<p><BR/>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'> The 'Launch Umbilical Tower'. <br /> Posted by freya</DIV></p><p>To elaborate a bit for the benefit of us youngsters who postdate Apollo, the Launch Umbillical Tower was a fixture on top of each Mobile Launcher. (They were not called MLPs then, because they were more than just platforms.) It stood taller than the Saturn V itself. It had a series of swing-arms coming out from it at various levels to interface with the various stages and the payload itself for loading of propellants and venting of excess gases. The design of each swing-arm was involved, and actually very clever, allowing them to safely detach and swing away from the vehicle at the moment of ignition. The LUT also provided the means for the crew to access the vehicle, and its top-most swing arm terminated in a white room which butted up against the access hatch of the Command Module.</p><p>Additional towers required to service the Saturn V included the arming tower, a fixed structure along the crawlerway where the vehicle would briefly park so that technicians could install and arm pyrotechnics, and a mobile tower used in much the same was as the Rotating Service Structure today. It was a scaffold transported around by a Crawler-Transporter which would allow technicians access to all levels of the Saturn V on the pad. All of these structures have since been demolished. Some contributed material to the Fixed Service Structure and Rotating Service Structure on each pad today. </p><p>Another structure on the Mobile Launcher was the "milkstool". This was a platform constructed on top of an ML to adapt it for Saturn 1B. The original Saturn 1Bs launched from LC-37 at CCAS, but by the time Skylab rolled around, they needed to use the NASA faciliites at LC-39. So the "milkstool" was constructed, lifting the shorter rocket way way up enough that the Command Module would still reach the LUT's white room.</p><p>Needless to say, all of this stuff would indeed have a sail-like effect on the whole stack. It's not insurmountable, but if you're launching from land anyway, it's simpler just to move on land and not have to worry so much. (Even so, stacks are only moved when the air is calm. The wind isn't going to blow the CT around, but it could tip the stack, and that would be very very bad.) </p><p>The Russians had to address the same problem when developing the launch facilities for the N1. They built an enormous mobile erector. All of their rockets are assembled on their sides on mobile erectors. The erector is towed to the launch site by rail. It then erects the rocket on the pad and is towed away. The N1 erector was so big, they had it span *two* rail lines so it could be towed by two chains of locomotives. The erector was later modified for Energia, which unfortunately wasn't a successful rocket program either. There are a lot of glorious "might have beens" in the history of the Russian space program. </p> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p> </p><p><font color="#666699"><em>"People assume that time is a strict progression of cause to effect, but actually from a non-linear, non-subjective viewpoint it's more like a big ball of wibbly wobbly . . . timey wimey . . . stuff."</em> -- The Tenth Doctor, "Blink"</font></p> </div>