I personally think that they will build a brand-new launch site for it. LC-39A would require a complete redesign and rebuild of the flame trench, launch tower, and much of the site's infrastructure - it's really not practical. If they did choose to go with LC-39A it would be out of commission for perhaps more than a year.
When will SpaceX actually begin to build the infrastructure for ITS launches and what form will it take? Is it possible for them to continue to use 39(a) for F9 and FH and at the same time modify it to also accommodate ITS launches (and landings?).
Quote from: Ludus on 04/27/2017 07:48 pmWhen will SpaceX actually begin to build the infrastructure for ITS launches and what form will it take? Is it possible for them to continue to use 39(a) for F9 and FH and at the same time modify it to also accommodate ITS launches (and landings?). At least a decade
Why so far into the future? If design converges within this year, a first test launch of the booster might be possible in 4 to 5 years. Launch pad preparations should start much earlier.
I still expect they build a new launchpad, but on LC-39A. That way they would be completely independent of launch operations except stopping work for a launch or static fire.
There are at least half a dozen unused old LCs in CCAFS. For example, LC14 is unused and it is right beside SpaceX Landing Complex 1. So is SLC1.
Quote from: gospacex on 05/25/2017 08:49 amThere are at least half a dozen unused old LCs in CCAFS. For example, LC14 is unused and it is right beside SpaceX Landing Complex 1. So is SLC1.So is 39B...
Quote from: AncientU on 05/25/2017 12:05 pmQuote from: gospacex on 05/25/2017 08:49 amThere are at least half a dozen unused old LCs in CCAFS. For example, LC14 is unused and it is right beside SpaceX Landing Complex 1. So is SLC1.So is 39B...Isn't 39B beeing refurbished for SLS already?