Space News
space history and artifacts articles

Messages
space history discussion forums

Sightings
worldwide astronaut appearances

Resources
selected space history documents

  collectSPACE: Messages
  Mercury - Gemini - Apollo
  Stacking the Saturn V in the VAB high bays

Post New Topic  Post A Reply
profile | register | preferences | faq | search

next newest topic | next oldest topic
Author Topic:   Stacking the Saturn V in the VAB high bays
Rick Teklits
Member

Posts: 21
From: Yardville, NJ USA
Registered: Dec 2010

posted 12-10-2010 04:56 PM     Click Here to See the Profile for Rick Teklits   Click Here to Email Rick Teklits     Edit/Delete Message   Reply w/Quote
I am reading a book on Apollo 10 and apparently the Saturn V was stacked in high bay 2 of the Vehicle Assembly Building (VAB), 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: 1527
From: Greensboro, NC USA
Registered: Feb 2006

posted 12-10-2010 05:25 PM     Click Here to See the Profile for ilbasso   Click Here to Email ilbasso     Edit/Delete Message   Reply w/Quote
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: 3607
From: Netherlands
Registered: Nov 2001

posted 12-15-2010 12:11 AM     Click Here to See the Profile for heng44   Click Here to Email heng44     Edit/Delete Message   Reply w/Quote
I believe Skylab 1 was also rolled out from the same high bay as Apollo 10.

ilbasso
Member

Posts: 1527
From: Greensboro, NC USA
Registered: Feb 2006

posted 12-15-2010 08:26 AM     Click Here to See the Profile for ilbasso   Click Here to Email ilbasso     Edit/Delete Message   Reply w/Quote
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: 21
From: Yardville, NJ USA
Registered: Dec 2010

posted 12-20-2010 08:48 PM     Click Here to See the Profile for Rick Teklits   Click Here to Email Rick Teklits     Edit/Delete Message   Reply w/Quote
Thanks, you can see the pressure NASA was under to get the vehicles prepared prior to the end of 1969 with Apollo 12 and Apollo 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 Apollo 10 then Apollo 13, after Apollo 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?

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: 483
From: Germantown, WI USA
Registered: Jan 2004

posted 12-23-2010 05:27 PM     Click Here to See the Profile for mikej   Click Here to Email mikej     Edit/Delete Message   Reply w/Quote
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: 3644
From: Ontario, Canada
Registered: Oct 2010

posted 02-03-2013 09:05 PM     Click Here to See the Profile for LM-12     Edit/Delete Message   Reply w/Quote
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: 3644
From: Ontario, Canada
Registered: Oct 2010

posted 02-03-2013 10:50 PM     Click Here to See the Profile for LM-12     Edit/Delete Message   Reply w/Quote
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: 1101
From: Vancouver, WA, USA
Registered: Feb 2012

posted 02-04-2013 07:18 AM     Click Here to See the Profile for Headshot   Click Here to Email Headshot     Edit/Delete Message   Reply w/Quote
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: 1374
From: Staten Island, NY
Registered: Jun 2007

posted 02-04-2013 11:12 AM     Click Here to See the Profile for Lou Chinal   Click Here to Email Lou Chinal     Edit/Delete Message   Reply w/Quote
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: 3644
From: Ontario, Canada
Registered: Oct 2010

posted 02-04-2013 02:43 PM     Click Here to See the Profile for LM-12     Edit/Delete Message   Reply w/Quote
This photo shows both Skylab in High Bay 2 and Skylab 2 in High Bay 1.

Jay Chladek
Member

Posts: 2272
From: Bellevue, NE, USA
Registered: Aug 2007

posted 02-05-2013 11:05 PM     Click Here to See the Profile for Jay Chladek   Click Here to Email Jay Chladek     Edit/Delete Message   Reply w/Quote
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: 3644
From: Ontario, Canada
Registered: Oct 2010

posted 02-06-2013 08:19 AM     Click Here to See the Profile for LM-12     Edit/Delete Message   Reply w/Quote
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: 21
From: Yardville, NJ USA
Registered: Dec 2010

posted 02-08-2013 05:17 AM     Click Here to See the Profile for Rick Teklits   Click Here to Email Rick Teklits     Edit/Delete Message   Reply w/Quote
Is there any reason why Pad B was not used for more of the Apollo launches?

Lou Chinal
Member

Posts: 1374
From: Staten Island, NY
Registered: Jun 2007

posted 02-08-2013 07:26 AM     Click Here to See the Profile for Lou Chinal   Click Here to Email Lou Chinal     Edit/Delete Message   Reply w/Quote
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: 641
From: Syracuse, New York, USA
Registered: Oct 2009

posted 02-08-2013 09:47 AM     Click Here to See the Profile for garyd2831   Click Here to Email garyd2831     Edit/Delete Message   Reply w/Quote
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.

LM-12
Member

Posts: 3644
From: Ontario, Canada
Registered: Oct 2010

posted 02-09-2013 05:01 PM     Click Here to See the Profile for LM-12     Edit/Delete Message   Reply w/Quote
Back in 1963, the Launch Complex 39 design included Pad A, B, C, D and E.

Lou Chinal
Member

Posts: 1374
From: Staten Island, NY
Registered: Jun 2007

posted 02-12-2013 09:04 AM     Click Here to See the Profile for Lou Chinal   Click Here to Email Lou Chinal     Edit/Delete Message   Reply w/Quote
I didn't know about the "D" and "E" pads.

LM-12
Member

Posts: 3644
From: Ontario, Canada
Registered: Oct 2010

posted 02-02-2014 12:45 PM     Click Here to See the Profile for LM-12     Edit/Delete Message   Reply w/Quote
In this Apollo 10 launch photo, you can see where the crawlerway would have continued north to the additional pads that were never built.

The crawlerway section leading to pad B looks a bit unusual in the photo.

Ronpur
Member

Posts: 1253
From: Brandon, Fl
Registered: May 2012

posted 02-02-2014 08:06 PM     Click Here to See the Profile for Ronpur   Click Here to Email Ronpur     Edit/Delete Message   Reply w/Quote
I have a LIFE magazine from September 25, 1964 that has a beautiful painting of the Cape with all three pads. I can't get a scan of the whole thing, so here is a detail of Complex 39 right after a Saturn V launch from 39C.

Rick Teklits
Member

Posts: 21
From: Yardville, NJ USA
Registered: Dec 2010

posted 02-02-2014 08:43 PM     Click Here to See the Profile for Rick Teklits   Click Here to Email Rick Teklits     Edit/Delete Message   Reply w/Quote
That is a neat picture. I have never seen that before.

mikej
Member

Posts: 483
From: Germantown, WI USA
Registered: Jan 2004

posted 02-03-2014 06:04 PM     Click Here to See the Profile for mikej   Click Here to Email mikej     Edit/Delete Message   Reply w/Quote
I have a number of diagrams showing Pads A through D on my web site.

mach3valkyrie
Member

Posts: 729
From: Albany, Oregon
Registered: Jul 2006

posted 02-03-2014 06:51 PM     Click Here to See the Profile for mach3valkyrie   Click Here to Email mach3valkyrie     Edit/Delete Message   Reply w/Quote
The March 1964 National Geographic Magazine has a similar illustration as a foldout. Well worth a look.

Ronpur
Member

Posts: 1253
From: Brandon, Fl
Registered: May 2012

posted 02-03-2014 07:03 PM     Click Here to See the Profile for Ronpur   Click Here to Email Ronpur     Edit/Delete Message   Reply w/Quote
quote:
Originally posted by mikej:
I have a number of diagrams showing Pads A through D on my web site.
Yes, you have the complete cover on your page. Great information there. I had know about Pad C for a long time, but D and E are news to me! The warning sign picture is in the KSC tour book from around 1969 or so.

Jim Behling
Member

Posts: 1736
From: Cape Canaveral, FL
Registered: Mar 2010

posted 02-03-2014 08:11 PM     Click Here to See the Profile for Jim Behling   Click Here to Email Jim Behling     Edit/Delete Message   Reply w/Quote
quote:
Originally posted by Ronpur:
I have a LIFE magazine from September 25, 1964 that has a beautiful painting of the Cape with all 3 pads.
Proposed but never built Titan-III pad LC-42 is also represented.

LM-12
Member

Posts: 3644
From: Ontario, Canada
Registered: Oct 2010

posted 07-27-2022 10:42 PM     Click Here to See the Profile for LM-12     Edit/Delete Message   Reply w/Quote
When the S-II stages of Apollo 4 and Apollo 6 were stacked in the VAB, they did not have the interstage ring attached. It was already mated to the S-IC stage.

When the S-II stages of Apollo 8 and later vehicles were stacked in the VAB, they did have the interstage ring attached when the S-II was mated to the S-IC stage.

Also of note, I have read that when the S-IC stage separated during launch, it took with it a bottom section (about two-feet) of the interstage ring, because that is where the charge was located.

You can see where it would separate in this Apollo 10 photo of the S-II stage.

Jim Behling
Member

Posts: 1736
From: Cape Canaveral, FL
Registered: Mar 2010

posted 07-27-2022 10:53 PM     Click Here to See the Profile for Jim Behling   Click Here to Email Jim Behling     Edit/Delete Message   Reply w/Quote
quote:
Originally posted by LM-12:
...it took with it a bottom section (about two-feet) of the interstage ring, because that is where the charge was located.
That is because the separation plane was different from the assembly plane. That is common with separations that are cut. Even with the CSM and SLA.

damnyankee36
Member

Posts: 51
From: Alamogordo, NM USA
Registered: Aug 2017

posted 07-28-2022 01:04 PM     Click Here to See the Profile for damnyankee36   Click Here to Email damnyankee36     Edit/Delete Message   Reply w/Quote
I didn't know that. Any photos of the CSM and SLA planes? Did the assembly and cut planes of the S-II and S-IVB also differ?

Jim Behling
Member

Posts: 1736
From: Cape Canaveral, FL
Registered: Mar 2010

posted 07-28-2022 03:15 PM     Click Here to See the Profile for Jim Behling   Click Here to Email Jim Behling     Edit/Delete Message   Reply w/Quote
Yes.

LM-12
Member

Posts: 3644
From: Ontario, Canada
Registered: Oct 2010

posted 08-07-2022 04:21 PM     Click Here to See the Profile for LM-12     Edit/Delete Message   Reply w/Quote
The Saturn Illustrated Chronology mentions this:
AS-503 was de-stacked after initial stacking to allow S-II to go back to MSFC for man-rating checks.
When in 1968 was the S-II stage of Apollo 8 re-stacked in the VAB? I have seen several different dates:
  • July 24 - Saturn Illustrated Chronology
  • July 29 - Apollo Image Gallery (photo above)
  • August 6 - Apollo by the Numbers

J.L
Member

Posts: 692
From: Bloomington, Illinois, USA
Registered: May 2005

posted 08-07-2022 04:35 PM     Click Here to See the Profile for J.L   Click Here to Email J.L     Edit/Delete Message   Reply w/Quote
I believe July 24 is the correct date.

AlanLawrie
Member

Posts: 103
From: hitchin, herts, UK
Registered: Oct 2003

posted 08-07-2022 06:15 PM     Click Here to See the Profile for AlanLawrie     Edit/Delete Message   Reply w/Quote
According to the MSFC Flight Evaluation report (the usual bible for these dates) the date was 24 July (as JL reported above).

LM-12
Member

Posts: 3644
From: Ontario, Canada
Registered: Oct 2010

posted 08-08-2022 12:36 AM     Click Here to See the Profile for LM-12     Edit/Delete Message   Reply w/Quote
Okay, I see that now in Table 3-1. Thanks.

All times are CT (US)

next newest topic | next oldest topic

Administrative Options: Close Topic | Archive/Move | Delete Topic
Post New Topic  Post A Reply
Hop to:

Contact Us | The Source for Space History & Artifacts

Copyright 2022 collectSPACE.com All rights reserved.


Ultimate Bulletin Board 5.47a





advertisement