sheppard@caen.engin.umich.edu (Ken Sheppardson) (01/18/89)
Bevis King writes: > [ Shuttle to moon discussion ]..[ Turn around time is ] nowhere near > up to the turn-around required to launch a second shuttle in time to > pick up the returning crew. > What's the critical point in the shuttle processing routine which limits the turnaround time ( i.e. how long does the Orbiter spend at each station in the procedure, how fast can SRBs and ETs be processed, etc. ) I realize there is only one active launch pad (?), one VAB, etc., but which of these causes the longest delay ? If NASA was going to build A new building, which would most significantly reduce the turnaround time ?
henry@utzoo.uucp (Henry Spencer) (01/19/89)
In article <40ebe2ca.298d@dl298d.engin.umich.edu> sheppard@caen.engin.umich.edu (Ken Sheppardson) writes: > What's the critical point in the shuttle processing routine which limits > the turnaround time... Probably orbiter processing time before stacking (i.e. still in the Orbiter Processing Facility rather than the VAB), but I could be wrong. > I realize there is only one active launch pad (?), one VAB, etc., but which > of these causes the longest delay ? ... None of these things is a bottleneck, really. There are two pads, although 39A is inactive right now due to lack of demand. There are, I think, three mobile launchers. The VAB has four bays, each of which could be used for stacking a mission (three were active at times during Apollo), although the two that are now used for storage might need some minor work first. The Orbiter Processing Facility has two servicing bays. There are at least two, and I think in fact four, control rooms in Launch Control (although again, they're probably not all fully equipped nowadays). There are even two crawlers. The big bottleneck, I would say, is simply the horrendous amount of manpower that goes into turning the orbiters around after each mission. Little things like the continuing shortage of spare parts don't help. -- Allegedly heard aboard Mir: "A | Henry Spencer at U of Toronto Zoology toast to comrade Van Allen!!" | uunet!attcan!utzoo!henry henry@zoo.toronto.edu
tif@cpe.UUCP (01/20/89)
Someone had described a proposal for getting to the moon like so: shuttle takes up rocket, shuttle lands and readies for launch while rocket goes to moon and comes back, shuttle launches and rendezvous with rocket to bring it back. The problem mentioned was that a shuttle could not be turned around fast enough to make the rendezvous. Written 9:13 pm Jan 18, 1989 by utzoo.UUCP!henry in cpe:sci.space.shuttle >[...] There are two pads, [...] There are, I think, three mobile launchers. >The VAB has four bays, [...] The Orbiter Processing Facility has two >servicing bays. There are at least two, and I think in fact four, >control rooms in Launch Control. [...] There are even two crawlers. > >The big bottleneck, I would say, is simply the horrendous amount of >manpower that goes into turning the orbiters around after each mission. So, now that I have supporting evidence: Why couldn't it be done with two shuttles? Both of them ready to launch before either of them launches. Paul Chamberlain Computer Product Engineering, Tandy Corp. {killer | texbell}!cpe!tif
phil@hpcilzb.HP.COM (Phil Ritchey) (01/21/89)
What does VAB stand for? Phil
willisa@cs.glasgow.ac.uk (Mark Willis) (01/21/89)
In article <1989Jan19.031325.21177@utzoo.uucp> henry@utzoo.uucp (Henry Spencer) writes: >None of these things is a bottleneck, really. There are two pads, although >39A is inactive right now due to lack of demand. There are, I think, three I thought it was because 39A was being upgraded (again), or am I wrong? Mark ---- -- ARPA: willisa@cs.glasgow.ac.uk | JANet: willisa@uk.ac.gla.cs USENET: mcvax!cs.glasgow.ac.uk!willisa | Voice: +44 41 not telling! ------------------------------------------+------------------------------- British_Space_Program: No such file or directory
sheppard@caen.engin.umich.edu (Ken Sheppardson) (01/22/89)
> What does VAB stand for?
The VAB ( Vertical Assembly Building ) is a huge building originally
constructed to assemble Saturn Vs. It's the building with the big
garage doors and the big American flag ( and since 1976 I beleive a
large red white and blue star ) It's now used to assemble ("stack")
the Orbiter, External Tank (ET) , and the Solid Rocket Boosters (SRBs) on
the crawler which takes the Shuttle to the pad.henry@utzoo.uucp (Henry Spencer) (01/23/89)
In article <2070003@hpcilzb.HP.COM> phil@hpcilzb.HP.COM (Phil Ritchey) writes: >What does VAB stand for? Early on, it was the Vertical Assembly Building, so-named because it was somewhat of a departure from the old practice of assembling rockets horizontally. It was renamed the Vehicle Assembly Building at one point, although the old term continued in use for a long time. -- Allegedly heard aboard Mir: "A | Henry Spencer at U of Toronto Zoology toast to comrade Van Allen!!" | uunet!attcan!utzoo!henry henry@zoo.toronto.edu
petej@phred.UUCP (Pete Jarvis) (01/23/89)
In article <2070003@hpcilzb.HP.COM> phil@hpcilzb.HP.COM (Phil Ritchey) writes: >What does VAB stand for? > >Phil Phil, VAB stands for Verticle Assembly Building. That is the large building (largest building in the world, I believe) that is at the Cape used for stacking the Orbiters with their fuel tanks. The building was originally used for stacking together the 365-foot Saturn 5's and smaller Saturn 1-B's during the Apollo program. You hear many people call it the "Vehicle" Assembly Building I suppose because the stacking isn't done like a Saturn 5 any more. I still like the original name of Verticle Assembly Building. Peter Jarvis........Physio-Control.......Redmond, WA.
jkl@csli.STANFORD.EDU (John Kallen) (01/24/89)
In article <2453@phred.UUCP> petej@phred.UUCP (Pete Jarvis) writes: >Phil, VAB stands for Verticle Assembly Building. That is the large building [VAB stuff deleted] > >Peter Jarvis........Physio-Control.......Redmond, WA. What's a "verticle"? I would think "Vertical" Assembly Building would make more sense :-) The VAB is *big*, but wouldn't whatver the Soviets use to stack their Energias be bigger? Does anybody know anything about how they assemble, say, Buran? John. _______________________________________________________________________________ | | | | |\ | | /|\ | John Kallen "The light works. The gravity | |\ \|/ \| * |/ | |/| | | PoBox 11215 works. Anything else we must | |\ /|\ |\ * |\ | | | | Stanford CA 94309 take our chances with." _|_|___|___|____|_\|___|__|__|_jkl@csli.stanford.edu___________________________
sheppard@caen.engin.umich.edu (Ken Sheppardson) (01/24/89)
In article <7233@csli.STANFORD.EDU>, jkl@csli.STANFORD.EDU (John Kallen) writes: > > The VAB is *big*, but wouldn't whatver the Soviets use to stack their > Energias be bigger? Does anybody know anything about how they > assemble, say, Buran? > I believe Buran is assembled HORIZONTALY and erected at the pad, which is traditional for Soviet spacecraft. Right ? -- Ken Sheppardson Aerospace Engineering Department University of Michigan
smile@cisunx.UUCP (Patty Maurer) (01/25/89)
In article <2070003@hpcilzb.HP.COM> phil@hpcilzb.HP.COM (Phil Ritchey) writes: >What does VAB stand for? > >Phil Vehicle Assembly Building (I saw it on my vacation there this summer--the sucker is huge!) patty -- smile@pittvms.BITNET ...!pitt!unix!smile.UUCP smile@cisunx.ARPA
hogg@db.toronto.edu (John Hogg) (01/25/89)
In article <7233@csli.STANFORD.EDU> jkl@csli.UUCP (John Kallen) writes: >The VAB is *big*, but wouldn't whatver the Soviets use to stack their >Energias be bigger? Does anybody know anything about how they >assemble, say, Buran? Horizontally, the same way that they assemble all their launchers. Among other advantages of this system, the building doesn't have to be so big. In the December issue of Spaceflight are a number of pictures of Buran; one of them shows the stacked Buran/Energia system leaving the assembly building. The stack is reminiscent of the Orbiter/747 combination. -- John Hogg hogg@csri.utoronto.ca Department of Computer Science, University of Toronto
roy@phri.UUCP (Roy Smith) (01/25/89)
jkl@csli.UUCP (John Kallen) writes: > Does anybody know anything about how they assemble, say, Buran? There is a photo in the latest (Jan 89?) SciAm showing a Buran/Energia "stack" laying on its side. Presumably this means it's assembled horizontally and then tipped up on its end. -- Roy Smith, System Administrator Public Health Research Institute {allegra,philabs,cmcl2,rutgers}!phri!roy -or- phri!roy@uunet.uu.net "The connector is the network"
henry@utzoo.uucp (Henry Spencer) (01/26/89)
In article <2248@crete.cs.glasgow.ac.uk> willisa@cs.glasgow.ac.uk (Mark Willis) writes: >>None of these things is a bottleneck, really. There are two pads, although >>39A is inactive right now due to lack of demand... > >I thought it was because 39A was being upgraded (again), or am I wrong? Well, sort of kind of. 39B has had some improvements that 39A lacks, and so 39A is, more or less, in need of upgrading. Nobody is hurrying to do it, though, and NASA in fact doesn't feel it can spare the money to do it now, because there isn't enough traffic for both pads to be needed. -- Allegedly heard aboard Mir: "A | Henry Spencer at U of Toronto Zoology toast to comrade Van Allen!!" | uunet!attcan!utzoo!henry henry@zoo.toronto.edu
henry@utzoo.uucp (Henry Spencer) (01/26/89)
In article <7233@csli.STANFORD.EDU> jkl@csli.UUCP (John Kallen) writes: >The VAB is *big*, but wouldn't whatver the Soviets use to stack their >Energias be bigger? Does anybody know anything about how they >assemble, say, Buran? It's said to be bigger in volume than the VAB. It's not quite as impressive, because Energia and Buran are stacked horizontally and erected on the pad. The transporter/erector is quite something; talk about heavy machinery... -- Allegedly heard aboard Mir: "A | Henry Spencer at U of Toronto Zoology toast to comrade Van Allen!!" | uunet!attcan!utzoo!henry henry@zoo.toronto.edu
marcus@illusion.UUCP (Marcus Hall) (01/27/89)
In article <7233@csli.STANFORD.EDU> jkl@csli.UUCP (John Kallen) writes: >The VAB is *big*, but wouldn't whatver the Soviets use to stack their >Energias be bigger? Does anybody know anything about how they >assemble, say, Buran? > >John. The Soviets stack the Energia horizontally, roll it out to the pad on a rail system, then erect it on the pad. This is done whether or not it is launching Buran or any other shuttle. For shuttle launches, the shuttle is set on top of the (horizontal) Energia. They do not require buildings the size of the VAB. The VAB was built back when we were building real rockets :-) If it were built to fit the shuttle needs, it would have been much smaller. The VAB was designed to support a launch rate of 12 Saturn Vs a year. It was built with 4 high bays and the design allowed for adding 2 more if needed. I believe that the VAB was sized based on a guess of the eventual size of the Saturn V (although it wasn't known as that at the time) and allowed growth for the anticipated size of follow-on vehicles. As it turned out, the Saturn V was about as big as the VAB could handle and if the Nova had been built it wouldn't have fit in the VAB. For shuttle stacking, we use 2 high bays (while one shuttle is launched, there is usually another SRB set being stacked, by the time that a shuttle is mated to a stack, another is starting stacking operations). The other 2 bays are used for storage. marcus hall marcus@illusion.UUCP
henry@utzoo.uucp (Henry Spencer) (02/09/89)
In article <89Jan25.095342est.9381@ois.db.toronto.edu> hogg@db.toronto.edu (John Hogg) writes: >Horizontally, the same way that they assemble all their launchers. >Among other advantages of this system, the building doesn't have to be >so big. Well, actually, it has to be just about as big if you've got the same number of bays, it just doesn't have to be as high. Horizontal assembly does have disadvantages, too: the erection process puts considerable stress on the vehicle, and (as some recent minor accidents to shuttle payloads and shuttle hardware before stacking demonstrate) there is more risk of accidental damage because workmen end up working *above* the hardware instead of beside it. NASA thought about this at some length before using vertical assembly for the Saturn V. -- Allegedly heard aboard Mir: "A | Henry Spencer at U of Toronto Zoology toast to comrade Van Allen!!" | uunet!attcan!utzoo!henry henry@zoo.toronto.edu
henry@utzoo.uucp (Henry Spencer) (02/09/89)
In article <378@illusion.UUCP> marcus@illusion.UUCP (Marcus Hall) writes: >The VAB was built back when we were building real rockets :-) If it were >built to fit the shuttle needs, it would have been much smaller. The VAB >was designed to support a launch rate of 12 Saturn Vs a year... More, actually, although it depends on which study you look at; the early 6-bay studies assumed 26 per year. >... the VAB was sized based on a guess of the eventual size of >the Saturn V (although it wasn't known as that at the time) and allowed >growth for the anticipated size of follow-on vehicles. As it turned out, >the Saturn V was about as big as the VAB could handle and if the Nova had >been built it wouldn't have fit in the VAB. No, the VAB could have taken most of the more orthodox Nova designs, which were still in the running when the VAB specs started to solidify. If you look at a photo of a Saturn emerging, note that the VAB doors are quite a bit higher and wider than the Saturn. Internal things like work platforms were more specifically built for the Saturn, of course, but they would be easier to change later. What really killed Nova, or at least made its advocates fight an increasingly uphill battle, was the choice of the existing Michoud plant for first-stage assembly. Its ceilings were not tall enough to take anything with more than about five F-1s in the base. -- Allegedly heard aboard Mir: "A | Henry Spencer at U of Toronto Zoology toast to comrade Van Allen!!" | uunet!attcan!utzoo!henry henry@zoo.toronto.edu