NASA crawler

We had a bunch of german scientist, what else do you expect from them. Over complicated engineering is their thang yo.

Makes sense, tho Russians had a bunch of German scientists too and they always use the railway.

Attached: n-1 transportation.jpg (508x800, 169K)

The original idea was to build the Apollo rockets on top of the launch platform to start with, then moving the entire assembly from the VAB to the launchpad. I'm guessing the rails or the trainbeds can't support the sheer mass of the launch platform and the rocket combined,

>the rails or the trainbeds can't support the sheer mass of the launch platform and the rocket combined
That's where you're wrong, bud.

Attached: 11k25 energia with 11f35 buran (2).jpg (1628x1057, 397K)

Easy. As the ONLY TRUE CHRISTIAN bastion on this world, just put a big ass Christian Cross on top of it. The enemies of America are surely, positively non-Christian infadel and liberal. They feared the Christ as Nazis feared the Jews. Put on top of will showing the might of Christianity in America and prove our love to Jesus Christ. DEUS WULT!!

Attached: kingdom-of-heaven.jpg (1920x816, 1020K)

Underrated post

rockets don't take off horizontal

Indeed, that's why you lift them.

Attached: soyuz-2 first launch.jpg (746x479, 87K)

That's just the carrier, not the entire launch platform.

Or we could put a baphomet statue on it and giggle as the Christians loose their mind and finally start the boogaloo so we can purge califags.

Ave Satanas! Satanas vult!

Germans built that thing

Uh, what?

Attached: 11k25 energia with 11f35 buran (9).jpg (1191x1800, 480K)

Tape knives to it and a boom box playing dubstep

Real answer: US opted to overengineer their rocket building (vertical assembly) and transportation because historically their rockets had weak hulls. They wouldn't survive what russians do to theirs.

In some forms, this trend continues even in modern times.
>Any launch from cape canaveral
Uhh there's a cloud in the sky, let's cancel it just in case.
(BONUS) mildly chilly weather on the morning before launch? Lose a space shuttle.
>Soyuz launch from a cosmodrome at shitty latitude
Snowstorm and heavy winds? Whatever, launch it.

Kinda shows that the R7 rocket family started off as an ICBM. They're built to work even if the world was ending.

Add LSD dispensers on the side to draw victims in to the blades?

>Real answer: US opted to overengineer their rocket building (vertical assembly) and transportation because historically their rockets had weak hulls
Thanks, user.
>Snowstorm and heavy winds? Whatever, launch it.
That's not entirely true, Russian launches do get postponed due to bad weather, but it has to be actual bad weather with strong enough wind, not just cloudy sky.

Attached: Angara-A5 (2).webm (1280x720, 2.92M)

This guy is going to go far

Use a gun. And if that don't work, use more gun.

Attached: engie.jpg (1280x720, 62K)

Don’t they get like three miles to the gallon?

And by weak hulls I mean some of them would literally crumble if taken horizontal with empty fuel tanks. The fuel pressure pretty much kept them together structurally. They were designed to only take the extreme vertical pressure loads during normal operational ascent, nothing superfluous.

>Russian launches do get postponed due to bad weather
Of course they won't take unnecessary risks when cheaply avoidable, but Soyuz rockets have been launched during snowstorms and from snow-covered launch pads. TMA-22 launched during a literal blizzard.

Germans built/designed most things worthwhile.

youtube.com/watch?v=huM7PJBMYBY

Really interesting

>US opted to overenginee

thats the motto of usa in general no matter what

you remember the boeing's equivalent of the concorde? the nose mechanism was so fucking complicated that this was the sole reason that the funding got cancelled

>125 gallon/mile
>max 2 mph

The crawlers are designed for transporting weight, not having good mobility. Realistically speaking, some form of mobile FOB like , maybe carrying aircraft too.

Firstly you survey the land and routes it will use at the destination shithole you are about to free, otherwise it will repeatedly sink into the ground. Even then you are severely limited by natural features, etc.

Then you need another system just to transport it from CONUS.

Then you need a fuck ton of CIWS/AA because it is a big fat target.

While you go you may as well lay a diesel pipeline, because the tanks run dry in 40 miles.

So basically a slower and less practical CV.

11/10 suitable taxpayer money hole

>thats the motto of usa in general no matter what
No, not really. Even in this case it was basically "let's do what we can on the ground so we can make the part to goes to space simpler"
It was a bad tradeoff. America never was any good at cost-effective rocketry before some memelord immigrated from south africa and started doing his propulsive landing thing.

Attached: Falcon-Heavy-side-booster-landings-SpaceX-e1518547599594[1].jpg (2917x1753, 523K)

>TMA-22 launched during a literal blizzard
Ebin. Ivan, is of snowstorm outside, maybe we must wait? Andrey, it is of space rocket, who cares about little snow.
Wing mechanization was gorgeous tho.

>before some memelord immigrated from south africa and started doing his propulsive landing thing
These ain't particularly chap though if you count in the cost of maintenance they have to go through after every flight. Same crap as with Shuttle, only these don't cost $1.5 billion per launch.

this is awesome simply because americans don't do it and you don't get alot of footage...

15 seconds into the launch and you're left with nothing but one metric shitload of steam and a bunch of cheering engineers.