Author Topic: Boeing’s CST-100 leases OPF-3 following NASA agreement with Space Florida  (Read 31108 times)

Offline Downix

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 7087
  • Liked: 14
  • Likes Given: 1
It stands to reason that maybe folks are interested in LC-39.  Not long ago everyone was saying how we should tear everything down.  Now, today, here is Boeing using many of the facilities for something else.  While it goes against the better judgement of the "internet experts", maybe, just maybe, "the internet" does not know all it thinks it knows. 

Maybe, just maybe, there are other issues to consider.  And maybe, just maybe, there will be multiple customers at LC-39 because contrary to "internet myth" all facilities are not created equal and some customers really want to not have the "utopia" that others have naivly claimed possible on the internet. 

Maybe, just maybe, more are willing to consider LC-39 than are known.

Maybe the internet experts are right.  OPF-3 does not equate to LC-39  and actually is independent of it.  Boeing gets to operate as it sees fit and does not require KSC support for what goes on within its new buildings.

As for the rest of LV-39 (VAB, CT, MLP, Pad, etc), the better judgement of the "internet experts" still holds true and nobody is going to go near it unless it is paid to (even if offered for free like OPF-3)
 
That is not what I am hearing, if anything the opposite.
chuck - Toilet paper has no real value? Try living with 5 other adults for 6 months in a can with no toilet paper. Man oh man. Toilet paper would be worth it's weight in gold!

Offline Jim

  • Night Gator
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 31222
  • Cape Canaveral Spaceport
  • Liked: 9495
  • Likes Given: 298
Commercial operators and LC-39 are mutually exclusive terms.
Only users will be NASA managed operations.

Commercial Crew isn't going to launch from LC-39 due to costs.  It makes any proposal non competitive.





« Last Edit: 11/01/2011 03:14 PM by Jim »

Offline Downix

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 7087
  • Liked: 14
  • Likes Given: 1
Commercial operators and LC-39 are mutually exclusive terms.
Only users will be NASA managed operations.

Commercial Crew isn't going to launch from LC-39 due to costs.  It makes any proposal non competitive.
So does the use of LC-41 and LC-37, which also have high costs for commercial launches. The difference here is that LC-39 is being outfitted to handle the operations right now, with many of the systems needed in place.  To use the others requires development, which will add cost which then needs to be added to the already high pad costs of LC-41 and LC-37.  Unless you are thinking Commercial Crew is going to get very high flight rates, the added costs of LC-39 no longer look so daunting.
chuck - Toilet paper has no real value? Try living with 5 other adults for 6 months in a can with no toilet paper. Man oh man. Toilet paper would be worth it's weight in gold!

Offline baldusi

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 7436
  • Buenos Aires, Argentina
  • Liked: 1434
  • Likes Given: 4475
Everybody is discussing that LC-39 is too expensive. But that only happens if NASA passes the full cost. If NASA only give dry leases for the "cheap" parts, and then rents the "launch" parts at marginal cost, then it might even came up cheaper for the tenant than paying full price for the "own" pad. It would mean a massive subsidy from a certain point of view, but, at the same time, will still save money for NASA wrt giving it no use while having to keep it running until SLS.
In fact, it might even allow them to move some SLS money (pad and supporting infrastructure) and use it for Commercial Crew.

Offline Ben the Space Brit

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 6960
  • A spaceflight fan
  • London, UK
  • Liked: 535
  • Likes Given: 611
What's the chances of an all-new 'Commercial Crew' clean pad, maybe at LC-37A?
"Oops! I left the silly thing in reverse!" - Duck Dodgers

~*~*~*~

The Space Shuttle Program - 1981-2011

The time for words has passed; The time has come to put up or shut up!
DON'T PROPAGANDISE, FLY!!!

Offline Jim

  • Night Gator
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 31222
  • Cape Canaveral Spaceport
  • Liked: 9495
  • Likes Given: 298
Commercial operators and LC-39 are mutually exclusive terms.
Only users will be NASA managed operations.

Commercial Crew isn't going to launch from LC-39 due to costs.  It makes any proposal non competitive.
So does the use of LC-41 and LC-37, which also have high costs for commercial launches. The difference here is that LC-39 is being outfitted to handle the operations right now, with many of the systems needed in place.  To use the others requires development, which will add cost which then needs to be added to the already high pad costs of LC-41 and LC-37.  Unless you are thinking Commercial Crew is going to get very high flight rates, the added costs of LC-39 no longer look so daunting.

Not true.

A. Commercial crew costs off of 41 or 37 are basically the same as unmanned mission, those are baseline costs.  Crew access would be additional cost but it is not high.

B.  LC-39 is not being outfitted to handle Atlas or Delta.  Those are additional costs and substantial.

c.  LC-39 has very high O&M costs (obscenely high)

d.  Even with a new VIF, LC-41 is cheaper.

Hence, commercial crew is not going off LC-39. 

NASA managed ops off of LC-39 is not commercial crew.

Offline Jim

  • Night Gator
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 31222
  • Cape Canaveral Spaceport
  • Liked: 9495
  • Likes Given: 298
Everybody is discussing that LC-39 is too expensive. But that only happens if NASA passes the full cost.

Which NASA has to. 
« Last Edit: 11/01/2011 04:11 PM by Jim »

Offline BrightLight

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1307
  • Northern New Mexico
  • Liked: 191
  • Likes Given: 239
Everybody is discussing that LC-39 is too expensive. But that only happens if NASA passes the full cost.

Which NASA has to. 
Does that mean that a new cost structure can not be developed where NASA pays for the bulk of the operating cost for LC -39 and commercial pays a smaller portion.  Is NASA financing fixed and no new approaches are viable?

Offline JosephB

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 737
  • Liked: 4
  • Likes Given: 1
It stands to reason that maybe folks are interested in LC-39.  Not long ago everyone was saying how we should tear everything down.  Now, today, here is Boeing using many of the facilities for something else.  While it goes against the better judgement of the "internet experts", maybe, just maybe, "the internet" does not know all it thinks it knows. 

Maybe, just maybe, there are other issues to consider.  And maybe, just maybe, there will be multiple customers at LC-39 because contrary to "internet myth" all facilities are not created equal and some customers really want to not have the "utopia" that others have naivly claimed possible on the internet. 

Maybe, just maybe, more are willing to consider LC-39 than are known.

Maybe the internet experts are right.  OPF-3 does not equate to LC-39  and actually is independent of it.  Boeing gets to operate as it sees fit and does not require KSC support for what goes on within its new buildings.

As for the rest of LV-39 (VAB, CT, MLP, Pad, etc), the better judgement of the "internet experts" still holds true and nobody is going to go near it unless it is paid to (even if offered for free like OPF-3)
 

Not sure where the confusion is coming from but Boeing and SNC, if selected, will be using ULA's facilities at LC-41, including their launch platform.  Nothing will be used from 39 or the VAB for CCDev that I know of.

Makes sense. They way I read ULA's document is that ULA-C41-01 was cheapest & quickest.

Offline Jim

  • Night Gator
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 31222
  • Cape Canaveral Spaceport
  • Liked: 9495
  • Likes Given: 298
Everybody is discussing that LC-39 is too expensive. But that only happens if NASA passes the full cost.

Which NASA has to. 
Does that mean that a new cost structure can not be developed where NASA pays for the bulk of the operating cost for LC -39 and commercial pays a smaller portion.  Is NASA financing fixed and no new approaches are viable?

they have to pay their fair share

Offline BrightLight

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1307
  • Northern New Mexico
  • Liked: 191
  • Likes Given: 239
If LC-41 is the choice of ULA, then my argument is moot.

Offline baldusi

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 7436
  • Buenos Aires, Argentina
  • Liked: 1434
  • Likes Given: 4475
Everybody is discussing that LC-39 is too expensive. But that only happens if NASA passes the full cost.

Which NASA has to. 
Does that mean that a new cost structure can not be developed where NASA pays for the bulk of the operating cost for LC -39 and commercial pays a smaller portion.  Is NASA financing fixed and no new approaches are viable?

they have to pay their fair share
I'm sorry, but I'm a cynic, and assuming that NASA wants to offer a really low cost, how much could they tweak the definition "fair"?

Offline Lurker Steve

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1420
  • Liked: 35
  • Likes Given: 9
Commercial operators and LC-39 are mutually exclusive terms.
Only users will be NASA managed operations.

Commercial Crew isn't going to launch from LC-39 due to costs.  It makes any proposal non competitive.
So does the use of LC-41 and LC-37, which also have high costs for commercial launches. The difference here is that LC-39 is being outfitted to handle the operations right now, with many of the systems needed in place.  To use the others requires development, which will add cost which then needs to be added to the already high pad costs of LC-41 and LC-37.  Unless you are thinking Commercial Crew is going to get very high flight rates, the added costs of LC-39 no longer look so daunting.

Not true.

A. Commercial crew costs off of 41 or 37 are basically the same as unmanned mission, those are baseline costs.  Crew access would be additional cost but it is not high.

B.  LC-39 is not being outfitted to handle Atlas or Delta.  Those are additional costs and substantial.

c.  LC-39 has very high O&M costs (obscenely high)

d.  Even with a new VIF, LC-41 is cheaper.

Hence, commercial crew is not going off LC-39. 

NASA managed ops off of LC-39 is not commercial crew.


Now that LC-39 has been converted to a "clean" pad, what makes the O&M costs so high ? the standing army is gone. If you add RP-1 fuel tanks to complement the existing LH2 and LOX infrastructure, what makes this pad much more expensive than the flat piece of land just a few miles away ? Other than the fact that one pad is owned by CCAFS and the other is part of KSC, why so expensive ? You would think the military base would have greater overhead.

Offline Namechange User

  • Elite Veteran
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 7301
  • Liked: 0
  • Likes Given: 0
Now that LC-39 has been converted to a "clean" pad, what makes the O&M costs so high ? the standing army is gone. If you add RP-1 fuel tanks to complement the existing LH2 and LOX infrastructure, what makes this pad much more expensive than the flat piece of land just a few miles away ? Other than the fact that one pad is owned by CCAFS and the other is part of KSC, why so expensive ? You would think the military base would have greater overhead.

LC-39 is more than pad B.  It is Pad A, the VAB, the OPFs and all the other supporting infrastructure. 

Pad A is currently mothballed, awaiting something.  The rest of it will be maintained by NASA as always, it will not go anywhere.

So, it is really a matter for how NASA choses to execute its use.  There are many proposals out there that would allow LC39 to be used by various users (and what you just saw with Boeing is an example of that).  It is possible to launch multiple configs out of LC39 as well (again there are designs for exactly that) so it ultimately comes down to a cost sharing arrangement where if NASA offers some sort of rate to multiple users (but the sum is attractive to NASA) then perhaps we will see more.

Ultimately it will be about cost (so NASA would know what it needs to do)and that decision will be made by the potential users. 
« Last Edit: 11/01/2011 05:33 PM by OV-106 »
Enjoying viewing the forum a little better now by filtering certain users.

Offline sdsds

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 5477
  • "With peace and hope for all mankind."
  • Seattle
  • Liked: 577
  • Likes Given: 677
Lots of factors could be in play.  Suppose for a moment there were a contingent within NASA who strongly believed the future of the agency revolved around NASA vehicles lifting off from LC-39 powered by RP-1 engines.  They would be using phrases like 21st Century Launch Complex, and would be thinking there was $1.9 billion over five years available to "modernize" KSC facilities and, "Reduce launch costs not only for NASA, but for other users."  Those funds don't come out of the commercial crew budget, and they could pay for restoration of RP-1 storage and delivery to the pads....
« Last Edit: 11/01/2011 07:27 PM by sdsds »
-- sdsds --

Offline erioladastra

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1246
  • Liked: 70
  • Likes Given: 0
It stands to reason that maybe folks are interested in LC-39.  Not long ago everyone was saying how we should tear everything down.  Now, today, here is Boeing using many of the facilities for something else.  While it goes against the better judgement of the "internet experts", maybe, just maybe, "the internet" does not know all it thinks it knows. 

Maybe, just maybe, there are other issues to consider.  And maybe, just maybe, there will be multiple customers at LC-39 because contrary to "internet myth" all facilities are not created equal and some customers really want to not have the "utopia" that others have naivly claimed possible on the internet. 

Maybe, just maybe, more are willing to consider LC-39 than are known.

Maybe the internet experts are right.  OPF-3 does not equate to LC-39  and actually is independent of it.  Boeing gets to operate as it sees fit and does not require KSC support for what goes on within its new buildings.

As for the rest of LV-39 (VAB, CT, MLP, Pad, etc), the better judgement of the "internet experts" still holds true and nobody is going to go near it unless it is paid to (even if offered for free like OPF-3)
 

Not sure where the confusion is coming from but Boeing and SNC, if selected, will be using ULA's facilities at LC-41, including their launch platform.  Nothing will be used from 39 or the VAB for CCDev that I know of.
As LC-41 has no crew access, you must be referring to unmanned launches.

Why would you assume that?  ULA is working designs for access.

Offline Jim

  • Night Gator
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 31222
  • Cape Canaveral Spaceport
  • Liked: 9495
  • Likes Given: 298

Now that LC-39 has been converted to a "clean" pad, what makes the O&M costs so high ? the standing army is gone. If you add RP-1 fuel tanks to complement the existing LH2 and LOX infrastructure, what makes this pad much more expensive than the flat piece of land just a few miles away ? Other than the fact that one pad is owned by CCAFS and the other is part of KSC, why so expensive ? You would think the military base would have greater overhead.

VAB, CT, MLP, the pad systems (ESC, comm, power grid), and the management of those by KSC makes it more expensive.

Offline Downix

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 7087
  • Liked: 14
  • Likes Given: 1

Now that LC-39 has been converted to a "clean" pad, what makes the O&M costs so high ? the standing army is gone. If you add RP-1 fuel tanks to complement the existing LH2 and LOX infrastructure, what makes this pad much more expensive than the flat piece of land just a few miles away ? Other than the fact that one pad is owned by CCAFS and the other is part of KSC, why so expensive ? You would think the military base would have greater overhead.

VAB, CT, MLP, the pad systems (ESC, comm, power grid), and the management of those by KSC makes it more expensive.
The numbers don't add up to back you with this Jim, especially if ammortized over multiple launchers.  LC-39 has very low marginal costs, which means if you utilize it more, the lower it costs.  So the very systems you claim make it more expensive are its best strengths to lower costs.
chuck - Toilet paper has no real value? Try living with 5 other adults for 6 months in a can with no toilet paper. Man oh man. Toilet paper would be worth it's weight in gold!

Offline Jim

  • Night Gator
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 31222
  • Cape Canaveral Spaceport
  • Liked: 9495
  • Likes Given: 298
LC-39 has very low marginal costs,

It's high fixed costs negate this and the flight rates wont be high enough to put a dent in it
« Last Edit: 11/01/2011 10:03 PM by Jim »

Offline rsnellenberger

  • Amateur wood butcher
  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 585
  • Houston, TX
  • Liked: 55
  • Likes Given: 18
LC-39 has very low marginal costs,

It's high fixed costs negate this and the flight rates wont be high enough to put a dent in it

Be interesting to compare the total fixed costs for Patrick AFB & CCAFS against those of KSC...

Tags: