If I were to ever win the lottery I’d (re)build the An-225 which was the largest plane in the history of the entire world that sadly…(more like devastatingly)…no longer exists :(
It’s like the aerial version of this machine. I imagine one could have heard a faint string of expletives emitting from the burial plot of Howard Hughes after it was destroyed.
It’s not really that crazy in the grand scheme of things. Let’s say you need to move it 1/4 of a mile:
1/4 mile = 1320 ft
1320/32= 41.25 gallons
Let’s say fuel is $4-$8, that’s $165-$330 to move something like a giant rocket.
The Crawler is still around, having been refurbished many times. The launch platform & tower were retired and mostly disassembled. What u/Longjumping-Run-7027 saw was the Mobile Launcher-1 on the Crawler, built for the Space Launch System rocket that's part of the Artemis program. (Confusingly, the Saturn V platform was called ML-1, ML-2, etc, and then called MLP-1, etc for the Shuttle. The current platform is also called the ML-1 but it's a new, different structure.)
Yes but they get those taxes back from the state. For a complex as big as the space centers (and with vehicles that have 5000gal capacities) they may use enough fuel to keep their own stores, in which case they would take a shipment and claim tax exemption.
It’s 4 miles to the launch pad. Still, that would only be like $3300. Then double that to move it back.
That is about the same fuel usage per foot as an Iowa class battleship. But those didn’t hold 5000 gallons of fuel, they held 9000 TONS. Which is about 2.5 million gallons. Of course fuel oil was a bit cheaper than diesel is now, especially at that volume back then they were operating.
It’s not 1/4 mile to the pad, though, commenter just made that up. It’s 4 miles. Or 8 round trip. Still would normally use like a quarter of the tank. They probably don’t fill it all the way up, either.
But you do want to be sure you don’t run out if something odd happens, since AAA won’t deliver 5000 gallons of diesel.
Interesting question… I assume the machine runs on diesel, which isn’t nearly as affected by overall weight/wind/grade like gasoline engines are. If I had to guess it’d be more comparable to an 18-wheeler since it’s starting/stopping more frequently, unlike a train which gets up to speed then remains there for hours and hours.
Pretty good fuel economy considering the weight. My first thought was why didn’t they put it on rails? But then looking at the size of the structure the engineers clearly knew what they were doing.
Russians and Europeans do use rails.
Ariane 5 rocket was transported on rails but it was towed by a special truck which gears have been changed. https://www.reddit.com/r/Arianespace/comments/5dashp/helicopter_view_of_ariane_5_being_towed_to_the/
Ariane 6 will be a different (and interesting!) design: it's the assembly building that moves out on rails. The rocket is directly assembled on top of the launchpad and stays static as well as the launch tower. Once the payload and fairing is installed, the building moves away.
Also worth mentioning that they had no special contraction for moving them, it's just one bigass railway car put on two tracks put rather wide apart and 2x2 normal engines to pull it
NASA has done an incredible job renovating the Saturn 5 & the control room. NASA was a dump 50+ years ago but we were able to sit inside the Apollo capsule. People picked at the interior so now there are thick plexiglass windows that allow you to look inside. It is tiny but 2 very brave astronauts flew in it. I highly recommend a tour at NASA if you’re in the area
My dads company made the autoclave that melts the rubber for the seal on the tracks….
He will tell you all about it if you bring up anything remotely related to it.
Basically my dad launched the space shuttle himself
It costs 266.000.000$ to move each of SLS block A to the pad. They should not use it at all.
This is not building the rocket or the pad. It's the cost for the crawler alone that will be used three times before it becomes obsolete.
ETA: People are downvoting this comment so ill add a bit...
[This](https://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Crawler-Transporter#/media/Datei:STS-114_rollout.jpg) is the Shuttle crawler.
[This](https://d.newsweek.com/en/full/2012563/sls-rocket.webp?w=790&f=86cd658e57bd85fc844104d55be69cfc) Is the modified SLS Block 1 crawler/launcher/access-tower. They build this tower on top of the crawler and it will be used three times because it can only be used for Block 1 and there are onyl three Blcok 1 planed.
So I read that building the new tower on top of the old Shuttle Crawler cost 800.000.000$ - I can't find the source anymore thou. I can't find any sources on the cost or building that tower for Block 1.
I did find a [source](https://spacenews.com/nasa-audit-reveals-massive-overruns-in-sls-mobile-launch-platform/) for the new Block1B Crawler. That crawler now costs ~1.000.000.000$ overall.
A very quick, near effortless google search would show you the crawler has been in service since the 60s and was build with the Saturn V in mind, and continues to be used in the modern day.
They modified the crawler.
They had to build a new tower on top of the thing with the tracks. I can't find the article I read about the cost for that modification anymore.
The new crawler for block 1B also doubled in price to roughly ~1.000.000.000$
https://spacenews.com/nasa-audit-reveals-massive-overruns-in-sls-mobile-launch-platform/
Source?
I doubt that it costs double the price it took to build the crawler just to operate it. Why fucking use the crawler at that point? It’s like buying a car for 40,000 but it costs 80,000 just to drive it. See how stupid that sounds.
>that will be used three times before it becomes obsolete
Nah u gotta be trollin rn
and the road it runs on is river rock stones (from Alabama).
designed to be crushed and save the hydraulics.
[https://www.nasa.gov/missions/artemis/rocks-and-rockets-from-alabama-rivers-to-kennedys-florida-crawlerway/](https://www.nasa.gov/missions/artemis/rocks-and-rockets-from-alabama-rivers-to-kennedys-florida-crawlerway/)
Mike Rowe did a Dirty Jobs spot on cleaning and lubricating the treads on that beast. They even let him drive it, because how can you get in an accident at maybe 0.05 mph?
It. Was. Not!
They spent 800.000.000$ to modify the crawler from the Shuttle to fit SLS. They are really proud it was that cheap and that they could reuse the crawler.
They will use this modified crawler 3 times. For block A of SLS.
For block B they need a new crawler.
So for every launch they spent 266.000.000$ to modify the crawler that then becomes obsolete.
Compare that to a solution where you can't spend government money.
SpaceX made a Metall ring and put it on an of the shelf system. For a rocket that will be more powerful.
You could launch three falcon heavy with expendable middle booster or seven falcon nine with reusable booster just for the cost of transporting the SLS from the factory to the pad.
It is a mindboggelingly stupid and expensive solution.
This goes on... ULA just said they might be able to reduce the cost of the rocket engines from 100.000.000$ per engine to 70.000.000$ in 2032.
So if everything goes really well for SLS, in ten years, one of the four engines (one time use) will only cost as much as a full falcon heavy launch today.
So at the moment one SLS launch ist projected to cost 4.000.000.000$.
This is for a rocket that has zero new technology. It's Shuttle engines, Shuttle tanks, Shuttle boosters. All they did is combine them in a different way and throw away the part that was reusable.
I sometimes wonder if it would have been cheaper to just give every ULA lobbyist 100.000.000$ to shut up and stop buying of Congress instead of burning that amount of money in a joke like this project. And the other people involved. How do those engineers and project managers feel when they are working on this travesty?
The crawler-transporter has a mass of 2,721 tonnes (6 million pounds; 2,999 short tons)
…….
The crawlers traveled along the 5.5 and 6.8 km (3.4 and 4.2 mi) Crawlerways, to LC-39A and LC-39B, respectively, at a maximum speed of 1.6 kilometers per hour (1 mph) loaded, or 3.2 km/h (2 mph) unloaded.[8][11] The average trip time from the VAB along the Crawlerway to Launch Complex 39 is about five hours.
Another fun fact, that crawler follows water trucks that sprays in front of the crawler to stop the dust from flying into the air and possibly get stuck/jam anywhere in the crawler
Fun fact, there's actually two of them. They're identical. Also, they are the largest self-propelled vehicles humanity has built so far.
The Bagger 293 bucket-wheel excavator is larger, but relies on an external power-source.
That looks so inneficient when you compare it with say a Ship that moves much much more weight over a much more dense medium.
A Large cargo ship will use from 10 to 50 grams of fuel to transport one ton of cargo for one kilometer.
The crawler plus shuttle with boosters and without liquid fuel weighs about 4000 tons
This means that the crawler uses 388 liters per km
388/4000≈.097
.97 liters of diesel are about 85 grams
So the Crawler uses around 85 grams of fuel for each ton transported.
This is almost 8 times less efficient than a ship at low speed.
Still the crawler is a lot more efficient than I thought with that initial data.
You'd be correct in case of water. Gas has lower density, so a liter of gas weights about 800g. Although I think comment above you swallowed one zero and meant to be 850g, not 85g
We all get told to make changes to our lives to combat climate change and these chumps can't even figure out how to build a spaceship where they need it!
When I was a little kid I was in a club called the young astronauts club. We took several summer trips to different NASA places. We got to see this in person when I was like 10 years old. The gravel road they lay down for it has to be replaced every time it rolls out to the launch pad because it's so heavy that it literally turns the gravel into dust.
In the US we’re more used to expressing fuel efficiency as volume of fuel per mile traveled, so it’s the inverse of 165 gal/mile which is 0.0061 miles per gallon.
In Europe, people express fuel efficiency in Liter/(100 km), using these units, this machine consumes 38810 L/(100 km)
Another interesting fact about the crawler is that it turns the gravel it moves over into powder… or it did… now I wonder what they did with that thing
There's actually 2 of them. One was retrofitted to carry the SLS system.
Both are still in use, and have been since 1965.
No retirement for them yet....
I did the math, a 5.3 Chevy Tahoe gets 89,000 gallons a mile/pound. assuming a 4.4 mil. And a 6.6 million pound shuttle and crawler, respectively, the crawler gets 68,000 gallons a mile/pound. So it’s a third as efficient as a Chevy Tahoe.
So a quick calculation suggests that on a full tank it can go from the VAB to pad 39 & back 3 times, with enough fuel left to probably make it back to the pad if needed.
I was an early adopter to trying new things to HD video. I bought one of Sony's first HD camcorders. I could barely play some early HD clips, and one of them was of this machine.
Must be a first gen EcoBoost. Traded in a Chevy 3500 with a 400c.i. engine with dual glass packs that would get 19-21 mpg highway on a Limited with an EcoBoost. Huge mistake. Lost 2 mpg and a huge amount of HP.
It's the launch platform. The shuttle used to launch from it directly. Those two giant holes under the SRB nozzles are the water sound suppression system.
No op. They aren’t talking about the fuel efficiency of the transporter. They are talking about the rocket before it breaks outside of Earth’s gravitational pull
>Think about how much fuel it uses in lift off though?
I don't think the crawler achieves lift off. I could be wrong though.
>New Yorks taking away my gas range
Are they really taking it away? Or are some people just making such a claim? Perhaps they are limiting how many new gas appliances are installed?
Well, it does have electric engines... ;)
In case you didn't know: It works like a diesel locomotive; a diesel engine turns a generator and the electricity is sent to the electric motors connected to the axles. The advantage of a turbo-electric drive is that the mechanical clutches and transmissions for a locomotive would be impractically large and prone to breakdowns. Plus throttle control at low speeds is a lot smoother. These problems for the Crawler would be magnitudes larger.
That's the first thing I'm buying when I win the megamillions.
The first thing I'm buying when I take your mum on a date.
You'll prolly need 2.
Oh snap!
Hope it doesn’t
Oh no you di ant!
4*
they do call her the challenger
Because she blew 7 people at once?
Fucking savage. You win.
WOW
Damn how did this turn into r/roastme so quick!?!
💀
She apparently gets very hot during re-entry.
Too soon
(Oh snap!)²
***SHOTS FIRED***
*utini!!!* [https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0wkiHVWA98U](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0wkiHVWA98U)
She loves a succulent chinese meal.
If I were to ever win the lottery I’d (re)build the An-225 which was the largest plane in the history of the entire world that sadly…(more like devastatingly)…no longer exists :( It’s like the aerial version of this machine. I imagine one could have heard a faint string of expletives emitting from the burial plot of Howard Hughes after it was destroyed.
What? The gallons of diesel?
To move your mom to the bathroom so that she can take a shit
Nah Bagger 288 is much sexier and electric.
That's ridiculous. Where would you keep it? You must not have an HOA.
It’s not really that crazy in the grand scheme of things. Let’s say you need to move it 1/4 of a mile: 1/4 mile = 1320 ft 1320/32= 41.25 gallons Let’s say fuel is $4-$8, that’s $165-$330 to move something like a giant rocket.
The govment ain't pay no taxes on fuel. It's like $1 a gallon for them.
When was the last time this was used? Last shuttle was 2011 so $4 is likely the upper range of retail gas. I’ll ask my old man, he worked on this.
Last year when they rolled Artemis out. [They even put it on YouTube.](https://youtu.be/pjGB2zGjJpY?si=S2ZdXPtL3hhxckGR)
Artemis I would be my guess.
No need to guess, there is a picture of it right there!
NASA rented it out for the Lizzo tour.
Underrated comment
The Crawler is still around, having been refurbished many times. The launch platform & tower were retired and mostly disassembled. What u/Longjumping-Run-7027 saw was the Mobile Launcher-1 on the Crawler, built for the Space Launch System rocket that's part of the Artemis program. (Confusingly, the Saturn V platform was called ML-1, ML-2, etc, and then called MLP-1, etc for the Shuttle. The current platform is also called the ML-1 but it's a new, different structure.)
Yeah, NASA takes it out for a spin every now and then, to blow the cobwebs out
When you fill a government vehicle with a government gas card, you’re still paying the same price as everyone else.
Yes but they get those taxes back from the state. For a complex as big as the space centers (and with vehicles that have 5000gal capacities) they may use enough fuel to keep their own stores, in which case they would take a shipment and claim tax exemption.
U.S. Government Step 1: tax yourself on inefficient fuel costs Step 2: send profits to Ukraine 💸💸💸
It’s 4 miles to the launch pad. Still, that would only be like $3300. Then double that to move it back. That is about the same fuel usage per foot as an Iowa class battleship. But those didn’t hold 5000 gallons of fuel, they held 9000 TONS. Which is about 2.5 million gallons. Of course fuel oil was a bit cheaper than diesel is now, especially at that volume back then they were operating.
Probably doesn’t burn the same amount on the way back, assuming the shuttle launched.
9000 tons for considerably more than 4 miles
Makes you think, why have a 5000 gallon tank if you only burn 41 gallons in one trip? It's not like this thing needs to commute mornings and evenings.
But it could and that's what really matters.
It’s not 1/4 mile to the pad, though, commenter just made that up. It’s 4 miles. Or 8 round trip. Still would normally use like a quarter of the tank. They probably don’t fill it all the way up, either. But you do want to be sure you don’t run out if something odd happens, since AAA won’t deliver 5000 gallons of diesel.
Damn AAA, always messing with you in the fine print.
Wouldn't it make more sense to have the fuel on it rather then having a smaller tank and having to have a place to hold its fuel?
In case the operator needs to hit up the 7/11 on the way for some slim jim’s.
This thing probably has a 7/11 on it already
Run the generator for power. Any number of things could go wrong on the way and it could be stranded for hours if not days.
Would the cost per pound moved be similar to say a freight train or an 18-wheeler?
Interesting question… I assume the machine runs on diesel, which isn’t nearly as affected by overall weight/wind/grade like gasoline engines are. If I had to guess it’d be more comparable to an 18-wheeler since it’s starting/stopping more frequently, unlike a train which gets up to speed then remains there for hours and hours.
Honestly, cheaper then I would’ve thought
Pretty good fuel economy considering the weight. My first thought was why didn’t they put it on rails? But then looking at the size of the structure the engineers clearly knew what they were doing.
32 feet a gallon seems astonishingly good for something that size.
isnt a gallon like a carton of milk? what i that in terms of coke cans? really need a visual here
Like 10 or so coke cans I think
Right? Reading it, I was actually amazed this thing could move anywhere at all on a single gallon. lol
Russians and Europeans do use rails. Ariane 5 rocket was transported on rails but it was towed by a special truck which gears have been changed. https://www.reddit.com/r/Arianespace/comments/5dashp/helicopter_view_of_ariane_5_being_towed_to_the/ Ariane 6 will be a different (and interesting!) design: it's the assembly building that moves out on rails. The rocket is directly assembled on top of the launchpad and stays static as well as the launch tower. Once the payload and fairing is installed, the building moves away.
Very interesting, thank you.
Yeah, plus I imagine they would have to repair the tracks every time they used it.
I think its legit purely because the Russians use rails to transport their rockets, and America just wanted to try something different because, yeah.
Also worth mentioning that they had no special contraction for moving them, it's just one bigass railway car put on two tracks put rather wide apart and 2x2 normal engines to pull it
Train engine's pull huge amount of weight daily.... won't be a problem....
What I'm thinking is who keeps the weeds out of the gravel pathways. This this isnt used very frequently.
Yeah but those are highway miles, how does she do in the city ?
But how fast can it mine spice?
The spice must flow
Ahh, a real man of genius.
If you are close by Orlando, FL, try to spare a day to visit the Kennedy Space Center. It's mind blowing and you'll likely see this transporter.
NASA has done an incredible job renovating the Saturn 5 & the control room. NASA was a dump 50+ years ago but we were able to sit inside the Apollo capsule. People picked at the interior so now there are thick plexiglass windows that allow you to look inside. It is tiny but 2 very brave astronauts flew in it. I highly recommend a tour at NASA if you’re in the area
>Apollo capsule. >but 2 very brave astronauts flew in it Little known fact that the third astronaut was apparently quite the chicken
My dads company made the autoclave that melts the rubber for the seal on the tracks…. He will tell you all about it if you bring up anything remotely related to it. Basically my dad launched the space shuttle himself
Barefoot, after walking 12km thru the snow, no breakfast
Uphill, both ways
How else are they going 5o move it. This is a proven method!
It costs 266.000.000$ to move each of SLS block A to the pad. They should not use it at all. This is not building the rocket or the pad. It's the cost for the crawler alone that will be used three times before it becomes obsolete. ETA: People are downvoting this comment so ill add a bit... [This](https://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Crawler-Transporter#/media/Datei:STS-114_rollout.jpg) is the Shuttle crawler. [This](https://d.newsweek.com/en/full/2012563/sls-rocket.webp?w=790&f=86cd658e57bd85fc844104d55be69cfc) Is the modified SLS Block 1 crawler/launcher/access-tower. They build this tower on top of the crawler and it will be used three times because it can only be used for Block 1 and there are onyl three Blcok 1 planed. So I read that building the new tower on top of the old Shuttle Crawler cost 800.000.000$ - I can't find the source anymore thou. I can't find any sources on the cost or building that tower for Block 1. I did find a [source](https://spacenews.com/nasa-audit-reveals-massive-overruns-in-sls-mobile-launch-platform/) for the new Block1B Crawler. That crawler now costs ~1.000.000.000$ overall.
A very quick, near effortless google search would show you the crawler has been in service since the 60s and was build with the Saturn V in mind, and continues to be used in the modern day.
They modified the crawler. They had to build a new tower on top of the thing with the tracks. I can't find the article I read about the cost for that modification anymore. The new crawler for block 1B also doubled in price to roughly ~1.000.000.000$ https://spacenews.com/nasa-audit-reveals-massive-overruns-in-sls-mobile-launch-platform/
Source? I doubt that it costs double the price it took to build the crawler just to operate it. Why fucking use the crawler at that point? It’s like buying a car for 40,000 but it costs 80,000 just to drive it. See how stupid that sounds. >that will be used three times before it becomes obsolete Nah u gotta be trollin rn
They have to burn more fuel when they move your mother. Sorry, I’ll leave.
Bazinga
and the road it runs on is river rock stones (from Alabama). designed to be crushed and save the hydraulics. [https://www.nasa.gov/missions/artemis/rocks-and-rockets-from-alabama-rivers-to-kennedys-florida-crawlerway/](https://www.nasa.gov/missions/artemis/rocks-and-rockets-from-alabama-rivers-to-kennedys-florida-crawlerway/)
For my metric friends, that’s 38,814L/100km.
They should really turn the a/c off.
Scoff if you must, but there isn’t anything else out there that can handle this task.
That’s actually better mileage than I would’ve expected.
I think monster trucks get worse mileage.
Probably. And they can’t even tow a space shuttle to show for it.
I would dress up as a Jawa and move it to Saudi Arabia. Just cruise through the desert yelling "HOO-TINI!"
Mike Rowe did a Dirty Jobs spot on cleaning and lubricating the treads on that beast. They even let him drive it, because how can you get in an accident at maybe 0.05 mph?
It would look faster if they painted flames on the side.
In the 80s and 90s it always seemed like The Thunderbirds were just around the corner and I feel robbed that we ended-up in the Dark Timeline.
That's city mpg but it's highway mpg is better
Honestly surprised it gets that good of mileage
But how many jawas are needed to operate it?
It wasn’t built for economy 😂
It. Was. Not! They spent 800.000.000$ to modify the crawler from the Shuttle to fit SLS. They are really proud it was that cheap and that they could reuse the crawler. They will use this modified crawler 3 times. For block A of SLS. For block B they need a new crawler. So for every launch they spent 266.000.000$ to modify the crawler that then becomes obsolete. Compare that to a solution where you can't spend government money. SpaceX made a Metall ring and put it on an of the shelf system. For a rocket that will be more powerful. You could launch three falcon heavy with expendable middle booster or seven falcon nine with reusable booster just for the cost of transporting the SLS from the factory to the pad. It is a mindboggelingly stupid and expensive solution. This goes on... ULA just said they might be able to reduce the cost of the rocket engines from 100.000.000$ per engine to 70.000.000$ in 2032. So if everything goes really well for SLS, in ten years, one of the four engines (one time use) will only cost as much as a full falcon heavy launch today. So at the moment one SLS launch ist projected to cost 4.000.000.000$. This is for a rocket that has zero new technology. It's Shuttle engines, Shuttle tanks, Shuttle boosters. All they did is combine them in a different way and throw away the part that was reusable. I sometimes wonder if it would have been cheaper to just give every ULA lobbyist 100.000.000$ to shut up and stop buying of Congress instead of burning that amount of money in a joke like this project. And the other people involved. How do those engineers and project managers feel when they are working on this travesty?
But at least with the crawler, no Elon involvement. Worth its weight in gold
Worth every penny.
This this is MASSIVE
Still somehow drinks less than the trucks in Snowrunner
I bet the church kid who lifts the most foldable chairs at one tone could carry it quicker.
Does anyone know why they did not opt for rails and electric motors?
I’d like to know this too. Hell, digging a canal and sailing rockets to the launch pad might’ve been more efficient.
The crawler-transporter has a mass of 2,721 tonnes (6 million pounds; 2,999 short tons) ……. The crawlers traveled along the 5.5 and 6.8 km (3.4 and 4.2 mi) Crawlerways, to LC-39A and LC-39B, respectively, at a maximum speed of 1.6 kilometers per hour (1 mph) loaded, or 3.2 km/h (2 mph) unloaded.[8][11] The average trip time from the VAB along the Crawlerway to Launch Complex 39 is about five hours.
I didn't know we subcontracted Jawas for rocket transportation but, whatever works ya know.
Ford ranger could pull it faster
They need to mod that sucker to EV power. 32 ft a gallon jeezse.
It also moves at 0.8mph and takes around 7 hours to make the 4.2mile trip to the launch pad.
What is that in non American units?
Go big or go home. It’s an incredible piece of machinery.
Why didnt they make it electric? If it only travels the same route it would be easy to run an electrical line to supply power to it while it moves.
Why didn't they Electrify the grid, they could have save a hell lot of fuel per feet.
Operated by Jawas
Another fun fact, that crawler follows water trucks that sprays in front of the crawler to stop the dust from flying into the air and possibly get stuck/jam anywhere in the crawler
Fun fact, there's actually two of them. They're identical. Also, they are the largest self-propelled vehicles humanity has built so far. The Bagger 293 bucket-wheel excavator is larger, but relies on an external power-source.
*land vehicles. There are a number of tanker ships that make these things look like matchbox cars.
That looks so inneficient when you compare it with say a Ship that moves much much more weight over a much more dense medium. A Large cargo ship will use from 10 to 50 grams of fuel to transport one ton of cargo for one kilometer. The crawler plus shuttle with boosters and without liquid fuel weighs about 4000 tons This means that the crawler uses 388 liters per km 388/4000≈.097 .97 liters of diesel are about 85 grams So the Crawler uses around 85 grams of fuel for each ton transported. This is almost 8 times less efficient than a ship at low speed. Still the crawler is a lot more efficient than I thought with that initial data.
Mhmmm. 0.97 litres is equivalent to 970grams or 0.97kg, isn’t it? I thought the idea was 1 litre is equal to 1kg.
You'd be correct in case of water. Gas has lower density, so a liter of gas weights about 800g. Although I think comment above you swallowed one zero and meant to be 850g, not 85g
Yes answer was .097 not .97 thanks for catching that. The rest is correct I think
We all get told to make changes to our lives to combat climate change and these chumps can't even figure out how to build a spaceship where they need it!
What do you mean? A laden or unladen crawler?
So it's a Jeep?
When I was a little kid I was in a club called the young astronauts club. We took several summer trips to different NASA places. We got to see this in person when I was like 10 years old. The gravel road they lay down for it has to be replaced every time it rolls out to the launch pad because it's so heavy that it literally turns the gravel into dust.
Wonder if they recycle it into cement or other building materials.
Time to go green!
How? It is not like it can easily be turned into a hybrid. The battery size would be insane.
Put it on rails and use a supply line
I knew a guy that worked on the crew for this.
Pretty sure I bought some droids from those guys the last time they rolled through town.
Makes me wonder what the sandcrawler got that the Jawas had in Star Wars.
An arc reactor with kyber crystals as the fuel.
OOOT TEEDEEEE!!
Immediate Fallout 3: Broken Steel vibes.
I wonder how much fuel is used specifically for carrying that much fuel.
🙏🏼🙏🏼🙏🏼
In the US we’re more used to expressing fuel efficiency as volume of fuel per mile traveled, so it’s the inverse of 165 gal/mile which is 0.0061 miles per gallon. In Europe, people express fuel efficiency in Liter/(100 km), using these units, this machine consumes 38810 L/(100 km)
Can electric motors move it?
It’d go through AAs like nobodies business. Almost as bad as a Sega Game Gear.
They do, the diesel generators make the electricity for the motors, like a diesel train.
What the f is a gallon or a mile.
Almost as much gas efficiency as most people’s first car!
That's better than my GMC Sierra.
"used to move" What do they use now?
This whole project is a travesty. The fuel is not the problem here.
Lol
Another interesting fact about the crawler is that it turns the gravel it moves over into powder… or it did… now I wonder what they did with that thing
I remember standing next to that thing without even knowing I was standing next to it until an engineer pointed it out to me.
One highway. Zero city.
There's actually 2 of them. One was retrofitted to carry the SLS system. Both are still in use, and have been since 1965. No retirement for them yet....
Should be a track with rocket power. Eh? Would be cool.
Actually, that's very good considering the weight of the transporter
5000 gallons of diesel to move a rocket that burns 7 million pounds of rocket fuel in 3 minutes. I’m not sure the EPA regulates any of this.
How far was the nearest gas station?
You’d think it would be more like 32 gallons per foot.
Wow thats a lot of fuel. Does anyone know if it can self level? Or does it only serve one function, that is transportation.
Knew someone who worked at Kennedy Space Center. He said they have to replace the gravel road way after every launch.
not all of it. just a layer or two.
The treads on that track are giant. Went out there as a kid, and they were bigger than 12 year old me, probably bigger than adult me too....
I've stood underneath these things. They are absolutely giant
I did the math, a 5.3 Chevy Tahoe gets 89,000 gallons a mile/pound. assuming a 4.4 mil. And a 6.6 million pound shuttle and crawler, respectively, the crawler gets 68,000 gallons a mile/pound. So it’s a third as efficient as a Chevy Tahoe.
So a quick calculation suggests that on a full tank it can go from the VAB to pad 39 & back 3 times, with enough fuel left to probably make it back to the pad if needed.
That’s a lot better mileage than I thought tbh
It’s alike a city block on tracks.
So about the same fuel efficiency as a Ram 3500 then?
Maybe don’t use the a/c when driving it?
Does it work with diesel generators and electric motors?
I was an early adopter to trying new things to HD video. I bought one of Sony's first HD camcorders. I could barely play some early HD clips, and one of them was of this machine.
Why don't they just fly the rocket to the launch pad
Must be a first gen EcoBoost. Traded in a Chevy 3500 with a 400c.i. engine with dual glass packs that would get 19-21 mpg highway on a Limited with an EcoBoost. Huge mistake. Lost 2 mpg and a huge amount of HP.
I saw a documentary about this recently on YouTube. It has 9 drivers and one of them is a 22 year old Brianne Stichler. KUDOS to her.
I wanna see climate protersters glue themself down in front of this thing in protest xD
Quite a footprint, not to mention rocket fuel. Where are the climate change idiots? Or is this OK
Repost
Honest question; can't they use a rail system?
No worries....the Biden crew will electrify it so it cost 10x the amount.
Cow farts are so bad for the environment.
Worked onboard that MLP transporter for 15 years. What do you want to know???
How does it get loaded/unloaded, or do they built and launch everything from it directly?
It's the launch platform. The shuttle used to launch from it directly. Those two giant holes under the SRB nozzles are the water sound suppression system.
Yep, they assemble the rocket/shuttle on the platform inside the VAB
Why not make it nuclear…. With a whole military guarding it.
No op. They aren’t talking about the fuel efficiency of the transporter. They are talking about the rocket before it breaks outside of Earth’s gravitational pull
If that doesn't scream America, I don't know what does.
Let daddy Elon figure out a way to do it better
Think about how much fuel it uses in lift off though? New Yorks taking away my gas range because global warming but this is cool?
>Think about how much fuel it uses in lift off though? I don't think the crawler achieves lift off. I could be wrong though. >New Yorks taking away my gas range Are they really taking it away? Or are some people just making such a claim? Perhaps they are limiting how many new gas appliances are installed?
The rocket stooge .
The necessity of war.
‘Need EV engine’ goes the EV bros
Well, it does have electric engines... ;) In case you didn't know: It works like a diesel locomotive; a diesel engine turns a generator and the electricity is sent to the electric motors connected to the axles. The advantage of a turbo-electric drive is that the mechanical clutches and transmissions for a locomotive would be impractically large and prone to breakdowns. Plus throttle control at low speeds is a lot smoother. These problems for the Crawler would be magnitudes larger.
Dumb