Slashdot Mirror


NASA's Giant Crawler-Transporter Is Getting an Upgrade

An anonymous reader sends this excerpt from Transportation Nation: "Retired space shuttles are being readied for museums, but there's one piece of equipment at the Kennedy Space Center that dates back to before the moon landing and it's not going anywhere. NASA's giant crawler transporter is the only machine with enough muscle to move Apollo rockets and space shuttles out to the launch pad, and after nearly 50 years on the job the agency's decided there's still no better way to transport heavy loads. It's about as wide as a six lane highway, higher than a two story building, with huge caterpillar treads at each of its four corners. ... Crawler two is being upgraded from its current lifting capacity of 12 million pounds — the combined weight of the shuttle and mobile launcher — to 18 million pounds, for NASA’s new heavy lift rocket."

135 comments

  1. Stupid question... by Yvanhoe · · Score: 2

    ... but why don't they build the rocket on the take-off location and remove the building instead? It seems like a smaller effort, no?

    --
    The Wise adapts himself to the world. The Fool adapts the world to himself. Therefore, all progress depends on the Fool.
    1. Re:Stupid question... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Insightful

      I suspect they like they prefer to build rockets indoors (controlled environment, etc) and launch them outdoors (slight fire hazard, etc).

    2. Re:Stupid question... by Ogive17 · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Would you want a "temporary building" housing a billion dollar investment in an area prone to hurricanes?

      --
      "Action without philosophy is a lethal weapon; philosophy without action is worthless."
    3. Re:Stupid question... by Jeng · · Score: 1

      Because they build more than one at a time.

      --
      Don't know something? Look it up. Still don't know? Then ask.
    4. Re:Stupid question... by ColdWetDog · · Score: 4, Interesting

      ... but why don't they build the rocket on the take-off location and remove the building instead? It seems like a smaller effort, no?

      Go look at pictures of the VAB (Vehicle Assembly Building - no, you find the links). The largest indoor space in the world. So you'd like to immolate it every time you launched a rocket? Sounds even more expensive than the crawler transporter.

      Just as a point of argument, there ARE other ways to do this sort of thing. The Russians like to put things together on the ground and then lift the entire mess up. I'm sure there were spirited discussions on the pros and cons of doing this in the 60's but this way certainly has been quite flexible.

      Sigh. This is part of my childhood - grew up around the thing. Nice to see that it's still there though.

      --
      Faster! Faster! Faster would be better!
    5. Re:Stupid question... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      Would you want a "temporary building" housing a billion dollar investment in an area prone to hurricanes?

      I bought a 50-foot by 50-foot tarp to cover my roof while I was doing some work--it cost about $150. Now could you imagine how much it would cost to cover the rocket while it's under construction? And you all know what happens to tarps when the wind picks up. I'd hate to be the team trying to lash it down during a Florida wind storm. Much cheaper to just move it into place on a giant tractor thingy.

    6. Re:Stupid question... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Down boy... sniffing glue all night? Little edgy?

    7. Re:Stupid question... by firex726 · · Score: 4, Informative

      Wiki disagrees with you. It's ONE of the largest, it's not THE largest.

      It's #6 on the list: Largest usable space

      http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_largest_buildings_in_the_world

    8. Re:Stupid question... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The VAB is actually #6 by usable space

    9. Re:Stupid question... by TubeSteak · · Score: 3, Informative

      Just as a point of argument, there ARE other ways to do this sort of thing. The Russians like to put things together on the ground and then lift the entire mess up. I'm sure there were spirited discussions on the pros and cons of doing this in the 60's but this way certainly has been quite flexible.

      The Russians like to move their rockets by rail.
      http://i.dailymail.co.uk/i/pix/2011/04/02/article-1372645-0B724A6200000578-45_634x286.jpg
      It's a much simpler and faster process than the mega crawler NASA went went.

      --
      [Fuck Beta]
      o0t!
    10. Re:Stupid question... by Mercano · · Score: 1

      Mostly because they want to reuse as much of the existing infrastructure at KSC as they can, and it was built around the idea of static buildings & launch pads with mobile launch platforms. When they were building a west coast shuttle launching facility in the 80's, they were reusing SLC-6, a Titan III facility built around having a mobile service tower, so they wound up building a mobile assembly building.

      Wait, west coast shuttle facilities, you ask? Yup, they were planing on launching Discovery from Vandenberg Air Force Base in October 1986. Unfortunately, Challenger exploded in January 1986, putting a moratorium on shuttle launches, and it was deemed prohibitively expensive to make all of the safety-related upgrades required once they started flying again, and, at that point, the Air Force had already decided they were better off with unmanned expendable launchers.

      --
      #include <signature.h>
    11. Re:Stupid question... by ColdWetDog · · Score: 1

      I'd like to thank all the Slashdot pedants for clarifying one small point of fact on my post. Where would we be without you guys?

      No, really. Thanks. The world is a better place.

      --
      Faster! Faster! Faster would be better!
    12. Re:Stupid question... by firex726 · · Score: 1

      Yea, who needs accurate information for claims that you specially refused to back up.
      Maybe if you were not so abrasive people would not go out of their way to look-up your stuff.

    13. Re:Stupid question... by Lumpy · · Score: 2

      Then NASA needs to switch to Diet Coke and mentos for the initial boost rockets...

      --
      Do not look at laser with remaining good eye.
    14. Re:Stupid question... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      My, what a hostile little prick you are.

    15. Re:Stupid question... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Yeah, that guy's a total fag.

    16. Re:Stupid question... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Maybe if people were not such idiots, they WOULD bother to look shit up.

      I'm so tired of the "link or it didn't happen" broken mentality. This usually comes from the dimmist bulb in the room - yet they're sure they are not.

      Seriously, when you're talking to people do you say stupid shit like, "link or it didn't happen?"

      And when you add pedantic shit to a losely related tidbit which was not the focus of the discussion, it seems to imply you're not listening. Rather, you're too busy pretending to be smart to actually productively participate in a discussion.

      Like it or not, its actually people like you who come across as rude and abrasive.

    17. Re:Stupid question... by Catmeat · · Score: 3, Informative
      ... but why don't they build the rocket on the take-off location and remove the building instead? It seems like a smaller effort, no?

      This is exactly what's done in some circumstances. During the 80's, there were plans to launch shuttles from Vandernberg AFB in California. The West-Coast launch site was known as SLC-6 and, if it had ever been used, would have worked in exactly this way. The downside is that the launch site is tied up for many months at a time. I believe SLC-6 was intended to handle around one launch per year.

      When the plans for Kennedy were laid out in the early 60's, the method of getting to the moon was still being decided. Early on, the leading option was Earth orbit rendezvous, which would have required two Saturn 5 launches per mission, with the rockets launched within hours of each other. Having a central assembly building with a capacity for several Saturn 5s [1] and three separate launch sites (although only two were actually built) was seen as the best way of doing this. Everything there now is a legacy of this, early-60's planning.

      However ESA in Kourou and the Russians in Baikonur do the same thing - separating assembly and launch sites. The hassle of having to move rockets about on the ground is more than made up for the fact that your launch rate isn't bottle-necked by the number of launch pads. And remember, the number of launch pads is always going to be limited as they have to be separated by many miles of empty land for safety reasons. Even on the Central Asian steppes, you'd only have space for so many.

      [1] I believe it could potentially accommodate four at various stages of assembly but don't quote me, I'm likely misremembering the exact number.

    18. Re:Stupid question... by k6mfw · · Score: 1

      Reason why VAB was built and Pad 39A and 39B three miles away and using the crawler transporter was based on Saturn V rocket and its assembly and launch complex, all had to be ready in less than a decade. If they had to do it all over again with Space Shuttle, it would be done differently. But wait, it was! At least for Vandenberg AFB which was another Shuttle launch facility on west coast for polar orbits, see these pics at http://www.murdoconline.net/archives/3981.html and you can see overall was done very differently. Regarding Florida, they decide to reuse same facilities instead of scrapping and rebuilding from scratch for the Shuttle. VAFB was abandoned in later 1980s. For the Constellation program, they were to reuse the VAB, Pad39, and crawler (after all Constellation and SLS is Apollo on steroids).

      --
      mfwright@batnet.com
    19. Re:Stupid question... by ColdWetDog · · Score: 1

      Oops. Forgot. AC's have absolutely no sensor of humor, sarcasm (or anything else for that matter).

      Sorry.

      --
      Faster! Faster! Faster would be better!
    20. Re:Stupid question... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Early NASA rockets were assembled horizontal and moved to the launch pads on a special trailer that would erect them to a vertical position on the launch pad. I can't find pictures of the older transporter truck(s) but note that the current crawlers didn't exist until ~1965 so they completely missed the Mercury and early Gemini days. I'm also certain that they didn't "just decide" to create the crawlers for Apollo but in fact decided to do so as part of an engineering trade off analysis. The Soviets doing something different just shows that there is more than one correct answer to complex multivariable problems - especially when the constraints of the initial conditions vary.

    21. Re:Stupid question... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Been done - Slick Six

    22. Re:Stupid question... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Maybe we just find things like "no YOU..." to be trivial and serve but nothing as a hindrance to the forum?

    23. Re:Stupid question... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Maybe you could be less of an obnoxious tool and realize that the VAB is in fact the largest single story building in the world. I agree that is not precisely what ColdWetDog stated, but neither did he state precisely what you did (concerning 'largest usable space'). If you want to be a pedantic prick, then I can be as well.

    24. Re:Stupid question... by demachina · · Score: 1

      My personal theory is that launching the Shuttle from SLC-6 was a wacko Reagan-esque first strike weapon aimed at the Soviet Union, which only someone as wacko as Reagan and his friends would dream up.

      Basically you permanently park a Shuttle in the SLC-6 hanger with a payload bay full of nuclear bombs attached to small solid rocket motors. The day you decide to launch a first strike, you launch the Shuttle from Vandenburg in to a polar orbit in the vacinity of Moscow and Russia's command and control centers. You count on the Russians not being alarmed by a shuttle launch.

      Over the Soviet union you open the payload bay, and lob a couple dozen nukes in to the Soviet Union with almost no warning time. You decapitate their political and military elites, cripple their command and control of their nuclear forces, and follow up with conventional missiles to wipe out their ICBM's and bombers. The only flaw is you will probably still get clocked by their submarines unless they capitulate first.

      --
      @de_machina
    25. Re:Stupid question... by plover · · Score: 1

      He didn't say they should create a disposable building. He suggested they could build a movable building, like a retractable dome.

      It's not the greatest idea, though. They'd be limited to assembling one vehicle at a time on each pad. With the existing VAB and crawler to move the vehicles, they can theoretically assemble several in advance, and store them.

      --
      John
    26. Re:Stupid question... by sconeu · · Score: 1

      Put away your tinfoil hat. Vandenberg would have been used for polar orbit launches. In the same way that Canaveral is almost perfect for equatorial launches, Vandenberg is great for polar orbit. Launch southward, and you're over ocean until you've reached orbit.

      --
      General Relativity: Space-time tells matter where to go; Matter tells space-time what shape to be.
    27. Re:Stupid question... by cusco · · Score: 3, Interesting

      Has to do with the way the Soviet and the US/German design teams came at an issue. The Soviets (Korolev especially) wanted to be able to access and inspect everything up to the very last, thus the horizontal assembly. They were on an extremely tight budget and couldn't afford launch failures. The Americans assumed that the contractors and assembly teams would check everything, so just stacking the components vertically the way they had done it since the V-2 seemed logical. They had a much more expansive budget and a failure rate of 20 percent was seen as acceptable (at least by the contractors) until people started climbing aboard.

      --
      "Think about how stupid the average person is. Now, realise that half of them are dumber than that." - George Carlin
    28. Re:Stupid question... by trout007 · · Score: 1

      Some rockets are launched this way. The Delta IV is built on a launch pad and the entire building rolls out of the way for launch.

      The old Titan IV was similar.

      Also during Apollo there was a temporary access structure that was as big as the rocket called the Mobile Service Structure that was moved around with the crawlers.

      http://www.google.com/imgres?imgurl=http://www.savethelut.org/photos/Apollo%252011%2520LUT%2520and%2520SS.jpg&imgrefurl=http://tech.groups.yahoo.com/group/LUT_Group/links/LUT_Photo_Scans_001010527570/&h=2391&w=3021&sz=1203&tbnid=nFgUFKgMOtkbmM:&tbnh=90&tbnw=114&prev=/search%3Fq%3Dapollo%2Bservice%2Bstructure%26tbm%3Disch%26tbo%3Du&zoom=1&q=apollo+service+structure&usg=__gD1s6DxMp1cFJnWTpJ8ajQ9Kk1o=&docid=T1q00Ujf8pRAwM&sa=X&ei=BIZKUPaFBIL-9QSiwIHADA&ved=0CC4Q9QEwAw&dur=437

      --
      I love Jesus, except for his foreign policy.
    29. Re:Stupid question... by demachina · · Score: 1

      There was never a strong case for using the shuttle to launch DOD satellites and everyone knows it. If it had been cheap and launched frequently as originally promised maybe. But by the time it first flew it was obvious it was going to be extravegently over priced to fly and difficult to refurbish between flights so it would never have a good launch rate. As much trouble as it had out of the box with water droplet damage it would have been horrible to launch it out of fog bound Vandenburgh.

      If they only did one launch a year out of SLC-6 that would have made it assinenly expensive unless they had some incredibly important task they needed to do that only the shuttle could do.

      If anyone actually thought it was going to be economical to use the Shuttle to launch satellties from SLC-6 they they were just delusional. The $6 billion they blew on SLC-6 alone would have funded a bunch of Atlas, Titan and Delta launches.

      All things considered my theory is more plausible than you echoing the bullshit that the DOD was going to do one polar launch a year from there.

      --
      @de_machina
    30. Re:Stupid question... by shiftless · · Score: 0

      Or maybe you're just a fucktard.

    31. Re:Stupid question... by strack · · Score: 1

      they really should do it they way spacex does it, which is roll out the empty rocket to the launch pad horizontal. turn it vertical, fill it up with fuel and o2, and launch.

    32. Re:Stupid question... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The ground can't support a rail system at the cape. The whole point of the crawler is to spread the weight in such a way that it doesn't cause the stack to sink while being transported. The soviets/russians, launching from what is essentially hard pack desert, can use rail.

    33. Re:Stupid question... by Lucractius · · Score: 1

      The ground can't support a rail system at the cape. The whole point of the crawler is to spread the weight in such a way that it doesn't cause the stack to sink while being transported. The soviets/russians, launching from what is essentially hard pack desert, can use rail.

      While researching a while ago when working for something or other I have long since forgotten, these exact details stuck in my head. Its the simple truth. They would have done it cheaper if the ground wasnt a bloody swamp. The crawler doesnt need to be the way it is because it carries a rocket. It was built and designed because it was needed to carry a rocket to a the hard concrete launch pad, over several miles of soft Florida ground.

      They did use rails where they found it applicable. Such as Cape Canaveral Air Force Station - Launch Complex 41 and nearby Launch Complex 40. These 2 launch pads used rail lines to transport Titan family rockets to the pad in a vertical orientation and here is photo of them in use doing just that

      --
      XML - A clever joke would be here if /. didn't mangle tag brackets.
  2. For what? by tekrat · · Score: 3, Insightful

    If NASA thinks they are going to have a heavy-lift rocket, or even a manned space program, ever again, they obviously have not been reading the newspapers. For the next decade at least, they aren't going to do anything beyond a few GPS and communications satellites. And Elon Musk is going to grab most of that business. Joyrides are being handled by two other companies and the Russians are providing the lifts to the ISS, until that too, is deorbited for lack of funds.

    Short of a "Pearl Harbor" style incident that forces us back into space in a big way (say, the Chinese land on the moon, or a chunk of falling rock wipes out LA), the government is as committed to NASA as the average Slashdotter is committed to becoming the Pope.

    --
    If telephones are outlawed, then only outlaws will have telephones.
    1. Re:For what? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      You insensitive clod! I'm a priest, the kind that doesn't piddle little boys, and I aspire to be Pope one day!

    2. Re:For what? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      So I guess you're not an average slashdot reader then?

    3. Re:For what? by Leuf · · Score: 1

      Even if it's another entity besides NASA that builds a heavy lift rocket, they are going to need somewhere to launch it from.

    4. Re:For what? by 0123456 · · Score: 1

      Even if it's another entity besides NASA that builds a heavy lift rocket, they are going to need somewhere to launch it from.

      NASA are the only entity likely to build a heavy lift rocket in the near future because it makes no financial sense. And even if SpaceX did build one, they'd be unlikely to pay for NASA infrastructure to launch it.

    5. Re:For what? by cheesybagel · · Score: 1

      GPS is funded by the DoD. NASA does not do comsats. NASA is not the DoD, nor the NRO, nor NOAA. What does NASA do? Probes, ISS, Hubble, etc.

    6. Re:For what? by Cytotoxic · · Score: 1

      Even if it's another entity besides NASA that builds a heavy lift rocket, they are going to need somewhere to launch it from.

      NASA are the only entity likely to build a heavy lift rocket in the near future because it makes no financial sense. And even if SpaceX did build one, they'd be unlikely to pay for NASA infrastructure to launch it.

      How heavy is "heavy lift"? SpaceX has the Falcon Heavy on the roadmap. Supposed to lift over double the capacity of the Shuttle. Will launch from the Cape on a Nasa pad. According to their website, only the Saturn V delivered more mass to orbit. According to my recollection a couple of Soviet rockets were bigger too.

      It looks like the Alliant/Boeing SLS could do double the work of the Falcon Heavy, if it ever gets built. Projected costs for SLS are even more massive than its payload - at least when compared to SpaceX numbers. They are quoting $138 million to GTO, while current estimates place the cost of a base model SLS at $1.6 billion (not including program development costs or launch costs). So if the SLS is what defines "heavy lift" then I suppose you are right. Only a government would shell out that kind of dough. (a quick look at wikipedia says that NASA estimates total program costs through the first 4 launches at $41 billion - so nearly 10x the cost of launching with SpaceX. - of course you do get that extra 25% more payload for the cost)

    7. Re:For what? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      the kind that doesn't piddle little boys

      it also sounds like he isn't an average priest either!

    8. Re:For what? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      the kind that doesn't piddle little boys

      it also sounds like he isn't an average priest either!

      What percentage of Slashdot readers piddle little boys?

    9. Re:For what? by 0123456 · · Score: 1

      How heavy is "heavy lift"? SpaceX has the Falcon Heavy on the roadmap. Supposed to lift over double the capacity of the Shuttle.

      Considering the shuttle launched something like a quarter as much as the Saturn V, launching twice as much isn't really saying a lot.

      But it also avoids the biggest problem of the SLS: you spend billions and billions and billions of dollars developing something that flies perhaps a dozen times over the next decade, so every single launch starts with a base cost of a billion dollars or more when you spread the development costs over a tiny number of launches. The Falcon Heavy would be based on the Falcon 9, so most of the development costs are already paid for.

    10. Re:For what? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      GPS is funded by the DoD. NASA does not do comsats. NASA is not the DoD, nor the NRO, nor NOAA. What does NASA do? Probes, ISS, Hubble, etc.

      NASA runs launch services for the DOD. Kennedy Space Center are launching a GPS sattelite and another X-37B flight next month - both for the DOD!

    11. Re:For what? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I'd like to be the pope. So I can fix their inane policies.

    12. Re:For what? by morgauxo · · Score: 1

      I'd say the bar on heavy lift is Apollo. Why? Because only Apollo ever took a human being to another world. If it can be done with less then I will call that heavy lift just as soon as somebody proves it by doing it. Until then all this news about suborbital and orbital flight is getting boring.

    13. Re:For what? by demachina · · Score: 1

      NASA, Boeing and Lockheed are unlikely to ever build a new launcher especially one with a price tag running to $40 billion dollars. They have completely lost the engineering capacity, the fire in the belly and the desire. Their funding source, the U.S. Congress and President, is so politicized, gridlocked and partisan they will never sustain the funding over the extended period it takes to complete anything of substance and difficulty.

      They will do exactly what they've done on every new launcher for the last 20 years. Pour money in to, make some impressive and expensive animations of what it would look like if they ever built it, and a new Congress or President will cancel it and start over right before they actually start building it.

      NASA's manned space program these days is mostly about buying votes in Florida since its the ultimate swing state in Presidential elections.

      Most of these Shuttle derived launchers are also schemes by Senators Hatch and Shelby to salvage jobs in their home states at a staggering price per job.

      The money would be better spent pouring it in to Falcon Heavy. They would get a much larger number of launches, much sooner, in a probably much more reliable launcher, for a fraction of the price, which more than makes up for the lower payload per launch, unless you have a huge payload that can't be split up.

      --
      @de_machina
    14. Re:For what? by plover · · Score: 1

      NASA, Boeing and Lockheed are unlikely to ever build a new launcher especially one with a price tag running to $40 billion dollars. They have completely lost the engineering capacity, the fire in the belly and the desire.

      For the Biggest Science projects, NASA only does what they're told - the politicians have to say "send a colony to Mars", it's not a choice that NASA makes on their own. And Lockheed and Boeing are contractors. They don't choose what NASA does, either. Remember, NASA didn't stand in front of America and say "we will send a man to the moon by the end of the decade; not because it is easy, but because it is hard." That was Kennedy.

      I don't think they've lost the engineering capabilities. But what they have done is added so much process in terms of safety engineering that they probably couldn't get another Apollo mission together without passing several centuries worth of review boards. Trust me, that kind of bureaucracy will kill any engineer's spirit to create or innovate. (That's why I admire Boeing engineers more than any others: they are still able to create new airliners in an environment that requires a dedicated production line at 3M just to create all the red tape they see. Boeing may not roll out a new model every year, but they persevere until they ship it. That takes serious dedication.)

      --
      John
    15. Re:For what? by demachina · · Score: 1

      "NASA only does what they're told"

      That is why SpaceX succeeds and NASA fails. SpaceX is setting their own strategic direction and its engineering and vision driven. They have to fight to piece together funding but when develop great launchers with a killer price point the money flows to them and they aren't totally dependent on polticially motivated funding, though their NASA contracts are huge to them.

      "I don't think they've lost the engineering capabilities"

      How do you think they would still have the engineering capabilities to do something hard when all the people that did Apollo have retired or died, and even most of the people that built the Shuttle are probably gone. You can't develop or maintain engineering excellence to build new things if you never build anything new. They might have some great young engineers but if they never build things they aren't going to develop and hold the expertise to build things.

      It was fantastically hard on NASA's in house engineering capability during the Reagan years when they compelled everything to be contracted out and the engineers at NASA were turned in to paper pushing contract monitors while the contractors did all the work. No good engineer wanted the civil service jobs NASA was offering during that era.

      Any aerospace engineer with talent, drive and any sense is going to try to get a job at SpaceX these days, not NASA.

      Don't even get my started on Boeing and Lockheed. The culture difference between them and SpaceX is vast. SpaceX wants to build rockets and do great things in space exploration. Boeing and Lockheed want to land big, sole source, cost plus contracts, milk as much out of them as they can to pad their profit margins and stock price. Doing incredible things in space just doesn't seem to enter in to their equation. I doubt they much care if their projects get killed before they bend any metal as long as they get a new one they can milk to replace it.

      There is inherehently a vast gulf betweem SpaceX gambling everything on every launch, where failures could put them out of business versus Boeing and Lockheed who are never gambling anything. For them the pay is always the same, whether they succeed or fail.

      --
      @de_machina
    16. Re:For what? by cheesybagel · · Score: 1

      Actually they do not. The USAF does range control and the EELV launchers are manufactured and handled by ULA : United Launch Alliance which is a joint operation by Boeing and Lockheed Martin. X-37B is done by Boeing for the USAF although there was a demonstrator of it which was run by NASA.

  3. Why does it have brakes? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Funny

    Can't help but wonder since it moves so slow, but still, how far would it freeroll if you didn't have brakes?

    1. Re:Why does it have brakes? by tekrat · · Score: 1

      Physics.
      It has brakes because with that much mass, an object in motion tends to stay in motion and an object at rest tends to stay at rest.

      --
      If telephones are outlawed, then only outlaws will have telephones.
    2. Re:Why does it have brakes? by squidflakes · · Score: 3, Informative

      It would have to be on a hell of an incline. The friction between the tracks and the suspension is enormous. I've ridden the thing a couple of times and they really have to gun the throttles to get everything rolling. After that, they throttle down just a bit to maintain a nice even pace.

    3. Re:Why does it have brakes? by Fwipp · · Score: 1

      24 million pounds means a lot of inertia.

    4. Re:Why does it have brakes? by fustakrakich · · Score: 1
      --
      “He’s not deformed, he’s just drunk!”
    5. Re:Why does it have brakes? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Gee, i didn't realise physics was at work here...

      The more pertinent question here is how quickly does it stop?

    6. Re:Why does it have brakes? by Squeebee · · Score: 2

      Keep in mind that the crawler isn't just impressive because of the weight it can haul, but also because of the pinpoint accuracy with which is can place it's load. Yes, it could freeroll a little bit, but you won't get a spacecraft positioned within a fraction of an inch that way (think of all the connectors and arms attached to a rocket or shuttle, getting all those couplings right required the rocket or shuttle to be placed very precisely).

    7. Re:Why does it have brakes? by sjames · · Score: 1

      Don't let the slow speed fool you. With 12 (soon 18) million pounds behind it, it can keep creeping for quite a long time if that energy isn't removed somehow.

    8. Re:Why does it have brakes? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I think the real unanswered question is...Does it blend?

    9. Re:Why does it have brakes? by RaceProUK · · Score: 1

      Not to mention the self-levelling essentially balancing a baseball bat on a bottle cap.

      --
      No colour or religion ever stopped the bullet from a gun
    10. Re:Why does it have brakes? by Iniamyen · · Score: 3, Funny

      To make it road legal. Damned government regulations.

    11. Re:Why does it have brakes? by camperdave · · Score: 1

      It can't be too much of an incline, or the rocket would fall over.

      --
      When our name is on the back of your car, we're behind you all the way!
    12. Re:Why does it have brakes? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      Also when it's not transporting the SatV rocket or shuttle or whatever lorry of the time...that is moving back to the VAB, I guess it can achieve higher speeds "let's see what this baby can do!!" and then they would need brakes.

      "Why do cars need brakes? ... so they can go fast"

    13. Re:Why does it have brakes? by RobertLTux · · Score: 1

      well i think if it ran over an F-350 the truck would land up very "blended" (each tread is about 50 TONS in just "shoes")

      --
      Any person using FTFY or editing my postings agrees to a US$50.00 charge
    14. Re:Why does it have brakes? by JWW · · Score: 1

      Heh, "gun the throttle."

      All I can think of it 0-1 mph in .....

    15. Re:Why does it have brakes? by squidflakes · · Score: 1

      Well, gun in a relative frame. I guess "They have to advance the throttle level faster and to a higher setting..." just doesn't have the same ring.

    16. Re:Why does it have brakes? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
      Reading.

      Read the fucking question you dumbfuck.

    17. Re:Why does it have brakes? by uncqual · · Score: 1

      True, the fleet is going to have some real challenges meeting 2025 mileage regulations which, IIRC, are somewhat more economical than 125.7 gallons per mile.

      --
      Why is there an "insightful" mod and why isn't it "-1"? If I wanted insight, I wouldn't be reading /.
    18. Re:Why does it have brakes? by JWW · · Score: 1

      "gun-it" is great, it just brings to my mind a picture of the trawler driver gripping the wheel tightly and mashing on the "accelerator."

    19. Re:Why does it have brakes? by squidflakes · · Score: 1

      Truly, there needs to be a nail-biting, gut-wrenching, crazy-go-nuts crawler chase scene in a movie one day.

    20. Re:Why does it have brakes? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Well, at least all of the possible participants in such a chase are already parked next to each other.

    21. Re:Why does it have brakes? by DerekLyons · · Score: 1

      Why does it have brakes? Because when you're handling millions of pounds of irreplaceable hardware costing half a billion dollars or more - you want to be sure. You use belts, suspenders, *and* duct tape.

    22. Re:Why does it have brakes? by trout007 · · Score: 1

      There is a pretty good slope up the pad. But the CT has leveling hydraulics to keep the pad surface level.

      --
      I love Jesus, except for his foreign policy.
  4. Upgrades by Kingazaz · · Score: 1

    An inside source told me that they'll be adding a cool air intake and a bigger exhaust in order to attain the extra power they're after.

    1. Re:Upgrades by thePowerOfGrayskull · · Score: 1

      An inside source told me that they'll be adding a cool air intake and a bigger exhaust in order to attain the extra power they're after.

      Not to mention switching to Gentoo as the OS.

    2. Re:Upgrades by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Will they be installing a VTEC engine too?

    3. Re:Upgrades by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I heard they put an 'R Code' sticker on it and that accounted for 2 million additional pounds of capacity right there.

    4. Re:Upgrades by rwise2112 · · Score: 1

      Will they be installing a VTEC engine too?

      No. Just Type-S stickers!

      --

      "For every expert, there is an equal and opposite expert"
    5. Re:Upgrades by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      "Ground Effects"...

  5. Rail System by Ashenkase · · Score: 2

    I have always wondered why they don't convert the system to rail. Seems like a much more efficient way to transport a vehicle out to the pad.

    1. Re:Rail System by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      That is how the Russians do it:

      http://www.foreignpolicy.com/images/081010_soyuz4.jpg

      I am sure they have reasoned about it back when they designed it.

    2. Re:Rail System by RobertLTux · · Score: 1

      because in this weight class train tracks would SNAP LIKE TWIGS if it turned a fraction of a second out of time.

      --
      Any person using FTFY or editing my postings agrees to a US$50.00 charge
    3. Re:Rail System by WillAdams · · Score: 1

      What's the cost of maintaining (and inspecting) a rail system in an area prone to hurricanes?

      The Crawler travels a (mostly) gravel road.

      --
      Sphinx of black quartz, judge my vow.
    4. Re:Rail System by sackbut · · Score: 2

      What's the cost of maintaining (and inspecting) a rail system in an area prone to hurricanes?

      The Crawler travels a (mostly) gravel road.

      Another interesting fact... The gravel roadbed utilizes a special Tennessee (?) gravel that is much less prone to sparking than the usual stuff.

    5. Re:Rail System by wfmcwalter · · Score: 1

      Most Russian launchers are delivered just this, including Soyuz, Proton, Energia (including Energia/Buran). They're horizontally integrated (as opposed to the VAB's vertical integration) and placed on a cradle. The cradle is moved, on rails, to the launch facility, where the cradle boom tips the launcher vertical and it's integrated with the launch gantry equipment and (excepting at least Soyuz) the hold-down system. An exception to this is Soyuz operated from the ESA site, which are vertically integrated on the pad using a giant mobile building - once the integration is complete they open the huge doors on that and the building rolls backwards (I think on rails) and moves back far enough for it not to be damaged by the Soyuz' launch.

      --
      ## W.Finlay McWalter ## http://www.mcwalter.org ##
    6. Re:Rail System by Squeebee · · Score: 1

      It's an incredible amount of weight to haul, and the crawler's treads are wide to distribute that load. If you took all that weight and concentrated it on a couple of rails the rails would likely buckle under the pressure.

    7. Re:Rail System by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      you could say it is already on rails, it just brings its own rails - the treads

    8. Re:Rail System by joe_frisch · · Score: 1

      Or a Barge. You could have a barge on a canal that you flood or drain. Barges of 10,000 tons are not unreasonable, and canal filling / emptying technology is well established. Its possible the center of mass of the rocket is so high that a barge would need to be too wide to be stable without an unreasonable amount of ballast.

    9. Re:Rail System by 0123456 · · Score: 1

      There were studies on using a barge to move Saturn rockets to and from the pads, but they seemed quite hokey. I believe there are some papers about them on NTRS.

    10. Re:Rail System by RaceProUK · · Score: 1

      You could always use more than two rails.

      --
      No colour or religion ever stopped the bullet from a gun
    11. Re:Rail System by Squeebee · · Score: 1

      Yeah, but don't forget that crawler needs to exit from multiple bays and head to multiple pads. Imagine the complexity involved in adding switching to that many parallel rails.

    12. Re:Rail System by cheesybagel · · Score: 1

      Yet the Russians have launched Energia with their system and the N-1 rocket, despite its many issues, had no trouble getting to the pad either.

    13. Re:Rail System by cheesybagel · · Score: 1
    14. Re:Rail System by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Ugh, good christ, "horizontally integrated" and "vertically integrated" are business terms that do not mean what you think they do. You can't just use phrases that sound roughly right without knowing what they actually mean; you sound dumb.

    15. Re:Rail System by DerekLyons · · Score: 1

      Because you'd need a couple of dozen rails per side, along with deep and expensive foundations, to support the weight of a loaded crawler. And it would be practically impossible to create a switching system such that multiple assembly locations could support multiple pads.

    16. Re:Rail System by trout007 · · Score: 1

      Part of the problem is that in Florida you can't dig very deep without hitting water. So the pad is raised about 50 ft or so above sea level. This means you need a ramp to get up to the pad surface. This makes rail & barges impractical.

      --
      I love Jesus, except for his foreign policy.
    17. Re:Rail System by trout007 · · Score: 1
      --
      I love Jesus, except for his foreign policy.
    18. Re:Rail System by trout007 · · Score: 1

      Some US rockets are transported on rails.

      The old Titan IV had the rocket assembled in one building then moved to one of two pads on two sets of rails. The rails had a switch to go to two different pads. Then a building moved over the rocket to integrate the payload. They did this because they did lots of DOD payloads. This way you could have a crew of rocket techs with one level of clearance assemble the rocket. Then at the pad have the NRO people with very high clearance have access to the payload.
      http://spaceflightnow.com/titan/b39/031006rollout.html

      The Atlas V uses a refurbished pad and still uses the same set of rails.
      http://www.wired4space.com/launch-sites/cape-canaveral-afs/atlas-v-with-muos-1-rolls-out-to-the-lc-41-launch-pad

      Space X horizontally integrates and rides out on rails.

      The Delta IV has it's core stage roll out horizontally and is lifted vertical onto a fixed pad with a roll away building.
      http://wattsupwiththat.com/2010/01/19/new-goes-p-weather-satellite-getting-prepped-for-launch/

      One of the reasons in the old days large US rockets were assembled vertically was because they weren't strong enough to be lifted horizontally when integrated. Most of these structures are very strong in the axial direction but can't take large radial loads.

      Also the shuttle SRB's are VERY heavy at about 1 million pounds each. These require a large pad hence a large transporter.

      --
      I love Jesus, except for his foreign policy.
    19. Re:Rail System by trout007 · · Score: 1

      It was a part of a trade study. The problems were the center of pressure of wind was very high and created a large overturning moment. Also the pads are about 50 ft above the crawler way so you would need a lock at the pad to raise it up for enough room for a flame trench.

      --
      I love Jesus, except for his foreign policy.
  6. Good luck... by taiwanjohn · · Score: 1

    I hope they find a use for it someday. Because the SLS (Senate Launch System) will never fly.

    --
    XML is like violence. If it doesn't solve your problem, you're not using enough of it. --AC
    1. Re:Good luck... by tnk1 · · Score: 1

      I hope they find a use for it someday. Because the SLS (Senate Launch System) will never fly.

      That's unfortunate, because I was looking forward to launching the Senate into steadily decaying near-Solar orbit.

    2. Re:Good luck... by fuzzyfuzzyfungus · · Score: 1

      I'm told that, sometime after the great war; but before 2277, the crawler transporter is extensively modified to serve as a (slightly) mobile command post for Enclave remnant forces operating in the capitol wasteland area...

    3. Re:Good luck... by RaceProUK · · Score: 1

      Because the SLS (Senate Launch System) will never fly.

      I hope it does launch. I'd like to see the Senate fly into space :)

      --
      No colour or religion ever stopped the bullet from a gun
    4. Re:Good luck... by cheesybagel · · Score: 1

      Nah it will probably be as useful as the Ares I-X launch tower.

    5. Re:Good luck... by Talderas · · Score: 1

      The hilarious part about the crawler being converted to an Enclave base is that the Crawler was moved from Florida to DC.

      --
      "Lack of speed can be overcome. In the worst case by patience." --Znork
    6. Re:Good luck... by fuzzyfuzzyfungus · · Score: 1

      "Lack of speed can be overcome. In the worst case by patience."

      What do you think the crawler will be busy doing between now and 2277?

    7. Re:Good luck... by Talderas · · Score: 1

      The hilarity has more to do with the terrain rather than distance.

      --
      "Lack of speed can be overcome. In the worst case by patience." --Znork
  7. Dear NASA by Sparticus789 · · Score: 1

    Try steroids, that's what all the Athletes use to life more weight.

    --
    sudo make me a sandwich
  8. But technology? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I thought by now we could 3D print rockets in place, or maybe even quantum teleport the rocket to the launch pad?

    1. Re:But technology? by NEDHead · · Score: 1

      That is just stupid. If we could teleport the rocket to the launch pad, we could just as easily teleport the VAB out of the way while we launched and never need to move the rocket at all.

    2. Re:But technology? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You got it. I was subtly (perhaps too subtly) mocking the techno-optimists here.

  9. I Now Have a New Dream by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I no longer want to drive the Zamboni.

  10. Amazing gear by wbr1 · · Score: 1

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Crawler_transporter
    This is one seriously wicked piece of engineering.
    I sincerely hope we get to use it again.
    Diesel-electric, and rides on a road made of a specific gravel that can support the weight.

    --
    Silence is a state of mime.
  11. More grunt! by onyxruby · · Score: 2

    Sweet, it's nice knowing even the boffins at NASA understand that sometimes in life you just need more grunt and a bigger hammer...

  12. OJ's got nuthin' on me! by Thud457 · · Score: 1

    I no longer want to steal the Zamboni.

    FTFY

    --

    the preceding comment is my own and in no way reflects the opinion of the Joint Chiefs of Staff

  13. millions of pounds? by cellocgw · · Score: 1

    55 comments so far and nobody's jumped on the "NASA hasn't used metric units for the crawler. Will roll upside down?" bandwagon yet?
    No comments about how many fully-laden African swallows it would take to move a Saturn V either. Jeez, /. is getting boring.

    --
    https://app.box.com/WitthoftResume Code: https://github.com/cellocgw
    1. Re:millions of pounds? by wonkey_monkey · · Score: 1

      I was just about to. Something along the lines of "Pounds? It's the 21st Century, NASA!" followed by an expression of vague discomfort at seeing "x million pounds" used in earnest.

      --
      systemd is Roko's Basilisk.
  14. Droids? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Where do the droids go?

  15. Build huge titanium carbon rails dummy by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    your not putting them on avg normal rails GEEE go and weight distribution plays a factor as you could make 20 rails across that are large enough and then just shove the rocket over and you could then do that a bit quicker. Me thinks this is why NASA is basicaly moth balled all that focus on military and UN-intellectual property has drained the actual creativity to other nations and china will land on the moon and prolly india before the usa ever goes by itself with a man back into space.

    1. Re:Build huge titanium carbon rails dummy by necro81 · · Score: 1

      A problem with tracks is thermal expansion. Florida get HOT, but it isn't at the same temperature all the time. that makes it very difficult to keep them in exactly the right place. They have a tendency to bow and warp. If you have 20 tracks that all need to stay in close alignment, your job is more than 20 times harder than keeping standard gauge rail in place. The crawler drives on a gravel roadbed - much more accommodating to weather.

  16. NASA just _thinks_ they can do this by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    wait until the EPA, OSHA, and all the other alphabet soup agencies stick their fingers in. New engines? Emission controls! Diesels? Better be low sulfer capable models! Lets make sure those fuel tanks meet all current specs! Got particulate filters and urea injection there? No? Sorry, not going anywhere till you do! Hey, are you sure that no birds have built a nest along that gravel road? Environmental Impact statement (and corresponding studies)! Safety equipment for those working on and around the crawler? Is it up to recent regulatory specs? You know, these (dropping a 600+ page volume). Subject to change of course...

    And on and on...

  17. Ford F150 by puddingebola · · Score: 1

    Makes my Ford F150 Pickup seem inadequate.

  18. six lane highways by multi+io · · Score: 1

    It's about as wide as a six lane highway, higher than a two story building,

    Are six lane highways and buildings the new units of length now? I was still getting used to football fields and city blocks.

  19. Because .... by PPH · · Score: 1

    ... even our astronauts are getting fatter.

    --
    Have gnu, will travel.
  20. Labor Cost Savings by darth_borehd · · Score: 1

    The giant crawler saves money as they can crew it with a bunch of jawas who work for e-waste.

  21. Marion Power Shovel -- gone. by leftover · · Score: 1

    One thing the article could have mentioned is that the US has abandoned its capability to build big machines like this. Marion Power Shovel and its peers, who also built the machines to dig the Panama Canal and other historic feats of engineering, are gone. Empty fields here in Ohio where the plants stood.

    Thinking about this in juxtaposition to present-day ideas of 'innovation', such as new versions of stupid games for telephones, makes me feel ill.

    --
    Bent, folded, spindled, and mutilated.
  22. you'd never make the money back by YesIAmAScript · · Score: 1

    Sure, it'd be higher efficiency. But it's only used 10 times a year or something. You'd never recoup the costs of converting.

    --
    http://lkml.org/lkml/2005/8/20/95
  23. Coolest Tonka Toy Ever by some+old+guy · · Score: 1

    I'd love to see some redneck Monster Truck freak try to beat that sucker in a tractor-pull.

    Back as a kid, at least one of the news networks would periodically give progress updates on the movement of Apollo Saturn V-B vehicles out to the launch complex...the actual launches, of course, were breath-taking. The kind of stuff that inspires kids to become engineers.

    --
    Scruting the inscrutable for over 50 years.
  24. TWO? by DarthVain · · Score: 1

    They have two of them?

    OK all I want to know is have they had a drag race with them yet? Come on you KNOW the engineers want to!

    Can the Stig take one around the track?

  25. To send it in space? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I'd like to see this one sent to Mars, instead of some tiny rovers.

  26. Hanz and Franz! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    The crawlers actually have nicknames, and they actually seem to be Hanz and Franz.

    So, remember, the left one is Hanz, the right one is Franz, and together, they will f*ck, you up!