Talk:Mobile launcher platform

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Columbia on Mobile platform[edit]

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)[reply]


How is the shuttle held to the pad? What are those tabs that come up to meet the trailing edge of the orbiter's wings? Clearly this article is in need of an expert. I will give it a stub tag. Harperska 02:49, 21 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]


From the article on Nitrogen:

An example occurred shortly before the launch of the first Space Shuttle mission in 1981, when two technicians lost consciousness and died after they walked into a space located in the Shuttle's Mobile Launcher Platform that was pressurized with pure nitrogen as a precaution against fire. The technicians would have been able to exit the room if they had experienced early symptoms from nitrogen-breathing.

There is an error with the ML Designers for the Constallation program[edit]

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)[reply]

There are other MLPs than the Space Shuttle/Saturn V ones[edit]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

Metric units[edit]

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)[reply]

Article scope[edit]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]

Disassembly and Sale section[edit]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

Would have's?[edit]

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)[reply]

External links modified (February 2018)[edit]

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:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 04:19, 3 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Sound Suppression System[edit]

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)[reply]

"Mobile Launcher Platform" vs. "Mobile Launcher"[edit]

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)[reply]

Requested move 24 November 2019[edit]

The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

The result of the move request was: Withdrawn by proposer due to unanimous opposition. (non-admin closure) - Jadebenn (talk) 09:32, 28 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

– The current name is incorrectly capitalized, not the most common term, and blends two different types of structure together. During the Apollo-era, they were mobile launchers. During the Shuttle-era, they were mobile launch platforms. "Mobile launcher platform" is ambiguous to which configuration is being referred to.

I have documented several examples of NASA referring to these three structures during and after the Shuttle-era as "mobile launch platforms" below:

Here are some examples of third-party organizations calling them by that name:

The ngrams data also clearly shows that "mobile launch platform" is in wider use than "mobile launcher platform."

Given these facts, I believe a move to "Mobile launch platform" is the correct action to take, as it's more in-line with Wikipedia's name policy. - Jadebenn (talk) 01:41, 24 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

  • Oppose We're talking about a single vehicle/group of specific vehicles here, not a class of them, so it has to be a proper noun. I don't see a real reason to modify the current title, as "Mobile Launch" could be confused with "a platform for a mobile launch" rather than "a mobile launcher platform".ZXCVBNM (TALK) 11:36, 24 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    @Zxcvbnm: Would you be willing to support the proposal if capitalization were retained? - Jadebenn (talk) 20:03, 24 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose. The proper noun term for these is "Mobile Launcher Platform". Google Ngrams is useful, but remember they only apply to books. Searching NASA.gov, "Mobile Launcher Platform" returns 1510 pages, whereas "Mobile Launch Platform" returns 1260. The wider internet returns ~50000 for MLerP vs ~45000 for just MLP. Any change on our part would just be Wikipedia making a change for Wikipedia's sake. — Huntster (t @ c) 23:00, 24 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

RfC on the focus of "Mobile Launcher Platform"[edit]

The following discussion is an archived record of a request for comment. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.
There is a rough consensus that the article should be about the general concept of the MLP. Soumyabrata (talk • subpages) 05:08, 26 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

  • Suggestion Having looked at the article, I am not about to go through the whole history etc for arguments on what looks like a matter of opinion on which sub-topics should be combined into a major topic, and whether MLP and other items should be regarded as a specific proper noun. Have fun. Instead of fighting till last one standing, why not split the whole matter into a number of topics (say, ML, MLP, etc etc) including an umbrella topic covering the general concept, with copious links, so that all the topics of interest, whether historical, technical, or strategic, get as much coverage as any reasonable reader might want. If anyone at some time in the future wants to unite or further subdivide the articles, they can argue about it at some further time. IMOFWIW. JonRichfield (talk) 05:56, 30 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
@Robert McClenon: 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)[reply]
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Use a picture of the LUT being scrapped here?[edit]

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)[reply]

Nevermind! Found the LUT page, which would likely be a better place for it. PedanticLlama (talk) 22:00, 10 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Requested move 26 December 2019[edit]

The following discussion is an archived discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

Moved as proposed. BD2412 T 15:33, 19 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Mobile Launcher Platform → Mobile launcher platform – There was an RfC about whether the scope of the article is about the MLP in general. Since the consensus is reached, the subject is no longer a proper noun. So I propose to de-capitalize the article's title à la mission control center. Soumyabrata (talk • subpages) 15:31, 26 December 2019 (UTC) —Relisting.  — Amakuru (talk) 16:35, 2 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  • Oppose: As much as I wish such a consensus had been reached, It hasn't. The  scope of the article is currently still just the NASA platforms. – Jadebenn (talk · contribs · subpages) 19:00, 26 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    I have partially changed the scope to other MLPs, like the SpaceX one. Soumyabrata (talk • subpages) 04:18, 27 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    Changing to Support – Jadebenn (talk · contribs · subpages) 03:58, 18 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I have created a rewritten variant of the article. Once the current article is renamed, the draft will replace the article. Soumyabrata (talk • subpages) 06:10, 28 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    Because of the subsequent edits on the article, I have to do the said task early. --Soumyabrata (talk • subpages) 06:02, 29 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support per nom. Dicklyon (talk) 06:08, 1 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support - I haven't looked in detail at the RfC mentioned but it seems sensible to me that, especially given the expansion of scope to include the SpaceX platforms, this should not be treated as a proper noun.  — Amakuru (talk) 17:34, 9 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support. This article is about a whole family of mobile launcher platforms. Shem (talk) 21:08, 9 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support per all of the above, and per WP:NCCAPS and MOS:CAPS, the first rule of which is to not apply capitals unless the independent reliable source do so with remarkable consistency, which is simply not the case here. And that's for an obvious reason: a general class consisting of mobile launcher platforms (even if the article were to remain NASA-specific, which is doubtful) is by definition a common-noun phrase, not a proper name. Cf. Enterprise-class frigate and a zillion other examples. The fact that something is consistently used as a classifier, even if it's "official" and confined to a particular government or other entity, doesn't magically make it a proper name. Over-capitalization like this is simply bureaucratese.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  06:55, 17 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

Merger proposal 27 January 2020[edit]

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.
The result of this discussion was that there is consensus to merge the articles. The only concern raised, whether Mobile launcher platform should be capitalised, has been resolved earlier via a requested move. --MrClog (talk) 15:11, 22 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

—These three articles have same amount of information as the sections of the MLP. Therefore, I suggest to merge the articles into MLP. --Soumyabrata (talk • subpages) 10:06, 27 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

This article is a mess. It's on the NASA Mobile Launcher Platforms, because no-one else (except maybe Thunderbirds) has any sort of mobile launcher platforms. However the Campaign Against Capitalisation decided instead to rename it away from the correct name and to a genericised and lowercase name, as if these things were commonplace. They justified this by claiming incorrectly that that concept was generic and that this article was now on the worldwide plethora of mobile launcher platforms, which of course don't exist, other than NASAs.
You might be right to merge the individual articles to an article on NASA's Mobile Launcher Platforms, but to an article purportedly on generic mobile launcher platforms is too far. Andy Dingley (talk) 12:48, 27 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
You are misleading everything. The "Mobile Launcher Platform" redirects to "mobile launcher platform", haha! --Soumyabrata (talk • subpages) 17:44, 27 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support These 3 are differentiated only by the missions where they were used are not individually notable enough to warrant dedicated articles. That history can be more clearly described in a single section on the Mobile launch platform article. The progression of their use (Apollo->Shuttle->OmegA) can be made much clearer there.--MadeYourReadThis (talk) 14:24, 2 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support I agree with with MadeYouReadThis... They each have unique characteristics in their history, but I don't think they're unique enough to warrant separate articles. PedanticLlama (talk) 18:44, 5 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Request to convert articles into redirects[edit]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]
Andy Dingley, 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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
@Soumya-8974: Done. Be sure in the future to closely follow the How to merge instructions, specifically Publish the edit, leaving the following edit summary (as required by copyright). 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)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Mobile_launcher_platform&oldid=1208069794"