[HN Gopher] Historic NASA Launch Platform Will Be Demolished
       ___________________________________________________________________
        
       Historic NASA Launch Platform Will Be Demolished
        
       Author : pseudolus
       Score  : 49 points
       Date   : 2021-01-26 11:42 UTC (1 days ago)
        
 (HTM) web link (gizmodo.com)
 (TXT) w3m dump (gizmodo.com)
        
       | ed25519FUUU wrote:
       | They could make a killing creating "souvenirs" from the scrap
       | metal. I'm sure many people would love to own a little piece of
       | history. But where to store all of the pieces?!
        
       | pdonis wrote:
       | The article says the old MLPs were phased out because they
       | couldn't support the weight of the Space Launch System, but from
       | the figures I can find, SLS isn't as heavy as the Saturn V was.
       | (And also doesn't boost as much payload to either LEO or TLI as
       | Saturn V did. Sigh.)
        
         | stretchcat wrote:
         | They've aged since then. Maybe they can't support as much
         | weight today as they once could.
        
       | jostmey wrote:
       | I say good! I am tired of hearing about the "historic" space
       | program. It is a reminder of what we have not achieved in the
       | decades since then. It's time to focus on what will be done, not
       | what was done
        
       | cblconfederate wrote:
       | I assume the apollo mobile launcher was the inspiration for that
       | star wars vehicle:
       | https://lumiere-a.akamaihd.net/v1/images/databank_sandcrawle...
        
         | shazeubaa wrote:
         | Or maybe Frank Herbert's Dune was?
        
       | [deleted]
        
       | anonymousiam wrote:
       | Lots of space down at NASA/CCAS, and nearly all of the original
       | launch pads are still intact (but in a state of decay). There is
       | historical value to everything, but it must be weighed against
       | the need for modern facilities. Sure there were some historic
       | launches from MLP-2, but IMHO that does not justify turning it
       | into a museum. There's a nice museum (and rocket garden) just a
       | few miles away at the Visitor Center.
        
       | simonebrunozzi wrote:
       | What a missed opportunity to transform it into an open-air
       | museum.
        
         | ars wrote:
         | Is it? The thing is huge - and unless its safe enough for kids
         | to crawl all around the inside of it (which I doubt), how
         | exactly would you make it into a museum, when it's so large you
         | can't even see hardly any of it?
         | 
         | Are people supposed to just stand on the ground and look up?
         | 
         | Also, where would you put it? Popular museums are usually in
         | reasonably settled areas, there's just no space for something
         | this large.
         | 
         | Not to mention, how would you even get it there?
        
           | stretchcat wrote:
           | Lots of warships are now museums, and those were never
           | intended to be kid safe. Just rope off the sketchier bits and
           | tell people to be careful. Not everything needs to be totally
           | safe. A little danger builds character, whether it's falling
           | off the monkeybars or knocking your head when jumping through
           | a narrow hatch in a submarine (that hurts!)
        
         | medium_burrito wrote:
         | Us taxpayers dodged a giant museum-shaped bullet. Seriously,
         | it's great to have historic stuff, but we have more of these
         | things, and they aren't exactly pinnacles of architecture,
         | noted cultural venues etc.
        
       | dclaw wrote:
       | I think the idea that they are tearing it apart to make use for
       | parking spaces is a bit overblown. It's not parking spaces for
       | cars, it's parking spaces for these platforms, which they are
       | building more of. Due to their shear size, there's only so much
       | room to store such things.
        
       | MPSimmons wrote:
       | Note that the mobile launch platform (MLP or ML) is different
       | than the Crawler Transporter -
       | https://www.nasa.gov/sites/default/files/atoms/files/crawler...
       | 
       | The Crawler-Transporter is the thing that carried the mobile
       | launch platform.
        
       | [deleted]
        
       | headcanon wrote:
       | Sounds like its just sitting there taking up space and ought to
       | be decommissioned, and its too big for a museum piece.
       | Documenting the history should be enough. This is a good thing,
       | because it means the area is busy, and that means more stuff
       | going to space.
        
       | rob74 wrote:
       | The article isn't really clear, so: this is just about the
       | platform, which is one of three built for the Apollo program and
       | then reused for the Space Shuttle. They are demolishing one of
       | them (MLP-2), because they still have two of the "old model"
       | (MLP-1 and MLP-3) and soon two new ones (ML-1 and ML-2). The
       | article doesn't distinguish between the platform and the crawler-
       | transporter which is below it in the photo - those are still
       | needed (and also in the National Register of Historic Places), so
       | not going away any time soon...
        
         | ocdtrekkie wrote:
         | This is the important bit I needed to know to not really care
         | about this news. The crawlers are cool. The launchpads are
         | things rockets sit on which can also sit on the crawlers.
        
       | [deleted]
        
       | aejnsn wrote:
       | Can Elon take it off their hands?
        
         | dangerbird2 wrote:
         | Probably not. Falcons are assembled and transported
         | horizontally, thus don't need a mobile launch platform.
         | Starship will probably be too big for it, and will probably
         | need its own solution for assembly given its unusual launch and
         | landing profile.
        
           | gpm wrote:
           | So far the SpaceX Starship solution seems to be commercially
           | available cranes, commercially available "roll lifts" (flat
           | beds with a lot of independently controlled wheels [1]), and
           | simple launch sites that don't move around on land.
           | 
           | I have to imagine that SpaceX's solution is orders of
           | magnitude cheaper than maintaining this giant custom vehicle
           | NASA made.
           | 
           | [1] https://i.redd.it/wo6buoppcov31.png
        
         | dblohm7 wrote:
         | It wouldn't be useful to them. Among the modifications they
         | made to pad 39A, SpaceX built their horizontal assembly
         | building right where the crawlerway approaches the pad.
        
       | sandworm101 wrote:
       | Parking spaces yes, but there are far more complicated issues.
       | Look at the size of this thing. Just imagine the maintenance
       | needed to keep it safe. Who knows what environmental evils are in
       | there (asbestos, oils, paints). Either find the millions per year
       | to keep it as a museum piece, or demolish it safely now. Only
       | then does the question becomes what will that space be used for.
       | If you have no other use, ya, it can be a parking lot. It is not
       | being demolished to create the parking lot. It is being
       | demolished because it needs to be demolished. To what use the
       | then-vacant land shall be put is a different story.
        
         | MPSimmons wrote:
         | The title says the word "historic", and it was definitely used
         | in history, but I don't see any reason for anyone to be
         | sentimental about this thing.
        
           | sandworm101 wrote:
           | >> I don't see any reason for anyone to be sentimental about
           | this thing.
           | 
           | I wouldn't say that anywhere near nasa. Lots of people worked
           | in these structures doing amazing things. They probably have
           | very fond memories of their time with them.
        
         | toomuchtodo wrote:
         | These are all great points, but perhaps NASA could capture and
         | archive enough images that it could be recreated in the future
         | for virtual experiences using 3D reconstruction. The only thing
         | you're out for such an effort is someone's time and S3 storage
         | costs.
        
           | stickfigure wrote:
           | The article says there are two more of the same model still
           | running.
        
             | toomuchtodo wrote:
             | I should've been more clear. I was aware, and I think it's
             | a good idea even if they're going to scrap this platform.
             | Mea culpa.
        
       | canada_dry wrote:
       | ...  you don't know what you've got til it's gone. They paved
       | paradise and put up a parking lot ...
        
       ___________________________________________________________________
       (page generated 2021-01-27 23:01 UTC)