THE VAB: FUTURE PROBLEMS IN THE PIPELINE?

[mattblack]

The author of this piece raises some valid points, though I'd doubt there'll be money for a long time to replace the VAB.<br /><br />http://www.thespacereview.com/article/452/1<br /> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p> </p><p>One Percent of Federal Funding For Space: America <strong><em><u>CAN</u></em></strong> Afford it!!  LEO is a <strong><em>Prison</em></strong> -- It's time for a <em><strong>JAILBREAK</strong></em>!!</p> </div>

 

[CalliArcale]

It seems slightly alarmist to me; loss of siding isn't that big an issue, and I'd rather hear from someone in the know (i.e. shuttle_guy) than some guy who just reads what's in the news wires to find out whether the VAB needs replacing.<br /><br />Also, there's a limit to how much you can usefully defend against hurricanes. No structure can ever be truly invincible, although after Katrina, there is an understandable desire for invincibility. The only way to really defend against hurricanes would be to move the entire facility someplace that doesn't get them. But then you'd probably run into other problems, such as the loss of rotational energy as you move further from the equator.<br /><br />As it stands now, the VAB is a unique structure. Only a handful of giant hangars have ever been built. Interestingly, it is not the oldest; the Akron Airdock is a couple of decades older and still sees regular use despite the lack of giant rigid airships to put inside it. (They use it for test purposes mainly; blimps can do laps inside of it!) The VAB is taller than the Airdock, and its doors are so big you could roll the UN building through them -- a full Saturn V stack (on mobile launcher and crawler-transporter) barely scraped through the door, and even then they had to fold down the lightning rod on the top of the launch umbilical tower.<br /><br />If America wishes to return to giant boosters, it needs the VAB, or an expensive comparable structure, or it needs to abandon vertical assembly and stack its rockets more like Russia does -- on their sides. Already the horizontal integration philosophy has been applied to Atlas V; the vehicle is assembled on its side, rolled to the pad on its side, and then erected on the pad just like a Russian vehicle. (And this is no coincidence; it has Russian-derived engines, and Lockheed made a conscious effort to apply the Russian techniques. It requires a more robust rocket structure to be able to handle lying on its side for months at <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>

 

[mattblack]

To build a new VAB might cost 2 or maybe 3 billion dollars!! There's no way that could be afforded. Besides, upgrading and repairing the existing VAB to a high standard would only cost as much as a trilogy of Hollywood Sci-Fi epics. And the result would be a powerful infrastructure tool to make science fiction become reality.<br /><br />The VAB is only 40 years young. It's best days just might be ahead of it....<br /><br />["You are not ready for immortality"... Kosh Narenek] <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p> </p><p>One Percent of Federal Funding For Space: America <strong><em><u>CAN</u></em></strong> Afford it!!  LEO is a <strong><em>Prison</em></strong> -- It's time for a <em><strong>JAILBREAK</strong></em>!!</p> </div>

 

[darkenfast]

I don't see how having the rocket either on its side, or stacked vertically relates to time at the pad. That is an entirely different issue. The rockets that the Russians move to the pad just a few days before launch are a lot smaller and less complex than the vehicles using the VAB. The Russian rockets (current and early models; part of the Buran launcher and the N-1 were built on site) have to fit on the nation's rail system for shipment. The Soviets didn't go with horizontal assembly because it was superior, they went with it because it was what they could do with the time and resources available. In actuality, at Merrit Island the stacking and mating to the pad takes place in the VAB, then the pad is transported to the launch complex. It would take even longer to erect the shuttles at 39A and B. Now, I may have a faulty memory here, but I thought that the Delta IV is transported horizontally, but the Atlas V (with the Russian engines) is transported on its tail, with an accompanying set of railway cars containing checkout gear so that preparation can take place before the assembly is moved into place at the pad. Anybody know if I'm right or delusional?

 

[flynn]

Off topic slightly but I saw a great documentry on the Akron a week or so ago. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <font color="#800080">"All God does is watch us and kill us when we get boring. We must never, ever be boring" - <strong>Chuck Palahniuk</strong>.</font> </div>

 

[CalliArcale]

<blockquote><font class="small">In reply to:</font><hr /><p>I don't see how having the rocket either on its side, or stacked vertically relates to time at the pad. That is an entirely different issue.<p><hr /></p></p></blockquote><br /><br />Horizontal basically just means you can assemble the complete rocket, including its payload, off the pad without a hugely expensive vertical assembly building and a complex rollout procedure for moving this huge thing to the pad. That's all. The VAB provides an alternate solution to the problem, obviously, but as this thread points out, it's results in some very expensive infrastructure. There are good reasons for choosing either; it all depends on the situation. However, in America, vertical assembly off the pad has never been used for a vehicle other than Saturn V or Space Shuttle. All others were either assembled horizontally or assembled on the pad (including early Saturns).<br /><br /><blockquote><font class="small">In reply to:</font><hr /><p>The rockets that the Russians move to the pad just a few days before launch are a lot smaller and less complex than the vehicles using the VAB. The Russian rockets (current and early models; part of the Buran launcher and the N-1 were built on site) have to fit on the nation's rail system for shipment.<p><hr /></p></p></blockquote><br /><br />Energia/Buran and N-1 were both assembled completely in Site 114A, a massive hangar built specifically for the N-1. (The leftover Energia and Buran components, including the only spaceworthy Buran, were stored there afterwards, and damaged beyond repair when the building collapsed, tragically killing six workers assessing damage to the roof.) And although I'm not sure about N-1, the Buran was in fact assembled on top of its launch platform, which included the massive erector mechanism.<br /><br />There are doubtless many activities which must occur on the pad, such as ordnance installation, and its possible they intended to do payload integration in Buran on the pad (jus <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>

 

[darkenfast]

You are quite correct in your points. When you look at the Moonport (love that term!), that infrastructure has given long service, and probably will continue in use for much longer. Given the expense of any sort of space program, I think something like a verticle assembly building represents good value for money. Money spent on the building vs. money spent on a larger rocket to carry the mass to make the rocket stronger...etc. Obviously, smaller or older systems that are designed for horizontal handling are a different case. I hope the Shuttle-derived Heavy Lifter doesn't get too much taller, it'll have to take off its hat to go out the front door! Speaking of infrastucture value, I read somewhere that the crawlers that transport the mobile pad and shuttle (and Saturn V's) were developed at a cost of 15 million dollars. Pretty good value, you can't get a hatch designed and built for that, now! Expensive at the gas pump, though: 127 gallons to the mile!