“Accessing and remediating any of these issues can only be performed in the VAB.” //

normally butters Ars Praefectus
19y
5,319

georges said:
It's amazing to me that there isn't a retractable maintenance arm on the launch stand. The ground hardware all cost sooooo much money but no one though to add this?

Apollo had a Mobile Service Structure at each pad.
Shuttle had a Rotating Service Structure at each pad.

Ares/SLS were based on the Clean Pad concept. NASA wanted commercial launch providers to agree to use the pads at LC-39 (as well as the VAB, crawler-transporters, and crawlerway infrastructure) between NASA exploration missions. Each launch vehicle type from each launch provider would have its own Mobile Launcher Platform including the umbilical tower. There weren't going to be any vehicle-specific support structures, just a clean pad to share.

During Ares V development, rollout weight became a major concern. Unlike Saturn V, Ares V and SLS have huge SRBs loaded with massive amounts of solid propellant. The weight of the stack including the launch platform, umbilical tower, and crawler was pushing the limits of what the crawlerway foundations can support. They were worried it would be so heavy that it would sink into the Florida swamp on the way to the pad.

These factors contributed to the (poor) design choice to minimize the scope of the umbilical tower and rely heavily on the VAB for service access. //

aggressive-trail Smack-Fu Master, in training
1m
85

woodbourne said:
Time to cancel the program. There's nothing on the moon that we need right now. Let the Chinese waste the money on useless rockets and wait for there to be an economic reason for going there. We're basically using technology from the 1940's to accomplish something that has no economic payback using the same corrupt defense contractors and the same stupid procurement rules that we had 60 years ago. Enough, please stop this project.

And here I was, thinking that these arguments from the 60s would have been settled by now. Beyond the fact that the economic case for Luna can be quantifiably justified today, I’d argue the biggest argument is what it provides us in terms of science.

The far side of the moon is shielded from Earth’s radio interference, making it the most valuable real estate in the solar system for radio astronomy and deep space communication infrastructure.

Scientists want to build LF radio telescopes there to detect signals from the "Dark Ages", the period after the Big Bang but before the first stars formed. These signals are blocked by Earth’s ionosphere. This environment is also perfect for tracking deep-space objects without local interference.

If you don’t care about anything else, at least care about that. //

rhgedaly Ars Scholae Palatinae
8y
1,290
First hydrogen, then helium. Hope the batteries that will need recharging aren't lithium. Damn the periodic table! //

Chuckstar Ars Legatus Legionis
23y
37,070
Subscriptor

dehildum said:
That table gives them 100+ reasons for launch delays and more profits for the contractors.

I don’t remember any Apollo, Gemini, or Mercury vehicle needing to be returned to the VAB….

Apollo 16 was moved back to the VAB, after a fuel tank in the service module was damaged during testing (over-pressurized).

But the reason that was the only time they had to do that in Apollo was not because the Saturn was so much better designed, but because the Mobile Service Structure provided access to the full stack, and they only needed the VAB if a repair required taking the stack apart, which was necessary for the Apollo 16 repair.

All the assembly/integration at the Cape for Gemini and Mercury were done on the launch stand. The VAB was purpose-built for Apollo-Saturn. //

MilesArcher Ars Centurion
5y
294
Subscriptor
BCGeiger said:
🎼Hanger Queen, 🎶
🎼Should’a cancelled it back in ‘17🎶
🎼Hanger Queen🎶
🎼They keep pouring cash into this bad machinee🎶
Man, you had the opportunity to rhyme hydrazine and missed it.