Should be interesting to see what they actually do there. Will they just pre-flight there or will they do post-flight and refurbishing for future missions?
I love how Chris termed Boeing a "Suitor."
Any info on what Boeing is paying for the lease?
Quote from: Jason1701 on 10/31/2011 04:15 pmI love how Chris termed Boeing a "Suitor." Heh - that works though, right? You've got me all worried now
Quote from: simpl simon on 10/31/2011 04:29 pmAny info on what Boeing is paying for the lease?I would be very, very surprised if that is ever disclosed. That is between Boeing and NASA and is likely proprietary.
Quote from: OV-106 on 10/31/2011 04:33 pmQuote from: simpl simon on 10/31/2011 04:29 pmAny info on what Boeing is paying for the lease?I would be very, very surprised if that is ever disclosed. That is between Boeing and NASA and is likely proprietary.I would be very, very surprised as well, but no harm in asking.And why is it between Boeing and NASA if Space Florida has acquired the building?
Quote from: Ben the Space Brit on 10/31/2011 03:42 pmShould be interesting to see what they actually do there. Will they just pre-flight there or will they do post-flight and refurbishing for future missions?It seems to me it will be something like this:OPF 3 - Final manufacturing and vehicle processing. Possible/Probable turnaround of already flown vehiclesSSME Processing Facility - Vehicle manufacturing prior to final assembly. Logistics support, manufacturing support for previously flown vehicles.PCC - Office space and mission control for monitoring launch ops and then on-orbit oprations and revcovery.
Was Boeing actually awarded the SSME processing facility, or just speculation?
The OPFs are broadly useful for NASA's commercial launch providers. The less convincing prospect is whether any commercial launch service will elect to utilize LC-39 or the VAB. The CT/MLP infrastructure is a big operational burden which isn't readily compatible with existing pad flow concepts for Atlas, Delta, and Falcon. Maybe if ATK does that Liberty Stick thing, but otherwise I find it difficult to imagine an EELV crawling out to LC-39B on an MLP.
Is anybody discussing money?
The less convincing prospect is whether any commercial launch service will elect to utilize LC-39 or the VAB. The CT/MLP infrastructure is a big operational burden which isn't readily compatible with existing pad flow concepts for Atlas, Delta, and Falcon. [...] I find it difficult to imagine an EELV crawling out to LC-39B on an MLP.
Quote from: OV-106 on 10/31/2011 04:33 pmQuote from: simpl simon on 10/31/2011 04:29 pmAny info on what Boeing is paying for the lease?I would be very, very surprised if that is ever disclosed. That is between Boeing and NASA and is likely proprietary.Don't they have to disclose it since it is a lease of a govt owned property? No national security secrecy would seem to be required here.Just wondering, it seems odd.
The less convincing prospect is whether any commercial launch service will elect to utilize LC-39 or the VAB. The CT/MLP infrastructure is a big operational burden which isn't readily compatible with existing pad flow concepts for Atlas, Delta, and Falcon. Maybe if ATK does that Liberty Stick thing, but otherwise I find it difficult to imagine an EELV crawling out to LC-39B on an MLP.
PCC - Office space and mission control for monitoring launch ops and then on-orbit oprations and revcovery.
It's quite true that it'd be much different from the current EELV concept of operations. That translates into extra costs and schedule shifts to the right.
Quote from: Robotbeat on 10/31/2011 08:02 pmIt's quite true that it'd be much different from the current EELV concept of operations. That translates into extra costs and schedule shifts to the right.You're implicitly comparing this Concept of Operations to some other, but you don't say which. Is it one of the ones ULA describes in their paper? Do you agree with their assessments regarding, "Existing Infrastructure, New Infrastructure, Potential Advantages, and Potential Disadvantages" for each?More particularly, do you agree with the ULA assessment that the ULA-K39-02 concept has among its advantages the, "Potential for moderate cost?" 'Cause it doesn't sound like you do, yet it isn't clear if you have considered the factors that led ULA to characterize this concept in that way.
I'm comparing to what the EELVs ALREADY use. What else is there to compare it to?
Quote from: simpl simon on 10/31/2011 04:29 pmIs anybody discussing money?Well, if you believe what other sites are reporting:Former shuttle commander Robert Cabana, director of the Kennedy Space Center, said the deal was a win-win arrangement for the government."There is no financial exchange of funds between space Florida and KSC," he said. "We are turning over the use of the OPF bay three, which NASA no longer has a definitive need for and that we do not have funding to maintain. We would be tearing it down, so we are allowing Space Florida, through this use agreement, to have it for 15 years ... at no cost to NASA."Space Florida, in turn, will lease the building to Boeing
(We also posted a new Boeing CST-100 overview video here: http://www.collectspace.com/cst100_opf3)
Quote from: Robotbeat on 10/31/2011 10:03 pmI'm comparing to what the EELVs ALREADY use. What else is there to compare it to?Ah, I see now. You're comparing a human spaceflight concept of operations to one used for unmanned missions. I thought maybe you were referring to e.g. the concept ULA calls ULA-C41-01, one of the ones that involve AV-402 launches from SLC-41.
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.
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.
Quote from: OV-106 on 11/01/2011 03:24 amIt 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)
After watching that I can't help but wonder if Boeing is planning on launching Kyle, Cartman, and Stan into orbit.
Quote from: sdsds on 10/31/2011 06:23 pmQuote from: simpl simon on 10/31/2011 04:29 pmIs anybody discussing money?Well, if you believe what other sites are reporting:Former shuttle commander Robert Cabana, director of the Kennedy Space Center, said the deal was a win-win arrangement for the government."There is no financial exchange of funds between space Florida and KSC," he said. "We are turning over the use of the OPF bay three, which NASA no longer has a definitive need for and that we do not have funding to maintain. We would be tearing it down, so we are allowing Space Florida, through this use agreement, to have it for 15 years ... at no cost to NASA."Space Florida, in turn, will lease the building to Boeing That could be a good deal even if they only charged for utilities and any maintenance required on the building. It's the tax base to the region that gets propped up, with jobs, spin-offs, and tourism which is what Space Florida is more than likely interested in.
Quote from: robertross on 10/31/2011 11:11 pmQuote from: sdsds on 10/31/2011 06:23 pmQuote from: simpl simon on 10/31/2011 04:29 pmIs anybody discussing money?Well, if you believe what other sites are reporting:Former shuttle commander Robert Cabana, director of the Kennedy Space Center, said the deal was a win-win arrangement for the government."There is no financial exchange of funds between space Florida and KSC," he said. "We are turning over the use of the OPF bay three, which NASA no longer has a definitive need for and that we do not have funding to maintain. We would be tearing it down, so we are allowing Space Florida, through this use agreement, to have it for 15 years ... at no cost to NASA."Space Florida, in turn, will lease the building to Boeing That could be a good deal even if they only charged for utilities and any maintenance required on the building. It's the tax base to the region that gets propped up, with jobs, spin-offs, and tourism which is what Space Florida is more than likely interested in.I think it was beancounter that stated that NASA has a weird accounting system where they get charged internally by the square foot, regardless of the actual cost (probably with some shadow foot price for the type of building). Thus, lending it away for free would actually "free" internal budget money. And yes, property tax, utilities, maintenance and even the guy who moans the grass are costs transferred to the lessee.I'm wondering about the escape system on LC-39. If I'm not mistaken, there's a blast proof bunker beneath them, with environmental control, for a catastrophic failure case. If this was still usable, and an equivalent system would be required at the other pads, it could be a certain saving.And if NASA forced every CCDev to actually launch from LC-39, it would be sort of a moot point to launch from anywhere else.Yet, it's too early to tell anything about without some serious insider information. Even with that, the internal assessments might be wrong. It wouldn't be the first time people didn't made the most economical (even the most efficient) choice, you know?
Quote from: Jim on 11/01/2011 10:19 amQuote from: OV-106 on 11/01/2011 03:24 amIt 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.
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.
Quote from: Jim on 11/01/2011 03:13 pmCommercial 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.
Everybody is discussing that LC-39 is too expensive. But that only happens if NASA passes the full cost.
Quote from: baldusi on 11/01/2011 03:43 pmEverybody is discussing that LC-39 is too expensive. But that only happens if NASA passes the full cost.Which NASA has to.
Quote from: Jim on 11/01/2011 04:10 pmQuote from: baldusi on 11/01/2011 03:43 pmEverybody 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?
Quote from: BrightLight on 11/01/2011 04:18 pmQuote from: Jim on 11/01/2011 04:10 pmQuote from: baldusi on 11/01/2011 03:43 pmEverybody 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
Quote from: Downix on 11/01/2011 03:29 pmQuote from: Jim on 11/01/2011 03:13 pmCommercial 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.
Quote from: erioladastra on 11/01/2011 10:32 amQuote from: Jim on 11/01/2011 10:19 amQuote from: OV-106 on 11/01/2011 03:24 amIt 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.
Quote from: Lurker Steve on 11/01/2011 05:12 pmNow 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.
LC-39 has very low marginal costs,
Quote from: Downix on 11/01/2011 08:38 pmLC-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
Here's a question for these costs of LC-39:If NASA is paying for a 'service' for commercial crew access to (for now) the ISS, then could it not simply say the facilities (or portions thereof) are 'free issued' to the service provider (ie: borne by NASA)?Any launches 'above and beyond' ISS flights/NASA-purchased, would have to be paid for by some formula.Yes, no?I know the accounting may not work, but with all the funding being provided to CCDev, what is so different from also including launch facilities to sweeten the deal, much like OPF-3 to Space Florida?
Quote from: robertross on 11/01/2011 11:31 pmHere's a question for these costs of LC-39:If NASA is paying for a 'service' for commercial crew access to (for now) the ISS, then could it not simply say the facilities (or portions thereof) are 'free issued' to the service provider (ie: borne by NASA)?Any launches 'above and beyond' ISS flights/NASA-purchased, would have to be paid for by some formula.Yes, no?I know the accounting may not work, but with all the funding being provided to CCDev, what is so different from also including launch facilities to sweeten the deal, much like OPF-3 to Space Florida? OPF-3 was going to be razed, it was excessed. NASA doesn't have to maintain it or pay to tear it down.But what NASA provides to CCT proposers will be taken into account in the selection process.
High fixed costs mean even a single flight addition causes a price reduction to be more significant.
Quote from: Jim on 11/01/2011 10:01 pmQuote from: Downix on 11/01/2011 08:38 pmLC-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 itHigh fixed costs mean even a single flight addition causes a price reduction to be more significant.
Quote from: Downix on 11/02/2011 01:07 amQuote from: Jim on 11/01/2011 10:01 pmQuote from: Downix on 11/01/2011 08:38 pmLC-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 itHigh fixed costs mean even a single flight addition causes a price reduction to be more significant.By that logic, we want the highest fixed costs possible, so we experience the maximum cost reduction with each additional flight.
Quote from: Downix on 11/02/2011 01:07 amHigh fixed costs mean even a single flight addition causes a price reduction to be more significant.High Fixed costs=High Fixed costs period. Meaning unless thoose fixes costs buy you something special(which in the case of a rocket launch probably not) they are not worth it.
Tell that to every mass production company ever to enter business. Their whole model is based on high fixed costs.
And makes gosh-darned sure that if there is any commercial crew industry that arises out of NASA's commercial crew program investment that it stays firmly under the mothering eye of NASA. I wish this weren't true
Quote from: Downix on 11/02/2011 01:45 amTell that to every mass production company ever to enter business. Their whole model is based on high fixed costs.err. no. All factories/companies have fixed costs. However larger factories have higher fixed costs(more space to heat/cool/patrol). With mass production it is hoped that your fixed costs are spread over enough product(that sells) else you won't have a profit(i.e. GM before the bailout). If you have a large factory that isn't running near capacity, you may have a problem. It can indeed make sense to reduce the size of your facility(or close factories) if the amount of product being produced(or sold) is less than the capacity of the plant and if by doing so you reduce your cost.
We have a facility here that is not running near capacity, not even at a fraction of capacity. As you put it, we have a problem. Utilizing it for commercial crew adds to that, utilizing its space capacity. Add a few more, then you make up the capacity needed to make the fixed costs fall in line.
Quote from: Downix on 11/02/2011 02:14 amWe have a facility here that is not running near capacity, not even at a fraction of capacity. As you put it, we have a problem. Utilizing it for commercial crew adds to that, utilizing its space capacity. Add a few more, then you make up the capacity needed to make the fixed costs fall in line. Or simply launch out of the normal Atlas pads or build new pads that require fewer works......
Quote from: Robotbeat on 11/01/2011 11:49 pmAnd makes gosh-darned sure that if there is any commercial crew industry that arises out of NASA's commercial crew program investment that it stays firmly under the mothering eye of NASA. I wish this weren't trueYes, the OPF-3 etc. lease does look a bit like NASA "mothering" Boeing. How funny is that!? Luckily for those who fear this as a trend, SpaceX will never accept it and Elon assures us he personally will make certain SpaceX is in the commercial crew business.... So we needn't fear this kind of OPF-3 arrangement will become the only game in town!
Quote from: pathfinder_01 on 11/02/2011 02:49 amQuote from: Downix on 11/02/2011 02:14 amWe have a facility here that is not running near capacity, not even at a fraction of capacity. As you put it, we have a problem. Utilizing it for commercial crew adds to that, utilizing its space capacity. Add a few more, then you make up the capacity needed to make the fixed costs fall in line. Or simply launch out of the normal Atlas pads or build new pads that require fewer works......And then have more pads to pay for, as LC-39 is needed for SLS regardless. This is a sure fire way to further increase costs across the board.
What's the chances of an all-new 'Commercial Crew' clean pad, maybe at LC-37A?
Quote from: Ben the Space Brit on 11/01/2011 03:46 pmWhat's the chances of an all-new 'Commercial Crew' clean pad, maybe at LC-37A?That's what I want to know. If commercial crew on Atlas V takes off in a big way, then a second Atlas V launch site begins to make a lot of sense, and having it in parallel with the current site is the most economical solution.That said, the current DoD/NASA Atlas V flight rate is sufficiently low that you'd need really regular crew flights for it to really impinge on the schedule at the current facilities.
Quote from: Downix on 11/02/2011 03:19 amQuote from: pathfinder_01 on 11/02/2011 02:49 amQuote from: Downix on 11/02/2011 02:14 amWe have a facility here that is not running near capacity, not even at a fraction of capacity. As you put it, we have a problem. Utilizing it for commercial crew adds to that, utilizing its space capacity. Add a few more, then you make up the capacity needed to make the fixed costs fall in line. Or simply launch out of the normal Atlas pads or build new pads that require fewer works......And then have more pads to pay for, as LC-39 is needed for SLS regardless. This is a sure fire way to further increase costs across the board.No, Atlas and Delta use of LC-39 makes sense if SLC-41 andSLC-37 can't handle addition flights
1. I can think of several reasons why, such as LC-41 and LC-37B are not configured for crew flight, which will require funding to add while LC-39 is already to be configured for crew flight, saving that funding. 2.Also, IIRC, part of the agreement between the USAF and ULA includes EELV flights from LC-41 and LC-37 having a portion of the USAF's costs for them added starting in 2012, which obviously flights from LC-39 would not as it would be NASA paying itself for its own launch pad. According to the DTIC, these added costs for NASA will range from $40-$90 million per launch starting in 2012, which would be eliminated by launching at a NASA controlled facility rather than a USAF if I am reading the report by the Office of Inspector General correctly.
Quote from: Downix on 11/02/2011 07:31 pm1. I can think of several reasons why, such as LC-41 and LC-37B are not configured for crew flight, which will require funding to add while LC-39 is already to be configured for crew flight, saving that funding. 2.Also, IIRC, part of the agreement between the USAF and ULA includes EELV flights from LC-41 and LC-37 having a portion of the USAF's costs for them added starting in 2012, which obviously flights from LC-39 would not as it would be NASA paying itself for its own launch pad. According to the DTIC, these added costs for NASA will range from $40-$90 million per launch starting in 2012, which would be eliminated by launching at a NASA controlled facility rather than a USAF if I am reading the report by the Office of Inspector General correctly. Wrong.1. LC-39 is configured to do nothing wrt Atlas or Delta. The work required to accommodate an Atlas would be just as expensive as new VIF and MLP.LC-39 has no umbilical tower, no crew access, no Atlas LCC interface, no Atlas propellant skids, etc.
2. NASA would still be paying for VAFB, Denver, and Decatur ops. And it would have to payload for an LC-39 crew.
1. Those are all provided by the platform, which would need to be built regardless, so is a wash in the scope of this discussion. 2. Irrelevant for the scope of this, as those would be paid for regardless of which launch pad you are operating out of. When the costs are the same between the two, you cannot use them as an argument basis between two choices. So please, tell us how paying an extra $40-100 million per-launch at LC-41 + all of the development cost is going to save money over an effectively free use of LC-39 for Commercial Crew once the Atlas / Delta mobile launch platform is built?
Boeing commercial crew CST-100 pressure vessel in Kennedy Space Center OPF-3 (now leased to Boeing).