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.