-) Insofar as NASA had thought seriously about Nova launch operations at all, the idea seems to have been to assemble it on the pad. (Of course, the Saturn V ended up bigger than most of the original Nova concepts...) Signaturespsystems.net is temporarily off the air; | Henry Spencer mail to henry at zoo.utoronto.ca instead. | henry@spsystems.net > >> The NASA crawler carrying rockets standing up has always seemed a bit > >> precarious compared to the primitive simplicity of the R7/Soyuz [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > have to ask myself how long it took them to come up with something that > worked that way without the vehicle breaking in half or falling off. To my eyes, the N-1 "Grasshopper" transporter/erector shares some features of a carefully-balanced bascule drawbridge span. Bascule spans can be quite massive and rigid. The recently completed Woodrow Wilson Bridge near D.C. has multiple bascule spans that weigh 1,814 tonnes each. An empty N-1 weighed less than 300 tonnes. It would have had a low center of gravity. The Grasshopper probably acted like a giant "teeter-totter" so that the hydralic rams only had to handle the relatively small balancing forces. The heaviest working rocket erectors working today are mere playthings by comparison. Delta IV Heavy (86 tonnes empty, 726 tonnes loaded) Proton M (54 tonnes empty, 675 tonnes loaded) Zenit 3SL (46 tonnes empty, 463 tonnes loaded). - Ed Kyle >The Grasshopper probably acted like a giant >"teeter-totter" so that the hydralic rams only had to handle the >relatively small balancing forces. > Those quadruple rams look awfully big if everything is well balanced. :-) Pat > >The Grasshopper probably acted like a giant > >"teeter-totter" so that the hydraulic rams only had to handle the [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > > Pat That is probably due to the unavoidable "unbalance" that resulted once the erector offloaded its 300 tonne rocket. - Ed Kyle > > The N-1/Energia transporter makes our crawler look positivly simple: > Yeeow, no sh.t. Every time I see a foto of that thing being stood up, I > have to ask myself how long it took them to come up with something that > worked that way without the vehicle breaking in half or falling off. Despite the scale, this looks like a straightforward mechanical engineering problem. Note that the Romans (yes, 2000 years ago) did a much harder but otherwise similar task. They took a long, skinny, heavy (but fragile) object (the obelisk in front of St. Peters) and stood it up. The obelisk ( http://members.aol.com/Sokamoto31/vaticano.htm ) weighs more than an empty Energia, and is doubtless more fragile, since stone is weak in tension. And they not only stood it up, they transported it from the desert to the coast of Egypt, carried it across the Mediterranean, hauled it up to Rome from the port, and *then* stood it up. They did this all with stuff built out of wood, and except for the special purpose ship (I think) , it was sufficiently unremarkable that no one even bothered to write down how they did it. Lou Scheffer >Despite the scale, this looks like a straightforward mechanical >engineering problem. Note that the Romans (yes, 2000 years ago) did a [quoted text clipped - 10 lines] >even bothered to write down how they did it. > I just got done reading "Basilica" where they had to figure out how to move that SOB around again during the Renaissance to get it set in the middle of St. Peters square in front of the Vatican's new palace. Great job, moved it without a hitch....put it in the wrong place though, so that it's off by over 2 degrees from where it's supposed to be, but other than that... :-D Pat >>The NASA crawler carrying rockets standing up has always seemed a bit >>precarious compared to the primitive simplicity of the R7/Soyuz horizontal [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] >ace/sec300/img/381L1bP1b.JPG >http://www.electronicintellect.net/Baikonur/crawler/4.jpg That is straight out of Thunderbirds! > That is straight out of Thunderbirds! Now that you mention it, it does look like something they'd have. "Comrade! First we get a Mechano set... then, by scaling the parts up to 100 times the size in the set... " (Cut to engineer holding one hundred pound screw as twenty men approach it with a huge screwdriver.) The Burya Mach 3 intercontinental cruise missile's launcher was fairly Thunderbirdish also: http://makeashorterlink.com/?B44421D3E In fact, the missile looks like something out of Thunderbirds also. :-) pat > >The NASA crawler carrying rockets standing up has always seemed a bit > >precarious compared to the primitive simplicity of the R7/Soyuz horizontal > >transport on a train.The N-1/Energia transporter makes our crawler look positivly simple and yet, if I'm not mistaken the entire unfueled Energia/Buran stack weighs less than one loaded shuttle SRB! > If we have to build a supercrawler, then it would be a good > opportunity to revisit that decision. I doubt if the Saturn V could have stood up to being swung to the vertical fashion in that manner. > The "occupied pad" model with a rocket on it being built on it > may be a better alternative for a rocket that is only going to > launch a couple of times a year. What do you do about the tornados that hit Florida? Any protection that you could build around the pad could hardly be anchored into the bedrock and yet still mobile enough to retract for launching. Surely you would finish up with something like a mobile VAB which would be an order of magnitude harder to build than a mobile launcher? Malcolm B |
Reply to this Message |
 Sign In
 Join
 My Latest Posts My Monitored Threads My Blog My Photo Gallery My Profile My Homepage Start New Thread Enable EMail Alerts Rate this Thread
|
©2010 Advenet LLC Privacy Policy - Terms of Use
This website includes both content owned or controlled by Advenet as well as content owned or controlled by third parties.