Quote from: Tywin on 04/10/2023 08:41 pmhttps://twitter.com/SciGuySpace/status/1645502085297840143Is true...If Blue Origin takes over SLC-6 launch site, the question is whether New Glenn is compatible with the SLC-6 launch tower as currently constructed.
https://twitter.com/SciGuySpace/status/1645502085297840143Is true...
Quote from: Vahe231991 on 04/11/2023 01:51 amIf Blue Origin takes over SLC-6 launch site, the question is whether New Glenn is compatible with the SLC-6 launch tower as currently constructed.For real?
If Blue Origin takes over SLC-6 launch site, the question is whether New Glenn is compatible with the SLC-6 launch tower as currently constructed.
It seems that Blue Origin is attempting to get the SLC-6 site for launching New Glenn. Not surprising. Couldn't leave the Vandenberg site to be a possible future Starship launch and recovery facility later. Along with alerting the California Congressional delagation that a new donor is entering the field.
Why would it suck for New Glenn to use SLC-6? Why should Starship have more rights to SLC-6 than New Glenn?
Quote from: Steve G on 04/22/2023 01:45 pmWhy would it suck for New Glenn to use SLC-6? Why should Starship have more rights to SLC-6 than New Glenn?Because that's the only west coast pad where Starship could realistically launch from and because they'll be sitting on it for god knows how long before anything flies. Imagine if BO had taken 39A.
This is a grave misunderstanding of the situation. It was never as if Blue Origin was going to be the only user of 39A. That pad was originally stated by NASA to be a multi-user pad where different users could then plug into common interfaces....
...Turning to the merits of the protest, Blue Origin maintains that the AFP includes a preference favoring a multi-user, rather than exclusive use, approach for LC 39A, but that NASA has made it clear that it does not intend to implement that preference in its evaluation of proposals. In support of its position, Blue Origin directs our attention to two provisions of the AFP. The first provision is included in the instructions to prospective offerors and provides as follows:Proposers shall stipulate whether they intend to operate LC 39A as an exclusive or multi-user facility. If exclusive use is proposed, Proposers shall provide rationale explaining why exclusive use is needed. If a multi-user facility is proposed, the Proposer shall describe its methodology for accommodating and managing multiple users. AFP at BATES 8. The second provision is included in the AFP's proposal evaluation section and provides as follows:...NASA will evaluate the proposed use of LC 39A (exclusive or multi-use) only in terms of meeting the Government's objective. If a multi-user facility is proposed, NASA will evaluate the proposed methodology for accommodating and managing multiple users. If an exclusive use is proposed, NASA will evaluate the sufficiency of rationale provided as to why exclusive use is needed....
Quote from: Robert_the_Doll on 04/22/2023 09:22 pmThis is a grave misunderstanding of the situation. It was never as if Blue Origin was going to be the only user of 39A. That pad was originally stated by NASA to be a multi-user pad where different users could then plug into common interfaces....That is an over-simplification. Worth reviewing the entire decision; relevant excerpt...Quote from: GAO...Turning to the merits of the protest, Blue Origin maintains that the AFP includes a preference favoring a multi-user, rather than exclusive use, approach for LC 39A, but that NASA has made it clear that it does not intend to implement that preference in its evaluation of proposals. In support of its position, Blue Origin directs our attention to two provisions of the AFP. The first provision is included in the instructions to prospective offerors and provides as follows:Proposers shall stipulate whether they intend to operate LC 39A as an exclusive or multi-user facility. If exclusive use is proposed, Proposers shall provide rationale explaining why exclusive use is needed. If a multi-user facility is proposed, the Proposer shall describe its methodology for accommodating and managing multiple users. AFP at BATES 8. The second provision is included in the AFP's proposal evaluation section and provides as follows:...NASA will evaluate the proposed use of LC 39A (exclusive or multi-use) only in terms of meeting the Government's objective. If a multi-user facility is proposed, NASA will evaluate the proposed methodology for accommodating and managing multiple users. If an exclusive use is proposed, NASA will evaluate the sufficiency of rationale provided as to why exclusive use is needed....NASA clearly stated the stipulations in the AFP. Blue did not properly understand or interpret those those stipulations; thus their protest was denied.
Quote from: EL_DIABLO on 04/22/2023 05:59 pmQuote from: Steve G on 04/22/2023 01:45 pmWhy would it suck for New Glenn to use SLC-6? Why should Starship have more rights to SLC-6 than New Glenn?Because that's the only west coast pad where Starship could realistically launch from and because they'll be sitting on it for god knows how long before anything flies. Imagine if BO had taken 39A.What goes around comes around, SpaceX did exactly that with 39a, but they did in good faith build and fly asap.With the way Starship is, they could make SLC-6 a multi purpose launch facility like 39B & C. Or go back to launching from a repurposeed oil rig platform out of the Port of LA.
Quote from: Tomness on 04/22/2023 06:59 pmQuote from: EL_DIABLO on 04/22/2023 05:59 pmQuote from: Steve G on 04/22/2023 01:45 pmWhy would it suck for New Glenn to use SLC-6? Why should Starship have more rights to SLC-6 than New Glenn?Because that's the only west coast pad where Starship could realistically launch from and because they'll be sitting on it for god knows how long before anything flies. Imagine if BO had taken 39A.What goes around comes around, SpaceX did exactly that with 39a, but they did in good faith build and fly asap.With the way Starship is, they could make SLC-6 a multi purpose launch facility like 39B & C. Or go back to launching from a repurposeed oil rig platform out of the Port of LA."What goes around comes around"Don't get what you mean? SpaceX getting 39A wasn't a problem for BO. They were well aware they were nowhere near needing the pad and there were alternative pads at the Cape they could fall back on.
It is not a matter of that they were right or wrong. The point is that is what they believed ...
Quote from: Robert_the_Doll on 04/23/2023 02:31 amIt is not a matter of that they were right or wrong. The point is that is what they believed ...We'll stop at that. It matters immensly whether they were "right or worng". What Blue believed (or wanted to belive) is ireelevant if that belief was based on demonstrably incorrect interpretation of the facts (c.f., the AFP). Blue was clearly wrong, as the GAO decision clearly states. (Nor did I put "...words and meaning" into your statement.) The record is clear. If these decisions were based on what a bidder "believed" we would neve have closure and there would be chaos.
Quote from: joek on 04/23/2023 04:54 pmQuote from: Robert_the_Doll on 04/23/2023 02:31 amIt is not a matter of that they were right or wrong. The point is that is what they believed ...We'll stop at that. It matters immensly whether they were "right or worng". What Blue believed (or wanted to belive) is ireelevant if that belief was based on demonstrably incorrect interpretation of the facts (c.f., the AFP). Blue was clearly wrong, as the GAO decision clearly states. (Nor did I put "...words and meaning" into your statement.) The record is clear. If these decisions were based on what a bidder "believed" we would neve have closure and there would be chaos.I think you are the one that needs to stop here. It is important, right or wrong. They thought that LC-39A was going to be available for use by multiple users, and they even stated that they would be fine with sharing the pad. That last part there addresses the original point here:" Imagine if BO had taken 39A."I can imagine quite a lot. But what we know is that Blue Origin was apparently willing to share the pad with SpaceX and others while SpaceX wanted it exclusively. Hence why I linked in to the article I did to make that point.
Quote from: Robert_the_Doll on 04/23/2023 06:47 pmQuote from: joek on 04/23/2023 04:54 pmQuote from: Robert_the_Doll on 04/23/2023 02:31 amIt is not a matter of that they were right or wrong. The point is that is what they believed ...We'll stop at that. It matters immensly whether they were "right or worng". What Blue believed (or wanted to belive) is ireelevant if that belief was based on demonstrably incorrect interpretation of the facts (c.f., the AFP). Blue was clearly wrong, as the GAO decision clearly states. (Nor did I put "...words and meaning" into your statement.) The record is clear. If these decisions were based on what a bidder "believed" we would neve have closure and there would be chaos.I think you are the one that needs to stop here. It is important, right or wrong. They thought that LC-39A was going to be available for use by multiple users, and they even stated that they would be fine with sharing the pad. That last part there addresses the original point here:" Imagine if BO had taken 39A."I can imagine quite a lot. But what we know is that Blue Origin was apparently willing to share the pad with SpaceX and others while SpaceX wanted it exclusively. Hence why I linked in to the article I did to make that point.You're wrong, please stop. From the statement after SpaceX was awarded 39A"As previously stated, SpaceX will gladly accommodate other commercial providers interested in using Launch Complex 39A for NASA human-rated orbital spaceflight," Post said."
Quote from: joek on 04/23/2023 04:54 pmQuote from: Robert_the_Doll on 04/23/2023 02:31 amIt is not a matter of that they were right or wrong. The point is that is what they believed ...We'll stop at that. It matters immensly whether they were "right or worng". What Blue believed (or wanted to belive) is ireelevant if that belief was based on demonstrably incorrect interpretation of the facts (c.f., the AFP). Blue was clearly wrong, as the GAO decision clearly states. (Nor did I put "...words and meaning" into your statement.) The record is clear. If these decisions were based on what a bidder "believed" we would neve have closure and there would be chaos.You missed his point. In Blue's understanding of what NASA wanted with regards to KSC and LC-39 as a multiuser facility, they would've allowed others to use LC-39A, which means that the pad would not go unused, regardless of how ready Blue Origin itself was. And if you doubt Blue's ability to prepare the pad, all you have to do is look at LC-36 that they leased in 2015 and have had it by and large finished even though New Glenn isn't. With additional co-leasers, they probably could've had LC-39A ready relatively quick. But that does require some compromise, and that sort of thing historically has never sat well with Elon and SpaceX, which tend to like things their way.As to SLC-6, I don't see any sign of SpaceX making the moves on the facility, so if Blue does bid on it, more the power to them, it fits well with a rocket the size of NG, and it gives it more launch azimuth options. If they were to start working on it this year, NG should be done by the time it's ready.
