Talk:Mobile launcher platform

message: This article is lacking an in-depth picture. Here's one of Columbia. Can someone put it in the article?
http://www.vesmirweb.net/galerie/raketoplany/ig05_sts107_launch_02.jpg
Does the crawler-transporter stay at the launch pad during launch?  Is it well-protected against the blast of the rockets?  If the crawler leaves the mobile launcher platform, how is the platform moved off of the crawler? GBC 00:59, 11 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Columbia on Mobile platform 

message: ASRC is not designing 3 new MLPs for use during the Constallation Program. They have been contracted to design certain elements of the new Mobile Launcher (which is the actual name of the "platform"). The new ML is being designed by Reynolds, Smith and Hills, Inc., just like the MLP and the LUT were. In fact, the new ML is in construction at one of the parksites next to the VAB, which you can see as you go over the Causeway from Port Canaveral to Merritt Island.
As for the question above, the Crawler-Transporter does not stay at the PAD during launch. The CT acts somewhat like a hydraulic lift when it carrys the MLP and shuttle from the VAB to the PAD. At the parksite, VAB and PAD, 6 mount mechanisms exist that hold the MLP about 22 feet off the groud surface.  When the CT gets to the pad, it lowers the MLP onto the Mount Mechanisms. They are precisly located with 6 pins. Only the weight of the MLP holds it in place.
Peshadows (talk) 15:39, 30 December 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  There is an error with the ML Designers for the Constallation program 

message: The Atlas V rocket also uses a mobile launch platform (its much smaller). So it would seem that mobile launch platforms are a class of vehicles as opposed to a single design that the article currently infers.
Source:http://ulalaunch.com/site/docs/publications/AtlasDeltaCrewLaunch2010.pdf
--Craigboy (talk) 05:26, 25 October 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, the article currently speaks only of the platform moved by the crawler-transporter. The Atlas, SpaceX Falcon, and other rockets use a type of MLP that moves on rails, and are "powered" by railcar mules (in the case of Atlas and Falcon, they are Trackmobile rail mules). Technically, Sea Launch's Odyssey could be considered an MLP. To me, the proper-noun Mobile Launch Platform will always be the system counterparted with the crawler-transporters. I suppose the question is whether to make a separate mobile launcher platform article about the class, and leave this article about the proper-noun MLP. Another question is whether the Atlas service tower type has its own proper-noun name. I just don't know the answer to that one. — Huntster (t @ c) 06:44, 25 October 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  There are other MLPs than the Space Shuttle/Saturn V ones 

message: I figured this is a science-related article so I changed the units to metric as per Manual of Style: Units of measurement. Jon (talk) 02:20, 22 August 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  Metric units 

message: Some of the existing prose in the article makes the article scope a bit unclear.  The article seems to be about the three MLP's, built and used for some years on multiple different launch systems, and now being sold off by NASA.  There is also an SLS section that seems it might be referring to some other/different "Mobile launcher", as it seems this launcher is being saved for reuse on SLS and is therefore not one of the (only?) three MLPs, all of which are apparently being auctioned off by NASA.  Anybody have a good handle on this?  N2e (talk) 15:57, 3 September 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm terrible at writing prose in articles, but I'll try later. Basically, yes, there is a fourth MLP that was constructed specifically for the Constellation program. See its category on Commons at commons:Category:Mobile Launcher Platform 1 (Ares I). It will be retained and modified for SLS, and the others are being sold/destroyed. — Huntster (t @ c) 01:13, 4 September 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: That's great, Hunster.  We can work on it together.  You take a first stab at it, getting the basic facts set out, along with citations for the statements.  Ping me when you're done and I'll be more than happy to come through and make a copyedit pass.  Heck, you could think of it as "specialization and exchange" in the economic sense.  You (Huntster) always do such awesome work on the whole Wikipedia image side of things, and have many times helped out big time in an article I was working on (I hate image work as I can never seem to keep in line with all the Byzantine legal and policy rulz about images; not to mention all the techie stuff related to images as well); so I'm happy to help on some copyediting on an article you've been workiing on (and, of course, to improve Wikipedia).  Voila, specialization and exchange!  N2e (talk) 03:53, 4 September 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: Mhmm, it's been on my mind for a while now to write a much more complete history of crawler-transporters as well, but just never find the time to do it. These MLPs could do with some history as well, but as hard as finding material for the CTs have been these guys will be even more difficult. In any case, I can't say how timely I'll be (most of my Wiki time comes during work), but I will ping you when I have something. Images are fun! I'm finally starting to build a decent library of image software, which makes things even better :) — Huntster (t @ c) 04:18, 4 September 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  Article scope 

message: I think is outdated as it has 2013 dates... IIRC no bids were received but I do not have a cite for that. ++Lar: t/c 21:56, 27 March 2014 (UTC)
replies: text:  MLP 3 is being scrapped. It started last week when it was removed from storage. I have many pictures of it from people on the ground there last week and this week. The problem is, no news story to quote to add this information reliably into the article yet.--Abebenjoe (talk) 19:25, 14 March 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  Disassembly and Sale section 

message: There are numerous (7) "would have" references under the Constelation section on planned changes to the MLP, but no reason is stated on why they never happened (each paragraph is missing a source). Bassmadrigal (talk) 20:12, 12 February 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  Would have's? 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 2 external links on Mobile Launcher Platform. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20050127071338/http://www-pao.ksc.nasa.gov/kscpao/nasafact/pdf/countdow.pdf to http://www-pao.ksc.nasa.gov/kscpao/nasafact/pdf/countdow.pdf
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20050127071338/http://www-pao.ksc.nasa.gov/kscpao/nasafact/pdf/countdow.pdf to http://www-pao.ksc.nasa.gov/kscpao/nasafact/pdf/countdow.pdf
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 04:19, 3 February 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified (February 2018) 

message: The section on the Sound Suppression System (SSS) is improperly written.
The Shuttle had a sound suppression system not because the "Crew Cabin" was closer to the engines, but because the
SSME took 6 seconds to achieve full power and  the vehicle needed to be held down while the twang manuever went past
Top Dead Center and rocked back.
That left the entire vehicle exposed to acoustic energy for 6 seconds.  Worse, the orbiter was covered in
fragile tiles which could be torn off.  The SSS was to protect the tiles and vehicle systems from 6 seconds of the 
acoustic energy, more then cabin crew issues.
--Patbahn (talk) 20:52, 29 July 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  Sound Suppression System 

message: With the SLS, NASA seems to dropped the "Platform" from Mobile Launcher, reverting to the Apollo-era term. Should the article be changed to reflect that? Or maybe we can expand the section on the SLS mobile launcher and spin that into a separate article, since the main focus of this one seems to be the MLPs used during Shuttle? - Jadebenn (talk) 02:03, 7 August 2019 (UTC)
thread_title:  "Mobile Launcher Platform" vs. "Mobile Launcher" 

message: The issue at hand is whether the article should be about the three specific platforms built for the Apollo program and later used for Shuttle, the specific implementation of the "Integrate-Transfer-Launch" concept in the MLs and MLPs of LC-39, or the general concept of a "mobile launcher" or "mobile launch platform" as used by some vertically-integrated rockets. - Jadebenn (talk) 10:01, 28 November 2019 (UTC)
replies: text: The general focus should of course be on the broader topic of mobile launcher platforms, not simply those related to the Apollo  missions.HAL333 01:59, 1 December 2019 (UTC)

text: This article is about a particular launcher platform that was used at LC-39 for Apollo and for the Shuttle.  If there are other mobile launcher platforms, they can be covered in other articles.  There have been other entirely unrelated types of mobile launchers, such as for the Peacekeeper missile, that are not in scope.  Robert McClenon (talk) 05:16, 6 December 2019 (UTC)
replies: text:  Honestly, my main issue is the difficulty of fitting in the Space Launch System Mobile Launcher (and a second upcoming one) into the existing article structure. It just doesn't work to append a section to the end the way it's done right now. The whole rest of the article is about these three specific MLPs and then you have this section about a completely unrelated one (soon to be two) bolted on at the end. At the same time the new SLS Mobile Launcher is so similar in design and function to the Apollo configuration of the MLPs that setting it apart into its own article doesn't make  sense. I would also like to find a path to address the MLPs of other non-LC-39 rockets, but it's not the issue that's foremost in my mind. - Jadebenn (talk) 08:48, 6 December 2019 (UTC)
thread_title:  RfC on the focus of "Mobile Launcher Platform" 

message: Found this picture while adding sources to the article. Any thoughts on adding it to the article? PedanticLlama (talk) 21:56, 10 December 2019 (UTC)
replies: text: Nevermind! Found the LUT page, which would likely be a better place for it. PedanticLlama (talk) 22:00, 10 December 2019 (UTC)
thread_title:  Use a picture of the LUT being scrapped here? 

message: The articles Mobile Launcher Platform 1, Mobile Launcher Platform 2, and Mobile Launcher Platform 3 are merged per the above discussion. However, the final thing to do is to convert them into redirects. Unfortunately, I am banned to do so. Therefore, I request to convert the three articles into a redirect to mobile launcher platform. --Soumyabrata stay at home wash your hands to protect from coronavirus 14:28, 26 March 2020 (UTC)
replies: text: So there's a TBAN against you, because ANI decided that you couldn't be trusted to do so, and yet you still went ahead advocating for a merge here despite that?   And didn't even think to mention that?  Andy Dingley (talk) 14:36, 26 March 2020 (UTC)
replies: text: , the TBAN is against them creating redirects, with the entire point of the tban to encourage them to learn when to create or not create a redirect. In other words, they're doing exactly what they should be doing. Primefac (talk) 17:34, 26 March 2020 (UTC)
replies: text:  Still, that should have been disclosed.  Also the rationale for the redirect "These three articles have same amount of information as the sections of the MLP. " is obviously false: apart from the significant details of the technical variations between the three (they're not the same machines, at least in the gantry structures above the working deck) there's a long list of launches for each one. That's going to be lost with a merge. Both of these are far from "same amount of information", and very far from "same amount of information" after merging. Andy Dingley (talk) 17:42, 26 March 2020 (UTC)
replies: text: Not really. It will be archived on the page history after the creation of the redirect, and the list is not important enough to include on the article. --Soumyabrata stay at home wash your hands to protect from coronavirus 17:50, 26 March 2020 (UTC)

text: Done. Be sure in the future to closely follow the How to merge instructions, specifically . Nothing we can do about it now, but something to remember in the future. The merge instructions are very long and complicated, and I have messed them up before as well. Let me know if I missed anything. Kees08 (Talk) 17:54, 27 March 2020 (UTC)
thread_title:  Request to convert articles into redirects