Newsgroups: sci.space.shuttle
Path: utzoo!henry
From: henry@utzoo.uucp (Henry Spencer)
Subject: Re: Shuttle Facilities ( was : Shuttle trips to the Moon )
Message-ID: <1989Feb9.021942.2012@utzoo.uucp>
Organization: U of Toronto Zoology
References: <40ebe2ca.298d@dl298d.engin.umich.edu> <2070003@hpcilzb.HP.COM> <2453@phred.UUCP> <7233@csli.STANFORD.EDU> <378@illusion.UUCP>
Date: Thu, 9 Feb 89 02:19:42 GMT

In article <378@illusion.UUCP> marcus@illusion.UUCP (Marcus Hall) writes:
>The VAB was built back when we were building real rockets :-)  If it were
>built to fit the shuttle needs, it would have been much smaller.  The VAB
>was designed to support a launch rate of 12 Saturn Vs a year...

More, actually, although it depends on which study you look at; the early
6-bay studies assumed 26 per year.

>... the VAB was sized based on a guess of the eventual size of
>the Saturn V (although it wasn't known as that at the time) and allowed
>growth for the anticipated size of follow-on vehicles.  As it turned out,
>the Saturn V was about as big as the VAB could handle and if the Nova had
>been built it wouldn't have fit in the VAB.

No, the VAB could have taken most of the more orthodox Nova designs, which
were still in the running when the VAB specs started to solidify.  If you
look at a photo of a Saturn emerging, note that the VAB doors are quite a
bit higher and wider than the Saturn.  Internal things like work platforms
were more specifically built for the Saturn, of course, but they would be
easier to change later.

What really killed Nova, or at least made its advocates fight an increasingly
uphill battle, was the choice of the existing Michoud plant for first-stage
assembly.  Its ceilings were not tall enough to take anything with more than
about five F-1s in the base.
-- 
Allegedly heard aboard Mir: "A |     Henry Spencer at U of Toronto Zoology
toast to comrade Van Allen!!"  | uunet!attcan!utzoo!henry henry@zoo.toronto.edu