This is not a NASA Website. You might learn something. It's YOUR space agency. Get involved. Take it back. Make it work - for YOU.
Cape Canaveral

Need a Mobile Launch Platform?

By Marc Boucher
NASA Watch
August 20, 2013
Filed under ,

NASA Seeks Uses for 3 Mobile Launch Platforms at KSC, Florida Today
Commercial rocket launcher? Museum exhibit? Artificial reef?
All are potential uses for three historic mobile launch platforms from which NASA’s moon rockets and space shuttles leapt toward space, but which now sit idle.
If those don’t pan out, the two-story, 8.2 million-pound structures could be bound for the scrap heap.
“NASA does not currently have a need for the Mobile Launch Platforms to support current and future mission activities,” said Tracy Young, a Kennedy Space Center spokeswoman. “Because of this factor, we are seeking information and concepts for traditional and non-traditional potential use of the structures as well as potential disposal options.

NASA Explores New Uses for Historic Launch Structures, NASA

SpaceRef co-founder, entrepreneur, writer, podcaster, nature lover and deep thinker.

16 responses to “Need a Mobile Launch Platform?”

  1. dogstar29 says:
    0
    0

    From the standpoint of industrial engineering, the MLPs represented an imposing but very expensive solution.

  2. rb1957 says:
    0
    0

    will SLS need a similar mobile launch platform ?

    • korichneveygigant says:
      0
      0

      paper doesnt weigh that much… just joking

    • Ralphy999 says:
      0
      0

      A mobile platform that was developed for the Constellation project is being reconfigured for the SLS.

      • Stuart Young says:
        0
        0

        Ralphy999: Did you mean “developed” or “modified?” I know that one MLP was modified for the Ares 1X launch; and I thought that the same MLP was going to be re-modified, beefed-up, etc. for SLS. Someone should tell NasaSpaceFlight.com; as far as I know, they haven’t retracted the information released within the last few months about modifying the Ares 1X LUT for use with SLS, including preliminary designs for umbilicals; modifying the STS work platforms in the VAB for use with the MLP/SLS; etc.

        • dogstar29 says:
          0
          0

          The Ares 1X was mounted on one of the SRB mounts of a slightly modified Shuttle MLP. The Ares 1 MLP was built with a quite different internal structure and a single centrally placed launch mount. It will require considerably further modification to be used for the Ares V. Although both Atlas V and Long March 2 use MLPs, they are _much_ smaller than the ones used for Shuttle and SLS, and are rail-based rather than being transported on crawlers. The Atlas MPL is towed by two conventional locomotives, the LM2 MLP is self-propelled.

          • Stuart Young says:
            0
            0

            Vulture4: That was my understanding, that the MLP modified for the Ares 1X would be further modified (e.g., go back to two linearly-placed launch mounts for the SLS SRBs, etc.) and strengthened for the SLS. I’ve read some concerns about whether the MLP, and the crawlerway, would ever be able to handle the weights of future, ultimate variants of the SLS (or the even-heavier Ares V, back before it was canceled); but the consensus seemed to be that both could handle the weight of the currently-proposed, SLS Block 1.

          • Ralphy999 says:
            0
            0

            Geez, modified? All they did was add a 345 foot tall tower to it. you say toh-mah-toh, I say toh-may-toh. So what?

  3. yokohama2010 says:
    0
    0

    Won’t space x and orbital use a mobile platform if they lease 39a?

    • BeanCounterFromDownUnder says:
      0
      0

      No, they don’t have any use for an expensive legacy piece of equipment such as this. They will build there own from scratch and it will be magnitudes cheaper to do so than try to modify something like the MLP. Besides which, they utilise horizontal build and transport whereas the STS was based around vertical.

  4. Spacetech says:
    0
    0

    Surely they may be used in the future, why does a determination need to be made with them right now?
    House them in the VAB, roll them out for exercise every 90 days or just “AIB” abandon in place.

    • Steve Whitfield says:
      0
      0

      I suspect that the cost would preclude this idea. I’d willingly bet that nothing exists in any current budget to properly take care of this.
      Sticking them in the VAB, if that’s viable, seems too much like the rusting of past glories to me. It would smack of defeat.

  5. meekGee says:
    0
    0

    Quick, start the MLP racing league!

    Bonus: MLP-pull at half time.

  6. Mark_Flagler says:
    0
    0

    This move indicates a certain (and well placed) lack of confidence in the future of SLS.

  7. hikingmike says:
    0
    0

    The Florida Keys could probably use one for an artificial reef. Their reefs probably need all the help they can get with climate change and it is a tourism draw. Maybe the state could put up some money for that.

    Actually it’s 2 story and pretty big, so maybe one could make a building out of it? It would make a great “safe area” as part of a new school in Oklahoma after hearing about how badly the weak construction techniques did in the big tornadoes.