Posted on 02/21/2018 10:03:25 AM PST by Red Badger
NASA's latest tower for launching rockets has a little bit of a lean, which means it may be able to launch just a single rocket. The cost of this tower boondoggle? Almost $1 billion.
The tower in question is the Mobile Launcher designed for NASA’s upcoming Space Launch System, which would become the world’s most powerful rocket once completed in a few years. The tower is supposed to keep the rocket stable and upright on the platform during a launch. The system was built for NASA’s now-defunct Ares I rocket and later repurposed for the SLS.
The Mobile Launcher is a behemoth piece of equipment, standing nearly 400 feet tall and weighing more than 10 million pounds. It holds miles of cables, tubes, and pipes to ensure the SLS can remain operational on the launch pad. Building such a structure is a challenging task, which is why it cost approximately $912 million.
The sheer size and complexity may also be the cause of the difficulties the Mobile Launcher is currently facing. According to a report from NASASpaceflight.com, the launch tower is leaning slightly toward the North, which is in the direction of the rocket on the launchpad. The structure also seems to be twisting slightly.
While NASA seems to believe this lean is not enough to require additional construction, it will likely mean that the Mobile Launcher won’t be used for more than one or two launches. If the agency wants to launch more than a few SLS rockets over the next few decades, it will likely have to build a brand new launcher.
This isn’t entirely a bad thing, though. NASA had previously been considering building a second launcher anyway to accommodate the SLS Exploration Upper Stage, the larger version of the rocket’s second stage designed to send payloads deeper into the solar system. Because the Exploration Upper Stage is much larger than the standard upper stage, it would require either significant updates to the existing Mobile Launcher or a brand new one.
The Exploration Upper Stage is scheduled to be used on the second flight of the SLS, which means that even if the leaning Mobile Launcher is structurally sound enough to launch multiple rockets, it may be retired after the first one anyway. After all, there was a strong argument in favor of building a new Mobile Launcher even before the old one started bending.
Source: NASASpaceflight.com
Loved that movie, understood there was to be a sequel that was never made.
I read both books.
IMDB kept teasing for years that there was a remake in progress.
Reader comments eventually convinced me it would be a PC nightmare and never get made.
Need Another Seven Astronauts times two
love that movie
Yes, I don't know the percentage of recovery, but there was an investigation and the private contractors had to pay a multimillion dollar settlement.
What do they need that fancy contraption for anyway? Can’t they just strap a big stick to the side of the SLS and then stick it in a bottle?
SpaceX could have built that in half the time for a quarter of the money.
AND IT WOULD BE STRAIGHT.................
And it would have a Tesla on top of it.
I didn’t know the tesla was included. I may buy a space X rocket. i’d like to orbit the moon and see what’s n the other side.
Gonna need a BIIIIIG STICK!....................
It would ‘bob’ up and down when you dropped it when it reached the length of its cord?...............
Thanks, appreciated.
I actually looked around a bit before posting that question, but only found the name of the testing co, can’t remember it now, but no mention of penalties.
The prime contractor winning the bid will be owned by the spouses and extended families of the Deep State Congress critters. If America is going to fix this rampant theft of our money we have enough to trees but we will need more rope.
Only a brief article, but it references the penalties: http://articles.latimes.com/1993-10-05/business/fi-42487_1_hubble-telescope
“The Owner chose the site.”
You’re saying the structure is within ordinary tolerances, and no other tolerances were specified in the contract, so the designer is off the hook?
Hope the next launcher (mentioned in the article) will be better designed.
Wonder why they didn’t build the 1st launcher to accommodate the larger version of the rocket’s second stage?
Thanks for that superb photograph !
It was bobbed.....................
I don’t think anyone who was born after 1969, can truly appreciate those times and just how awesome Apollo 11 was.
Perhaps to make my point a little more defined:
When journalists (who we know rarely get anything correct in detail as their view is temporary) write these articles, the question arises has the builder done something “wrong” or out of compliance with his contract. As one in that field for over fifty years, I often suggest looking at the design.
That often is only half the story as the Owner rarely gives the designer all he would have in a perfect world. There is a risk of Ownership and a number of realities that always must be looked at.
Often there is a suggestion to drill geotechnical investigative borings on a grid. Lets say that 10’ on-center might be ideal. The quantity and cost compared to 20’ on-center is almost four times the cost with benefits of nothing if the sub-grade is entirely uniform. That is just one of a hundred cost and time considerations an Owner may get to consider.
Ownership, designed spaces and the execution of them is not Art, but it is closer to it than many understand. Fault is often an after the fact judgement also subject to levels of value and degree.
I really miss America . . .
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.