|
Author
|
Topic: Stacking the Saturn V in the VAB high bays
|
Rick Teklits
Member Posts: 14
From: Yardville, NJ USA
Registered: Dec 2010
|
posted 12-10-2010 04:56 PM
   
I am reading a book on Apollo 10 and apparently the Saturn V was stacked in High bay 2, which required the transporter to maneuver the entire stack around the VAB and then out towards pad B. I never realized that.Is this the only time NASA used high bay 2 and/or had to maneuver a stack around the VAB? All of the pictures I have seen seem to show a relatively straight road right out of the VAB. |
ilbasso
Member Posts: 1458
From: Greensboro, NC USA
Registered: Feb 2006
|
posted 12-10-2010 05:25 PM
I don't recall which bays were in use, but Apollos 12 and 13 were stacked at the same time. The Apollo 13 launch vehicle was rolled around from one bay to another in August(?) 1969 with a boilerplate CSM on top of the stack. |
heng44
Member Posts: 2490
From: Netherlands
Registered: Nov 2001
|
posted 12-15-2010 12:11 AM
I believe Skylab 1 was also rolled out from the same high bay as Apollo 10. |
ilbasso
Member Posts: 1458
From: Greensboro, NC USA
Registered: Feb 2006
|
posted 12-15-2010 08:26 AM
Found the reference photos in the Apollo 13 Image Library. Apollo 13 was rolled around from High Bay 2 to High Bay 3 with a boilerplate CSM on August 8, 1969. |
Rick Teklits
Member Posts: 14
From: Yardville, NJ USA
Registered: Dec 2010
|
posted 12-20-2010 08:48 PM
quote:
Originally posted by ilbasso:
I don't recall which bays were in use, but Apollos 12 and 13 were stacked at the same time.
Thanks, you can see the pressure NASA was under to get the vehicles prepared prior to the end of 1969 with 12 and 13 being stacked at the same time! It is my understanding that high bay 4 was never used. I thought I read somewhere where they never fully outfitted high bay 4. Your post makes sense... High bay 2 was used to stack 10 then 13, after 11 landed, the pressure was off and I presume there was no need to use that high bay. Can you imagine that many Saturn Vs in one building all being prepped at the same time? |
Rick Teklits
Member Posts: 14
From: Yardville, NJ USA
Registered: Dec 2010
|
posted 12-20-2010 09:07 PM
quote:
Originally posted by heng44:
I believe Skylab 1 was also rolled out from the same high bay as Apollo 10.
The Project Apollo image gallery shows pics of Skylab 1 being stacked in high bay 2 as well as roll out. I never knew that they maneuvered the entire stack around the VAB. |
mikej
Member Posts: 350
From: Germantown, WI USA
Registered: Jan 2004
|
posted 12-23-2010 05:27 PM
quote:
Originally posted by Rick Teklits:
Can you imagine that many Saturn Vs in one building all being prepped at the same time?
Early plans had a VAB with six high bays. Although built with "only" four high bays, the design allowed for the addition of more high bays. |
LM-12
Member Posts: 651
From: Ontario, Canada
Registered: Oct 2010
|
posted 02-03-2013 09:05 PM
With three active High Bays and a busy flight schedule, it was normal for the Saturn launch vehicle processing to overlap back during Apollo. For instance, the stacking for Apollo 9 began before Apollo 8 was rolled out, and the stacking for Apollo 10 began before Apollo 9 was rolled out ... and so on.Here is an interesting photo of the Skylab rollout from VAB High Bay 2 on the west side of the building. |
LM-12
Member Posts: 651
From: Ontario, Canada
Registered: Oct 2010
|
posted 02-03-2013 10:50 PM
quote:
Originally posted by ilbasso:
Apollo 13 was rolled around from High Bay 2 to High Bay 3
Wasn't it High Bay 2 to High Bay 1? I think Apollo 12 was still in High Bay 3 at the time. |
Headshot
Member Posts: 105
From: Streamwood, IL USA
Registered: Feb 2012
|
posted 02-04-2013 07:18 AM
In 1969 the plan was for NASA to make three lunar landing attempts.Apollo 11 was schedule for a July attempt, should it have failed, Apollo 12 would have launched in September of 1969. Had 12 failed, Apollo 13 would have launched in late November-ealy December 1969. Of course after 11 landed successfully, the schedule relaxed. But NASA could not assume initial success and had the hardware for 12 and 13 in the pipeline already. |
Lou Chinal
Member Posts: 931
From: Staten Island, NY
Registered: Jun 2007
|
posted 02-04-2013 11:12 AM
If I remember correctly the only time the B pad was used was for Apollo 10. For the moon shots anyway. |
LM-12
Member Posts: 651
From: Ontario, Canada
Registered: Oct 2010
|
posted 02-04-2013 02:43 PM
This photo shows both Skylab in High Bay 2 and Skylab 2 in High Bay 1. |
Jay Chladek
Member Posts: 2162
From: Bellevue, NE, USA
Registered: Aug 2007
|
posted 02-05-2013 11:05 PM
That period with Skylab 1 and 2 being stacked also had some early elements of it going on when Apollo 17 was undergoing its final checkout work as the Skylab itself underwent a protracted period of testing upon its arrival at KSC. Then you had the requirements to outfit one of the Saturn V LUTs with the milkstool to accomodate the Saturn 1B and incorporate some of the Saturn 1B specific hardware from pads 34 and 37. |
LM-12
Member Posts: 651
From: Ontario, Canada
Registered: Oct 2010
|
posted 02-06-2013 08:19 AM
August 1972 is the period I believe you are referring to Jay. The Skylab 1 stacking had begun early that month in High Bay 2. Then Apollo 17 rolled out of High Bay 3 on the 28th. A few days later, the stacking for Skylab 2 began in High Bay 1.NASA photo KSC-72P-454 shows both the Apollo 17 spacecraft and SA-206, the first stage of the Skylab 2 launch vehicle, in the VAB transfer aisle on Aug 23rd. It would be very interesting to see a flow chart of all the VAB High Bay activity during the Apollo years, and to see how those processing flows overlapped. |
Rick Teklits
Member Posts: 14
From: Yardville, NJ USA
Registered: Dec 2010
|
posted 02-08-2013 05:17 AM
Is there any reason why Pad B was not used for more of the Apollo launches? |
Lou Chinal
Member Posts: 931
From: Staten Island, NY
Registered: Jun 2007
|
posted 02-08-2013 07:26 AM
Rick, I must admit I don't know. There was originally a "C" pad planned, for LC 39. I guess they figured they just didn't need it. |
garyd2831
Member Posts: 337
From: Syracuse, New York, USA
Registered: Oct 2009
|
posted 02-08-2013 09:47 AM
I think it would have been great to have a 39C pad and an actually operating space/moon port at the Cape.Personally, I think more attention should have been given to the advancements that could have been made to the Saturn V and its heavy lift capability. They could at least mothballed the idea, and brought back at a latter date when needed... like now. |
Robert Pearlman
Editor Posts: 26144
From: Houston, TX
Registered: Nov 1999
|
posted 02-08-2013 09:51 AM
quote:
Originally posted by garyd2831:
They could at least mothballed the idea, and brought back at a latter date when needed... like now.
That is more or less what they are doing now with the Space Launch System. It is a loosely-based, modernized Saturn V derivative with influences from what was learned during the space shuttle program. |
Jim Behling
Member Posts: 397
From: Cape Canaveral, FL
Registered: Mar 2010
|
posted 02-08-2013 12:56 PM
quote:
Originally posted by garyd2831:
They could at least mothballed the idea, and brought back at a latter date when needed... like now.
Why? It would be like bringing back the B-36. It has been 40 years since the last Saturn V flew. There would be nothing but money wasted to "preserve" it. Much like trying to recreate a B-36. It is just cheaper to design and build an system that meets the same requirements. I am just as much a space cadet as the next guy but I am a realist. There is no requirement for a Saturn V type vehicle. The Cold War is over and the main driver for NASA's existence is gone. "Space is cool" is not really enough reason to fund NASA lunar exploration. NASA should be an enabler, a technology developer, spending money on ideas that are cutting edge. The market place and industry is what does the exploiting of space. |
Rick Teklits
Member Posts: 14
From: Yardville, NJ USA
Registered: Dec 2010
|
posted 02-08-2013 07:59 PM
Interesting that you mention the B-36... my father was in the Air Force from 1948-52, came form the coal country of eastern Pennsylvania and a B-36 flew over his base when he was a young airman. He stood utterly transfixed as that thing lumbered over his head. He had never seen anything so big actually fly. He stood there mesmerized by this thing as it flew around the base. Stood there until he realized he had missed his roll call. Ended up spending two days peeling potatoes...I sometimes wonder how many flights it would have required a Saturn V type of vehicle to lift the components of the ISS into space, about 4 or 5? (Saturn V could put 250,000 lbs into LEO). Seems to me that having some heavy lift capability would be better than none wouldn't it? The Delta IV can put about 20,000 lbs into escape orbit. The Saturn V could put 100,000 lbs. Maybe its simply not economical to have that... I honestly don't know. |
LM-12
Member Posts: 651
From: Ontario, Canada
Registered: Oct 2010
|
posted 02-09-2013 05:01 PM
Back in 1963, the Launch Complex 39 design included Pad A, B, C, D and E. |
Lou Chinal
Member Posts: 931
From: Staten Island, NY
Registered: Jun 2007
|
posted 02-12-2013 09:04 AM
I didn't know about the "D" and "E" pads. |
Jim Behling
Member Posts: 397
From: Cape Canaveral, FL
Registered: Mar 2010
|
posted 02-12-2013 12:07 PM
quote:
Originally posted by Rick Teklits:
Seems to me that having some heavy lift capability would be better than none wouldn't it?
Not really. We can't afford the payloads for such a vehicle.We need cheap lift vs. heavy lift. |
advertisement