Author Topic: Boeing’s CST-100 leases OPF-3 following NASA agreement with Space Florida  (Read 79300 times)

Online Chris Bergin

Support NSF via L2 -- JOIN THE NSF TEAM -- Site Rules/Feedback/Updates
**Not a L2 member? Whitelist this forum in your adblocker to support the site and ensure full functionality.**

Offline Ben the Space Brit

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 7217
  • A spaceflight fan
  • London, UK
  • Liked: 818
  • Likes Given: 914
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?
"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 Namechange User

  • Elite Veteran
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 7301
  • Liked: 0
  • Likes Given: 0
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?

It seems to me it will be something like this:

OPF 3 - Final manufacturing and vehicle processing.  Possible/Probable turnaround of already flown vehicles

SSME 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. 
Enjoying viewing the forum a little better now by filtering certain users.

Offline Jason1701

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2232
  • Liked: 70
  • Likes Given: 154
I love how Chris termed Boeing a "Suitor." :D

Offline baldusi

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 8389
  • Buenos Aires, Argentina
  • Liked: 2594
  • Likes Given: 8477
They will actually put the factory there? Might then be the case that's bigger than 3.6m?

Online butters

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2423
  • Liked: 1735
  • Likes Given: 621
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.

Online Chris Bergin

I love how Chris termed Boeing a "Suitor." :D

Heh - that works though, right? You've got me all worried now :o
Support NSF via L2 -- JOIN THE NSF TEAM -- Site Rules/Feedback/Updates
**Not a L2 member? Whitelist this forum in your adblocker to support the site and ensure full functionality.**

Offline simpl simon

  • Regular
  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 427
  • Liked: 23
  • Likes Given: 0
Is anybody discussing money? Has Space Florida acquired OPF-3 free of charge? Any info on what Boeing is paying for the lease?

Offline Namechange User

  • Elite Veteran
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 7301
  • Liked: 0
  • Likes Given: 0
Any 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.
Enjoying viewing the forum a little better now by filtering certain users.

Offline kch

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1758
  • Liked: 496
  • Likes Given: 8802
I love how Chris termed Boeing a "Suitor." :D

Heh - that works though, right? You've got me all worried now :o

It looked and sounded "suitor-ble" to me ... ;)

Offline simpl simon

  • Regular
  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 427
  • Liked: 23
  • Likes Given: 0
Any 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?

Offline Cherokee43v6

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1178
  • Garner, NC
  • Liked: 942
  • Likes Given: 236
Any 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?


Supposition on my part.  Space Florida is acting as a Commercial Realtor, recruiting appropriate businesses on behalf of NASA for the available facilites.  Without knowing more about the specifics of the relationship between NASA and Space Florida, this makes the most sense.
"I didn't open the can of worms...
        ...I just pointed at it and laughed a little too loudly."

Offline Ronsmytheiii

  • Moderator
  • Global Moderator
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 23411
  • Liked: 1909
  • Likes Given: 1230
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?

It seems to me it will be something like this:

OPF 3 - Final manufacturing and vehicle processing.  Possible/Probable turnaround of already flown vehicles

SSME 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?

Offline Namechange User

  • Elite Veteran
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 7301
  • Liked: 0
  • Likes Given: 0
Was Boeing actually awarded the SSME processing facility, or just speculation?

That's my understanding. 
Enjoying viewing the forum a little better now by filtering certain users.

Offline Downix

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 7082
  • Liked: 22
  • Likes Given: 1
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.
I would recommend you look at the 21st Century Space Complex slideshows on L2.
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 collectSPACE

  • The Source for Space History & Artifacts
  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1875
  • Houston, TX
    • collectSPACE
  • Liked: 295
  • Likes Given: 5


(We also posted a new Boeing CST-100 overview video here: http://www.collectspace.com/cst100_opf3)

Offline sdsds

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 8187
  • “With peace and hope for all mankind.”
  • Seattle
  • Liked: 2823
  • Likes Given: 2552
Is 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
— 𝐬𝐝𝐒𝐝𝐬 —

Offline Robotbeat

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 40426
  • Minnesota
  • Liked: 26465
  • Likes Given: 12504
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.
Have to agree with that, from my limited perspective not being in Florida myself (not right now, at least).

OPF and other similar facilities do seem to provide useful space for NASA's commercial launch and spacecraft providers.
Chris  Whoever loves correction loves knowledge, but he who hates reproof is stupid.

To the maximum extent practicable, the Federal Government shall plan missions to accommodate the space transportation services capabilities of United States commercial providers. US law http://goo.gl/YZYNt0

Offline sdsds

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 8187
  • “With peace and hope for all mankind.”
  • Seattle
  • Liked: 2823
  • Likes Given: 2552
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.

For AV-402 ULA called the concept "ULA-K39-02."  The image attached is from http://ulalaunch.com/site/docs/publications/AtlasDeltaCrewLaunch2010.pdf
— 𝐬𝐝𝐒𝐝𝐬 —

Offline Lars_J

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 6160
  • California
  • Liked: 678
  • Likes Given: 195
Any 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.  :)
« Last Edit: 10/31/2011 07:03 pm by Lars_J »

Offline Namechange User

  • Elite Veteran
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 7301
  • Liked: 0
  • Likes Given: 0
Any 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.  :)

Doubt it.  If I were Boeing, I would call it competition sensitive.  With any government contract you can see the total value, what it is generally for, etc but you do not have rights to the details, an example being company rates, because it is company sensitive. 
Enjoying viewing the forum a little better now by filtering certain users.

Offline Ronsmytheiii

  • Moderator
  • Global Moderator
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 23411
  • Liked: 1909
  • Likes Given: 1230
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.

Boeing went out of their way to show CST-100/Atlas on a MLP on LC-39 in a video Collect Space posted on youtube:

Offline Robotbeat

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 40426
  • Minnesota
  • Liked: 26465
  • Likes Given: 12504
I'm pretty sure he wasn't having a hard time imagining a "powerpoint" of an EELV crawling out to LC-39B, but rather it actually happening.

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.
Chris  Whoever loves correction loves knowledge, but he who hates reproof is stupid.

To the maximum extent practicable, the Federal Government shall plan missions to accommodate the space transportation services capabilities of United States commercial providers. US law http://goo.gl/YZYNt0

Offline Jim

  • Night Gator
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 38469
  • Cape Canaveral Spaceport
  • Liked: 23222
  • Likes Given: 434

PCC - Office space and mission control for monitoring launch ops and then on-orbit oprations and revcovery. 

Also control center for assembly and integration testing.

Offline sdsds

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 8187
  • “With peace and hope for all mankind.”
  • Seattle
  • Liked: 2823
  • Likes Given: 2552
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.

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.
— 𝐬𝐝𝐒𝐝𝐬 —

Offline Robotbeat

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 40426
  • Minnesota
  • Liked: 26465
  • Likes Given: 12504
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.

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?
Chris  Whoever loves correction loves knowledge, but he who hates reproof is stupid.

To the maximum extent practicable, the Federal Government shall plan missions to accommodate the space transportation services capabilities of United States commercial providers. US law http://goo.gl/YZYNt0

Offline sdsds

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 8187
  • “With peace and hope for all mankind.”
  • Seattle
  • Liked: 2823
  • Likes Given: 2552
I'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.
« Last Edit: 10/31/2011 10:14 pm by sdsds »
— 𝐬𝐝𝐒𝐝𝐬 —

Online butters

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2423
  • Liked: 1735
  • Likes Given: 621
One thing that LC-39 has going for it is that it's not LC-41 or LC-37B. I'm given to understand that the DoD has issued a stern warning to ULA about making pad modifications for supporting human spaceflight, concerned that it might interrupt the launch manifest for their (exclusively unmanned) payloads.

So ULA might want to consider using LC-39 for manned launches because it's less expensive (at least in the short term) than building a whole new launch complex or displeasing their biggest customer by modifying their existing pads.

In this respect, I can understand the PowerPoint slides and animated videos depicting operational concepts for launching Atlas V from LC-39. But I suspect that when the terms of the leasing agreement are set the cost implications become more clear, it just won't be cost-effective to use LC-39. Who wants to pay annual salaries to retain the only people in the world who know how to operate and maintain those absurd crawler-transporters?

Offline robertross

  • Canadian Member
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 17952
  • Westphal, Nova Scotia
  • Liked: 676
  • Likes Given: 8041
Is 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.

Offline grakenverb

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 434
  • New York
  • Liked: 31
  • Likes Given: 27


(We also posted a new Boeing CST-100 overview video here: http://www.collectspace.com/cst100_opf3)



After watching that I can't help but wonder if Boeing is planning on launching Kyle, Cartman, and Stan into orbit.  :)

Offline Robotbeat

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 40426
  • Minnesota
  • Liked: 26465
  • Likes Given: 12504
I'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 if using an MLP, etc, were the cheapest/best way to do it, they'd use it for unmanned launches as well.
Chris  Whoever loves correction loves knowledge, but he who hates reproof is stupid.

To the maximum extent practicable, the Federal Government shall plan missions to accommodate the space transportation services capabilities of United States commercial providers. US law http://goo.gl/YZYNt0

Offline Namechange User

  • Elite Veteran
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 7301
  • Liked: 0
  • 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.
Enjoying viewing the forum a little better now by filtering certain users.

Offline Ben the Space Brit

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 7217
  • A spaceflight fan
  • London, UK
  • Liked: 818
  • Likes Given: 914
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 is worth noting that, for me at least, the assumption that LC-39 wasn't wanted came from a certain NASA expert, with connections with ULA, who was quite sure that no commercial company would be interested in the site's overheads.  Maybe you should take that up with him rather than be scornful about "Internet Experts".
"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: 38469
  • Cape Canaveral Spaceport
  • Liked: 23222
  • Likes Given: 434
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)
 

Offline erioladastra

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1413
  • Liked: 222
  • 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.

Offline ChefPat

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1055
  • Earth, for now
  • Liked: 125
  • Likes Given: 1021
After watching that I can't help but wonder if Boeing is planning on launching Kyle, Cartman, and Stan into orbit.  :)
Just as long as it's not Kenny. :(
Playing Politics with Commercial Crew is Un-American!!!

Offline baldusi

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 8389
  • Buenos Aires, Argentina
  • Liked: 2594
  • Likes Given: 8477
Is 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?
« Last Edit: 11/01/2011 01:17 pm by baldusi »

Offline wolfpack

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 744
  • Wake Forest, NC
  • Liked: 162
  • Likes Given: 4
Is 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?

I remember reading somewhere that those bunkers are not in a useable state. Could be wrong, though.

Offline Namechange User

  • Elite Veteran
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 7301
  • Liked: 0
  • 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)
 

I guess we'll see.  Last time I checked, OPF-3 was on LC-39. 
Enjoying viewing the forum a little better now by filtering certain users.

Offline Downix

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 7082
  • Liked: 22
  • 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.
As LC-41 has no crew access, you must be referring to unmanned launches.
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 Downix

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 7082
  • Liked: 22
  • 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: 38469
  • Cape Canaveral Spaceport
  • Liked: 23222
  • Likes Given: 434
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: 7082
  • Liked: 22
  • 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: 8389
  • Buenos Aires, Argentina
  • Liked: 2594
  • Likes Given: 8477
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: 7217
  • A spaceflight fan
  • London, UK
  • Liked: 818
  • Likes Given: 914
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: 38469
  • Cape Canaveral Spaceport
  • Liked: 23222
  • Likes Given: 434
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: 38469
  • Cape Canaveral Spaceport
  • Liked: 23222
  • Likes Given: 434
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: 1381
  • Northern New Mexico
  • Liked: 312
  • Likes Given: 1019
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: 38469
  • Cape Canaveral Spaceport
  • Liked: 23222
  • Likes Given: 434
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: 1381
  • Northern New Mexico
  • Liked: 312
  • Likes Given: 1019
If LC-41 is the choice of ULA, then my argument is moot.

Offline baldusi

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 8389
  • Buenos Aires, Argentina
  • Liked: 2594
  • Likes Given: 8477
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: 8187
  • “With peace and hope for all mankind.”
  • Seattle
  • Liked: 2823
  • Likes Given: 2552
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: 1413
  • Liked: 222
  • 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: 38469
  • Cape Canaveral Spaceport
  • Liked: 23222
  • Likes Given: 434

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: 7082
  • Liked: 22
  • 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: 38469
  • Cape Canaveral Spaceport
  • Liked: 23222
  • Likes Given: 434
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: 911
  • Harbor Springs, Michigan
  • Liked: 471
  • Likes Given: 83
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...

Offline robertross

  • Canadian Member
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 17952
  • Westphal, Nova Scotia
  • Liked: 676
  • Likes Given: 8041
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?

Offline Namechange User

  • Elite Veteran
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 7301
  • Liked: 0
  • Likes Given: 0
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?

This is the point I tried to address earlier.  There are some really awesome designs and concepts how to make the whole LC-39 complex adaptable and modular.

Given that and the fact the complex itself is not going anywhere and will to some degree or another be a cost to NASA, it has been considered (and the exact details I am not aware of nor what the latest and greatest status is) of allowing other providers to use the complex.

There would be some sort of lease associated with it, allowing a funding stream back to NASA.  Of course it needs to be small enough so that it is cost effective to the user, but when coupled with other users, the sum total is "enough" to "sufficiently" (and those terms are subjective on purpose because it is for NASA to decide) offset the total cost the government pays and is worth it to proceed with these designs and concepts. 

Of course this could nullify concerns about making changes to other pad structures, etc and eliminate certain manifest issues.  This would natually be something for NASA, USAF, etc to consider in partnership with the potential LC-39 users and if they do that, how and when time will tell. 
« Last Edit: 11/01/2011 11:50 pm by OV-106 »
Enjoying viewing the forum a little better now by filtering certain users.

Offline Robotbeat

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 40426
  • Minnesota
  • Liked: 26465
  • Likes Given: 12504
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?
Do we want a commercial crew service with its possible cost reductions or not?

As a taxpayer, I want NASA to choose the most cost-effective domestic option (that helps grow a larger market as a side-effect). Do you want a more expensive launch infrastructure just because it leaves some of KSC's little managerial kingdoms intact?

(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, but that's exactly what it appears to be. And I say that as someone who is applying to a job actually building/analyzing the LC-39 modifications needed... In other words, I have an interest in having a perspective which SUPPORTS using LC-39 for commercial crew, but I simply think it's a bad idea.)
« Last Edit: 11/01/2011 11:57 pm by Robotbeat »
Chris  Whoever loves correction loves knowledge, but he who hates reproof is stupid.

To the maximum extent practicable, the Federal Government shall plan missions to accommodate the space transportation services capabilities of United States commercial providers. US law http://goo.gl/YZYNt0

Offline Jim

  • Night Gator
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 38469
  • Cape Canaveral Spaceport
  • Liked: 23222
  • Likes Given: 434
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?

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.

 

Offline robertross

  • Canadian Member
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 17952
  • Westphal, Nova Scotia
  • Liked: 676
  • Likes Given: 8041
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?

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.

Thanks for the answers by all.

I think the crux of the matter is bolded above.
Because at the end of the day, if NASA wants this 'service', it is going to pay for it one way or the other, and I see no difference between using pre-existing facilities, or sharing facilities with enough synergies, that can be of benefit to a commercial enterprise while NASA's needs are fully met.

In the case of OPF-3 & Space Florida: After 15 years, things 'might' have changed enough in the grand scheme of things for those companies to develop their own facilities (doubtful), pay full (or a higher) price for use of these facilities, or the ISS has splashed down, the economies of the world (or the US) can't support human spaceflight, and all this is moot and could rot away.

Offline Downix

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 7082
  • Liked: 22
  • Likes Given: 1
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
High fixed costs mean even a single flight addition causes a price reduction to be more significant.
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 pathfinder_01

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2108
  • Liked: 299
  • Likes Given: 12

High 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. 

Offline Jason1701

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2232
  • Liked: 70
  • Likes Given: 154
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
High 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.

Offline Downix

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 7082
  • Liked: 22
  • Likes Given: 1
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
High 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.
It depends on your utilization rate.  That is why the Shuttle paradigm was hurt so severely by the lack of utilization, it threw a wrench into the costs.  But this is the logic behind large factories built in anticipation of volume production.
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 Downix

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 7082
  • Liked: 22
  • Likes Given: 1

High 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.
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 pathfinder_01

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2108
  • Liked: 299
  • Likes Given: 12

Tell 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.

Offline sdsds

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 8187
  • “With peace and hope for all mankind.”
  • Seattle
  • Liked: 2823
  • Likes Given: 2552
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

Yes, 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!
— 𝐬𝐝𝐒𝐝𝐬 —

Offline Downix

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 7082
  • Liked: 22
  • Likes Given: 1

Tell 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. 
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 pathfinder_01

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2108
  • Liked: 299
  • Likes Given: 12

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. 

Or simply launch out of the normal Atlas pads or build new pads that require fewer works......

Offline Downix

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 7082
  • Liked: 22
  • Likes Given: 1

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. 

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.
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: 38469
  • Cape Canaveral Spaceport
  • Liked: 23222
  • Likes Given: 434
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

Yes, 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!

No, it is no different than the USAF giving Spacex SLC-40 and SLC-4.
Also, NASA did not give OPF-3 to Boeing, Space Florida did.
Additionally, Spacex got recovery funds from NASA for infrastructure upgrades

Offline Jim

  • Night Gator
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 38469
  • Cape Canaveral Spaceport
  • Liked: 23222
  • Likes Given: 434

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. 

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

Offline simonbp

  • Science Guy
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 7138
  • Liked: 314
  • Likes Given: 183
What'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.

Offline Lurker Steve

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1420
  • Liked: 35
  • Likes Given: 9
What'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.

How long does it normally take to integrate the payload with an Atlas ? Can they move a completed CST-100 over from OPF-3, and be ready be launch in less than 4 weeks ? How quickly does integration need to happen in order not interfere with the existing DOD / NASA launch pace.

Offline Downix

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 7082
  • Liked: 22
  • Likes Given: 1

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. 

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
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.  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. 
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 mike robel

  • Extreme Veteran
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2309
  • Merritt Island, FL
  • Liked: 370
  • Likes Given: 264
I dare say 39 is not configured to launch anything at present.  :)

Offline Jim

  • Night Gator
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 38469
  • Cape Canaveral Spaceport
  • Liked: 23222
  • Likes Given: 434

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. 

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 or even more.

LC-39 has no umbilical tower, no crew access, no Atlas LCC interface, no Atlas propellant skids, etc.

2.  NASA isnt buying an Atlas, the spacecraft contractor is.   And since this is commercial crew, the contractor would have to pay NASA to use LC-39 and the additional costs of an LC-39 Atlas crew.

Commercial Crew is going to avoid LC-39. 
« Last Edit: 11/02/2011 08:50 pm by Jim »

Offline Downix

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 7082
  • Liked: 22
  • Likes Given: 1

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. 

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.
Those are all provided by the platform, which would need to be built regardless, so is a wash in the scope of this discussion.
Quote
2.  NASA would still be paying for VAFB, Denver, and Decatur ops.  And it would have to payload for an LC-39 crew.
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?
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: 38469
  • Cape Canaveral Spaceport
  • Liked: 23222
  • Likes Given: 434
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?

1.  Your basic premise is wrong.   there is no Atlas or  Delta platform being built.  Nor no need for one.   

2.  the additional cost to NASA is not $40-100 million per-launch

ULA would built another VIF and MLP for commercial crew before going to LC-39.

The only way a ULA vehicle launches from LC-39 if NASA buys the launch vehicle and provides the launch operations and then it is not commercial crew.
« Last Edit: 11/02/2011 09:12 pm by Jim »

Offline sdsds

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 8187
  • “With peace and hope for all mankind.”
  • Seattle
  • Liked: 2823
  • Likes Given: 2552
Some timeline information:

In OPF-3, the immediate future involves removing the infrastructure of work platforms and ground systems that were used to service space shuttles that returned for orbit and were being prepped for another flight. That should take about a year, said Boeing's John Mulholland.

After that, fixtures tailored to the CST-100 will be moved onto the floor, which, at some 29,000 square feet, is large enough to accommodate several CST-100 capsules at once as they go through the assembly.

[...] Boeing envisions the first missions carrying astronauts to the space station, possibly as soon as 2015. [...]  Boeing expects to hire 550 people by 2015, when the floor of the OPF is expected to be in full operation


http://www.nasa.gov/exploration/commercial/OPF_Boeing.html
— 𝐬𝐝𝐒𝐝𝐬 —

Offline Ronsmytheiii

  • Moderator
  • Global Moderator
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 23411
  • Liked: 1909
  • Likes Given: 1230
OPF-3 today

Offline Ronsmytheiii

  • Moderator
  • Global Moderator
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 23411
  • Liked: 1909
  • Likes Given: 1230
Quote
Boeing commercial crew CST-100 pressure vessel in Kennedy Space Center OPF-3 (now leased to Boeing).

https://twitter.com/#!/RobertPearlman

Tags:
 

Advertisement NovaTech
Advertisement
Advertisement Margaritaville Beach Resort South Padre Island
Advertisement Brady Kenniston
Advertisement NextSpaceflight
Advertisement Nathan Barker Photography
1