Military Review

In the United States experience a unique tracked carrier

11
Specialists from the US space agency NASA began running tests of a unique tracked vehicle - the Crawler-transporter 2 (CT-2), designed to carry the huge launch vehicle Space Launch System (SLS) with the newest Orion spacecraft on board. Recently, this tracked transporter has passed the first stage of testing at the Kennedy Space Center in Florida. NASA engineers tested the reliability of new roller bearings for traction motors. It is reported that the new bearings, as well as other systems CT-2, worked in normal mode and warmed up within acceptable limits.

To date, NASA's tracked transporters, or, as they are also called, crawlers, are the largest tracked vehicles in the world. So far, the new tracked carrier has passed only the first phase of its tests. It should be ready for the first mission to launch a new NASA space launch system - the SLS rocket and the Orion spacecraft, which is scheduled for 2017 year. At the moment, new roller bearings have been tested on sections A and C. After the tests, the CT-2 was returned to the assembly shop at the Kennedy Space Center, where they plan to install the same roller bearings in section B and D.

A new tracked transporter was created as a result of a modification of the old CT-1 transporter, which for 45 years of operation transported a huge number of the heaviest cargoes, including the Saturn-5 rocket intended for the Apollo, as well as numerous space shuttles. After the Space Shuttle space program was shut down in 2011, the tracked transporter was not sent for scrap, but it was decided to upgrade it in order to use it to transport the promising American SLS rocket. This heavy rocket will be able to put into low Earth orbit up to 130 tons of payload.

In the United States experience a unique tracked carrier

The CT-2 transporter is a deep modification of the previous version that has lived a long enough life, having worked at the American cosmodrome for more than 45 years. In addition to new roller bearings (a total of 88 new roller bearing assemblies are used), which are installed in traction motors, an improved lubrication system has appeared on it, as well as a completely new temperature monitoring system.

It is worth noting that the CT-2 conveyor has great potential. This engine has two 16-cylinder diesel engines with HP 2200 power. each. In addition, on the conveyor there is also an 2 engine with an 2750 horsepower. each, these engines are designed to operate the electrical system and hydraulic pumps of the machine. In length, the giant conveyor has about 40 meters. The maximum speed that the CT-2 transporter can reach is 3,2 km / h, but at maximum load it does not exceed 1,6 km / h. The conveyor has a huge supply of diesel fuel - 18 930 liters, while the fuel consumption is about 4 liters per 10 meters of track. The track conveyor is able to deliver a launcher and a rocket to the launch site, the total weight of which may exceed 8 thousand tons.

The net weight of the track conveyor itself is 2400 t, while it consists of a cargo platform, which is located on 4-x trucks, each of which has two tracks. In a horizontal position with high accuracy, the platform is held by a special hydraulic system. Each of the conveyor tracks includes 57 articulated tracks, with each track weighing on the order of 900 kg. The 2 dispatcher, which is located at each end of the chassis (front and rear of the vehicle), controlled it.


In the American space industry, these giants have been applied over the past 45 years. Initially, these engines were used to transport Saturn rockets, which were intended for launching the Apollon space program into orbit, and later they were used to transport the Space Shuttle. The modernization of the conveyor, called “Hans and Franz”, is currently not practically affecting its shape and appearance, the overall dimensions of the machine will remain unchanged. Currently, the main work is aimed at replacing the four sections of the tracked drive conveyor.

Currently, the Crawler-transporter-2 is located on the territory of the Vehicle Assembly Building hangar, where work has already been done to replace two of its caterpillar sections (these are sections A and C, which are located on the same side of the conveyor). The replacement of these sections was completed on 31 in January of 2014, currently preparatory work is underway to replace the two remaining tracked sections, B and D, located on the other side of the conveyor. At the same time, engineers are working to strengthen the platform and the CT-2 chassis design.

Information sources:
http://rnd.cnews.ru/tech/news/line/index_science.shtml?2014/02/14/560702
http://www.techcult.ru/gadgets/1479-krossovki-iz-budushhego-nike-air-mag-vnov-poyavyatsya-v-2015-godu
http://gearmix.ru/archives/9159
http://www.ridus.ru/news/154911
Author:
11 comments
Ad

Subscribe to our Telegram channel, daily additional materials that do not get on the site: https://t.me/topwar_ru

Information
Dear reader, to leave comments on the publication, you must sign in.
  1. GHG
    GHG 19 February 2014 07: 49
    +14
    And why is this design unique? Only because they alone use the tracked chassis as a vehicle? For me, a rotary excavator looks cooler and more solid.
    1. Apollo
      Apollo 19 February 2014 08: 22
      +5
      Good morning everybody hi

      quote-The new tracked conveyor was created as a result of the modification of the old CT-1 conveyor, which in 45 years of operation transported a huge number of the heaviest cargoes, including Saturn-5 missiles, designed for the Apollo


      In other words, for me. wassat

      1. deoman
        deoman 19 February 2014 12: 09
        0
        And why water the road in front of him?
        1. Siberia 9444
          Siberia 9444 19 February 2014 12: 14
          +6
          Well, it’s wrong that space speed would not be dusting. laughing
          1. pawel1961
            pawel1961 19 February 2014 22: 58
            0
            the loot is not where.
        2. The comment was deleted.
        3. postman
          postman 19 February 2014 12: 50
          +2
          Quote: deoman
          And why water the road in front of him?

          Try to go to the sandy beach by car (well, for example, the northern coast of the Gulf of Finland) as you stall: go for water (blessing is nearby), shed the exit track.
          The problem is solved, EVEN without reducing tire pressure
          1. Siberia 9444
            Siberia 9444 19 February 2014 13: 02
            +1
            Did not know did not know thanks for the advice. drinks
            1. postman
              postman 19 February 2014 15: 34
              0
              Quote: Siberia 9444
              Did not know did not know thanks for the advice.

              Visit sandy beaches more often (Gulf of Finland for example) wink
          2. The comment was deleted.
    2. postman
      postman 19 February 2014 12: 58
      +5
      Quote: GES
      And what is this design unique about?

      A bucket wheel excavator (even Bagger 288) will not be able to move the Saturn 5 LV, MVKS Shuttle, SLS, etc. in the VERTICAL (and even horizontal) position.

      well, the Crawler-transporter 2 (CT-2), of course, will not give 240 cubic meters of rock per day to the "mountain" belay

    3. Geisenberg
      Geisenberg 19 February 2014 13: 28
      +1
      Quote: GES
      And why is this design unique? Only because they alone use the tracked chassis as a vehicle? For me, a rotary excavator looks cooler and more solid.


      And nothing. As I saw the photo, I immediately remembered "Terminator-1" when Comrade Rhys had nightmares about the war with the Terminators, where a goose runs into the skull. People are preparing a platform to make a fairy tale come true ...
    4. pawel1961
      pawel1961 19 February 2014 22: 57
      -1
      Americans have nothing to do with loot
  2. Salavatsky Ministry of Emergency Situations
    +4
    Star Wars Jane Crawler
    1. And Us Rat
      And Us Rat 19 February 2014 17: 27
      +1
      Quote: Salavatsky Ministry of Emergency Situations
      Star Wars Jane Crawler

      Or maybe not... what

      laughing
  3. grotto
    grotto 19 February 2014 09: 13
    +2
    From a technical point of view, it is, of course, a giant. There were enough difficulties to overcome (drive, chassis). But they managed. I respect you.
    1. Aryan
      Aryan 19 February 2014 15: 34
      +2
      and a lot of ponto from the tracks
      if a concrete bridge in front of such a colossus can be built? fellow
    2. The comment was deleted.
  4. Internal combustion engine
    Internal combustion engine 19 February 2014 10: 02
    +20
    It is, of course, difficult to think of paired railway tracks. We did not bother with such caterpillars.
    1. unclevad
      unclevad 19 February 2014 10: 41
      +10
      The same option as with a pen for space and a pencil. smile
  5. AVV
    AVV 19 February 2014 10: 25
    0
    Monster in motion !!!
  6. ivanovbg
    ivanovbg 19 February 2014 11: 43
    +1
    Quote: ICE
    It is, of course, difficult to think of paired railway tracks.


    It’s easy to think of, but no one can shine any kickbacks from them - after all, there are a lot of railway companies in the USA, there are even more builders of railway equipment. And here, on some OCD, how much loot was cut down. Then - each order is unique, gigantic, no one in the world has produced anything like this before. You can inflate the price to heaven and no one can prove anything - there is nothing to compare. The same thing with the pen for space and a pencil.
  7. Taoist
    Taoist 19 February 2014 12: 03
    +2
    I don't know what for it was so perverted? The constructors have strange logic. This conveyor crawls along the same route. The question is, why reduce its payload by dragging nearly 20 tons of fuel on the ridge? Install electric motors and a reel with a cable ... At the same time, you will save on the transmission ... Not otherwise, this conveyor "ensign" designed - so that it would be easier to write off the fuel ...
    1. postman
      postman 19 February 2014 13: 17
      +1
      Quote: Taoist
      Strange logic at designers. This conveyor is crawling along the same route.


      1.Not one at a time. Serves different (multiple) SC
      2. Starts are not so frequent, the interval is MUCH less than the train schedule

      Quote: Taoist
      The question is, why reduce its payload while dragging on the ridge for nearly 20 tons of fuel? Install motors and reel with cable ...


      1. What is 20 tons compared to 8000 tons of mon? 0,25%
      2.Bugger 288, in principle, in full weight is very similar 13500 tons


      / based on a quarry and made ST-1)
      At Bagger 288, the rotor, tracks and various other mechanisms are driven by several electric motors. These electric motors are powered by an industrial grid using a special cable. The excavator has a reel with a cable wound around it about 1 km long. Power a few TENS MEGAWATT (energy consumption of the town)
      2.1. Bagger 288 makes a profit (240 cubic meters of rock per day), CT-000 - only expenses
      2.2. Bagger 288 - works around the clock, and CT-2 will start once a month on the strength
      2.3. A FEW MILES OF CABLE, with a capacity of several MEGAWATT - WEIGHT?
      2.4. The color is marked on electric motors + 2.3 = HOW MUCH IT IS, provided that the object works 1n once a month
      2.5. The Americans fill the LV in IKSP, and deliver it fully to the UK, so the pantograph (electric train) option does not pass, both in gabbarite and for fire safety.
      (We have a diesel locomotive)
      Quote: Taoist
      .. At the same time, save on the transmission ...

      ??
      At ST-1:

      The drive consists of 16 traction motors that receive current from four generators with a capacity of 1 kW each. The generators are driven by two 2 hp diesel engines. (750 kW)

      ST-2 is the same !!
      Did you really expect to see cardans and gears there?

      Quote: Taoist
      ... Not otherwise, this transporter "ensign" designed

      ??
      Bucyrus International (1100 Milwaukee Avenue PO Box 500 South Milwaukee, Wisconsin 53172-0500 USA)
      is one of the world leaders in the market for equipment for open cast mining. , founded in 1880

      https://mining.cat.com/cda/layout?m=434859&x=97&f=519007

      (was www.bucyrus.com, before merging with CAT)

      Quote: Taoist
      that it would be easier to write off the fuel ...

      For ST-1 fuel consumption is 350 l / km.


      Can you "write off" a lot when the cost of diesel fuel (on the US market) is lower than in the Russian Federation?

      What is 350 liters of diesel fuel (or a ton or 2e), an example of the cost of launching in HUNDREDS of millions of Dollars (excluding SC and Mon
      ??
      1. Taoist
        Taoist 19 February 2014 13: 37
        +3
        Well, first of all, in the case of a clean electric drive, throw out the weight of diesel engines with generators. - for another ten tons of relief. Secondly, ICEs that are launched once a year require the same (even more) maintenance as those that are constantly working ... And this is time and resources and people. Again, all the arguments about more expensive electric motors do not work here either - they are already there, and they are eating these same "megawatts" only for some reason "double conversion" is plugged in here with all the attendant losses.

        In general, here you can catch a lot of fleas. In fact, I personally do not care deeply why the Americans scratched their "left hand across the back with their right egg" ... Occam's principle works not only in logic but also in technology. The "ensign" option was suggested by me as a joke ... however, there is some truth in every joke.
        1. postman
          postman 19 February 2014 14: 00
          +1
          Quote: Taoist
          those in the case of a clean electric drive and the weight of diesel engines with generators.


          at 2400 tons of own vea do not feel
          Quote: Taoist
          Secondly, ICEs launched once a year - require the same (even more)

          no. once a year, oil change, if the threshold for hours worked is not exceeded.
          "oil starvation" and "precipitation" - all technically decided, long ago

          Quote: Taoist
          Again, all the arguments about the more expensive e / engine

          distracted, I mean high-precision eyeliner
          Quote: Taoist
          But why is there a "double conversion" with all the attendant losses.

          your electricity is "drawn" directly from non-Euclidean space?
          TPPs (nuclear power plants) -substations-transmission lines (power transmission lines) - TP (TPshki), converters
          Efficiency is the same (in the complex)

          Quote: Taoist
          why did the Americans scratch their "left hand across the back with their right egg."

          I explained they weren't scratching anything.
          Americans will strangle themselves from saving hundreds of dollars (Ford-L-shaped assembly shop-tax base)
  8. CAMS
    CAMS 19 February 2014 14: 01
    0
    it’s necessary to come up with such crap, because everything is simple, lay the rails. Do not say nothing, everything ingenious is simple. Has anyone ever wondered why we have such a starting installation, and not like amers. it’s also a brilliant idea — a rocket frees itself when it takes off. And the Americans, as always, are wise. I recently watched a video of the 90s, where the coulters were shocked by the state of our front-line runways - the grass was eggs and birds around, and the fact is that the air intakes were closed during take-off and the air enters through the gills in the upper plane of the wing. I am not a specialist and I myself was pleasantly surprised by such an invention, but the truth is that our technologies are advanced, despite the pseudo-patriots.
    1. postman
      postman 19 February 2014 15: 01
      0
      Quote: KAMS
      it’s also a brilliant idea — a rocket frees itself when it takes off. And the Americans, as always, are wise.

      1. Semera SIMPLY cannot maintain its weight in the tucked state, leaning on five-copeck coins.

      "Tensile tube performs BETTER than compression"
      2. Do you think handling equipment is easier / easier? In order to lift and install on a joint venture a fully assembled launch vehicle with a charged satellite?

      Tor-Delta, Atlas-D, Atlas-Agena and Europa-II rockets at the French Kourou cosmodrome in Guiana: the launch vehicle is finally assembled at the launching device using a service tower, lifts or cranes, after this is delivered to the rocket by a space object. Since with this method of preparation, the amount of work in the technical position is reduced, the size of the MIK is significantly reduced and there is no need for a special lifting and transport unit for a fully assembled rocket.

      Mobile American scheme (heavy launchers): the space-rocket system is assembled and tested in the so-called vertical assembly building on the launch platform, on which it is then transported to the launch pad. WITH rocket launched on the same platform.
  9. uzer 13
    uzer 13 19 February 2014 14: 31
    0
    Under this unit, you still need to make the road reinforced, and it costs money. Even the usual 100-ton construction crane breaks through the concrete on which it is traveling.
    1. postman
      postman 19 February 2014 15: 03
      +1
      Quote: uzer 13
      Under this unit, you still need to make the road reinforced

      And so it is! to ensure the logistics of the starting position


      special reinforced concrete path for this conveyor It has rut about 40 meters wide.

      And the conveyor (and the road) will ensure rocket verticality with an accuracy of ± 5 angular minutes even under strong wind loads (which Cape Canaverel is famous for)
      RN- "rides" FULLY ASSEMBLED AND FUELED, the platform itself is the starting position
  10. Taoist
    Taoist 19 February 2014 14: 42
    0
    Quote: Postman
    your electricity is "drawn" directly from non-Euclidean space?
    TPPs (nuclear power plants) -substations-transmission lines (power transmission lines) - TP (TPshki), converters
    Efficiency is the same (in the complex)

    Well, electricity has already been supplied to the launch complex, generated and converted. all they could have already lost. And then "again for the fish money"

    Quote: Postman
    I explained they weren't scratching anything.
    Americans will strangle themselves from saving hundreds of dollars (Ford-L-shaped assembly shop-tax base)


    They will strangle themselves ... for their own. And on the cut of the budget, they are also fine. NASA (a government agency) ordered a completely private firm to develop and build a certain vehicle. At public expense. And here the question arises - will the contractor "save" in this case? or will try to do so that it would "last in a row"?
    1. postman
      postman 19 February 2014 14: 55
      +1
      Quote: Taoist
      already completed worked out and converted

      NO.
      ON SC and MIC:DC and high frequency currents from ground power system special currents, which includes converters, power distribution devices, remote controls.
      1. For ED (serial, industrial product) a completely different current is needed, another TP + power line
      2. The internal combustion engine + generator is cheaper, the more so, everything is done on the basis of a serial product.

      Made for 10 years (as number 1)
      Quote: Taoist
      ordered a completely private company to develop and build a certain vehicle.

      ALL (!) US rocket companies are private, and NASA pays them:

      === like others:
      French Snecma Moteurs, German Astrium and Techspace Aero, Swedish Volvo Aero

      WHO CARES?

      Quote: Taoist
      And here the question arises - will the contractor "save" in this case?

      competition, competition, control of Senate commissions, etc.


      Regarding the "cut" and "save" ....
      I will not say anything about pistols (public procurement) for $ 500 (retail Europe), which for some reason are bought at 5000 Euro (wholesale), and so on.

      about "sawing" in the USA, only heard (here), but not seen the results
      we have both seen and heard and felt ... there are no transplants only
  11. Andriuha077
    Andriuha077 19 February 2014 17: 28
    +1
    And what only people do not, if only not to build railways ...

  12. bistrov.
    bistrov. 19 February 2014 18: 20
    +1
    And in my opinion, the Americans were too clever with this "transporter". Although I am not an expert in the field of cranes, excavators, and lifts, I intuitively feel that our system is much more convenient and simpler.
  13. rezident
    rezident 19 February 2014 22: 44
    0
    Strange, but what is the usual railroad worse? He laid two parallel branches and launched a platform on them
  14. Urri
    Urri 20 February 2014 00: 10
    0
    Quote: rezident
    Strange, but what is the usual railroad worse? He laid two parallel branches and launched a platform on them


    Ground pressure. Lateral stability. Rigidity (no deflection). Many things.
  15. schizophrenic
    schizophrenic 20 February 2014 01: 56
    0
    I wonder why they decided to upgrade, see cheaper than modular costruktsya. Although modular is more convenient, it is easy to assemble for any weight.