Author Topic: SLC-6 and Blue Origin  (Read 18014 times)

Online Tywin

SLC-6 and Blue Origin
« on: 10/18/2022 05:30 pm »
Should Blue lease this pad?
« Last Edit: 10/18/2022 07:41 pm by zubenelgenubi »
The knowledge is power...Everything is connected...
The Turtle continues at a steady pace ...

Offline Tommyboy

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 308
  • The Netherlands
  • Liked: 373
  • Likes Given: 598
Re: SLC-6 and Blue...
« Reply #1 on: 10/18/2022 06:13 pm »
Should Blue lease this pad?
No, BO should show that they can build, launch, and land an orbital rocket first.
« Last Edit: 10/18/2022 07:56 pm by Tommyboy »

Online trimeta

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1659
  • Kansas City, MO
  • Liked: 2121
  • Likes Given: 57
Re: SLC-6 and Blue...
« Reply #2 on: 10/18/2022 07:27 pm »
Besides, SpaceX has demonstrated a dogleg polar corridor from the Cape, and it's widely believed that New Glenn's performance numbers are sandbagged, so it can likely put 17,000 kg into a 98.2 degree 830km circular orbit from there without needing another pad. Which is what's required for national security launches (the only ones putting extremely large payloads into polar orbits).

Online Tywin

Re: SLC-6 and Blue...
« Reply #3 on: 10/18/2022 11:12 pm »
Besides, SpaceX has demonstrated a dogleg polar corridor from the Cape, and it's widely believed that New Glenn's performance numbers are sandbagged, so it can likely put 17,000 kg into a 98.2 degree 830km circular orbit from there without needing another pad. Which is what's required for national security launches (the only ones putting extremely large payloads into polar orbits).

But is necessary in case of any damage in LC-36...
The knowledge is power...Everything is connected...
The Turtle continues at a steady pace ...

Offline Hamish.Student

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 389
  • Liked: 426
  • Likes Given: 464
Re: SLC-6 and Blue...
« Reply #4 on: 10/19/2022 01:47 am »
Besides, SpaceX has demonstrated a dogleg polar corridor from the Cape, and it's widely believed that New Glenn's performance numbers are sandbagged, so it can likely put 17,000 kg into a 98.2 degree 830km circular orbit from there without needing another pad. Which is what's required for national security launches (the only ones putting extremely large payloads into polar orbits).

But is necessary in case of any damage in LC-36...
 
 
How do you propose they launch East like they would from LC-36, from SLC-6? They cannot. 

Pad's on opposite coasts are not interchangeable like SLC-40 and LC-39A are.
« Last Edit: 10/19/2022 01:48 am by Hamish.Student »

Offline russianhalo117

  • Global Moderator
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 8741
  • Liked: 4646
  • Likes Given: 768
Re: SLC-6 and Blue Origin
« Reply #5 on: 10/19/2022 03:09 am »
Besides, SpaceX has demonstrated a dogleg polar corridor from the Cape, and it's widely believed that New Glenn's performance numbers are sandbagged, so it can likely put 17,000 kg into a 98.2 degree 830km circular orbit from there without needing another pad. Which is what's required for national security launches (the only ones putting extremely large payloads into polar orbits).

But is necessary in case of any damage in LC-36...
 
 
How do you propose they launch East like they would from LC-36, from SLC-6? They cannot. 

Pad's on opposite coasts are not interchangeable like SLC-40 and LC-39A are.
There was an available ISS contingency cargo delivery option following STS-107 to launch converted Titan-II's (Titan 23G / Titan II(23)G / Titan 2(23)G / Titan II SLV) from SLC-4W to the ISS via the same narrow land overflight passage zone that the CCSFS polar launches currently use.  They would have been ordered from the since cancelled second batch of TII missile conversions (42 available missiles were in storage until a START program reduction decision) starting with G-15.
« Last Edit: 10/19/2022 03:25 am by russianhalo117 »

Online jstrotha0975

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 563
  • United States
  • Liked: 330
  • Likes Given: 2588
Re: SLC-6 and Blue Origin
« Reply #6 on: 10/19/2022 04:02 pm »
Vandenberg is for launching Government payloads to polar orbit. Vandenberg is a highly secure location for Government payloads.

Online trimeta

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1659
  • Kansas City, MO
  • Liked: 2121
  • Likes Given: 57
Re: SLC-6 and Blue Origin
« Reply #7 on: 10/19/2022 04:05 pm »
Vandenberg is for launching Government payloads to polar orbit. Vandenberg is a highly secure location for Government payloads.
LC-36 is part of the Cape Canaveral Space Force Station, not the Kennedy Space Center. It should have a similar level of security.
« Last Edit: 10/19/2022 04:10 pm by trimeta »

Online edzieba

  • Virtual Realist
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 5968
  • United Kingdom
  • Liked: 9111
  • Likes Given: 38
Re: SLC-6 and Blue Origin
« Reply #8 on: 10/19/2022 05:17 pm »
Vandenberg is for launching Government payloads to polar orbit. Vandenberg is a highly secure location for Government payloads.
Plenty of commercial payloads launch from Vandenberg, just as they do from CCSFS.

Offline Vahe231991

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1689
  • 11 Canyon Terrace
  • Liked: 462
  • Likes Given: 199
Re: SLC-6 and Blue...
« Reply #9 on: 10/24/2022 03:52 pm »
Besides, SpaceX has demonstrated a dogleg polar corridor from the Cape, and it's widely believed that New Glenn's performance numbers are sandbagged, so it can likely put 17,000 kg into a 98.2 degree 830km circular orbit from there without needing another pad. Which is what's required for national security launches (the only ones putting extremely large payloads into polar orbits).

But is necessary in case of any damage in LC-36...
 
 
How do you propose they launch East like they would from LC-36, from SLC-6? They cannot. 

Pad's on opposite coasts are not interchangeable like SLC-40 and LC-39A are.
Since ULA already decided that it would operate only one launch facility at Vandenberg SFB, and no final decision has been made about whether the now-inactive SLC-6 facility will be demolished, Blue Origin might ask the US Space Force for permission to have most of the SLC-6 infrastructure modified to accommodate the New Glenn.

Online trimeta

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1659
  • Kansas City, MO
  • Liked: 2121
  • Likes Given: 57
Re: SLC-6 and Blue...
« Reply #10 on: 10/24/2022 04:40 pm »
Since ULA already decided that it would operate only one launch facility at Vandenberg SFB, and no final decision has been made about whether the now-inactive SLC-6 facility will be demolished, Blue Origin might ask the US Space Force for permission to have most of the SLC-6 infrastructure modified to accommodate the New Glenn.
Again, why? SLC-6 doesn't allow for any equatorial or mid-inclination launches, so it doesn't mitigate the risk of a launch failure taking out CCSFS LC-36, and Blue Origin can use a dogleg to access polar orbits from LC-36, too. If anything, they could try getting a second Cape Canaveral launch site to increase flexibility without needing to transport the rocket from the factory (which is at Cape Canaveral) all the way across the country.

Offline AmigaClone

Re: SLC-6 and Blue...
« Reply #11 on: 10/24/2022 05:32 pm »
Since ULA already decided that it would operate only one launch facility at Vandenberg SFB, and no final decision has been made about whether the now-inactive SLC-6 facility will be demolished, Blue Origin might ask the US Space Force for permission to have most of the SLC-6 infrastructure modified to accommodate the New Glenn.
Again, why? SLC-6 doesn't allow for any equatorial or mid-inclination launches, so it doesn't mitigate the risk of a launch failure taking out CCSFS LC-36, and Blue Origin can use a dogleg to access polar orbits from LC-36, too. If anything, they could try getting a second Cape Canaveral launch site to increase flexibility without needing to transport the rocket from the factory (which is at Cape Canaveral) all the way across the country.

Has New Glenn been approved to use the dogleg south from the Cape?

I agree that there is not really a reasonable explanation why BO would want SLC-6. I can see a less logical reason - simply to prevent SpaceX from bidding on it to use with Starships.

Kuiper, which is Amazon's communications constellation, will have three shells - one of the three (51.3 at 630km altitude) MIGHT be reachable without flying over dry land from SLC-6.

Online trimeta

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1659
  • Kansas City, MO
  • Liked: 2121
  • Likes Given: 57
Re: SLC-6 and Blue...
« Reply #12 on: 10/24/2022 07:09 pm »
Has New Glenn been approved to use the dogleg south from the Cape?
I imagine that receiving that approval would be cheaper and faster than building a second complete launch site and then bringing the rocket over via barge through the Panama Canal every time they want to launch from it.

Online Tywin

The knowledge is power...Everything is connected...
The Turtle continues at a steady pace ...

Offline Eric Hedman

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2295
  • The birthplace of the solid body electric guitar
  • Liked: 1944
  • Likes Given: 1127
Re: SLC-6 and Blue...
« Reply #14 on: 04/10/2023 09:13 pm »
Has New Glenn been approved to use the dogleg south from the Cape?
I imagine that receiving that approval would be cheaper and faster than building a second complete launch site and then bringing the rocket over via barge through the Panama Canal every time they want to launch from it.
If both stages are reusable, you just have to bring a few rockets via the Panama Canal to the west coast and keep reusing them there.

Online trimeta

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1659
  • Kansas City, MO
  • Liked: 2121
  • Likes Given: 57
Re: SLC-6 and Blue...
« Reply #15 on: 04/10/2023 10:02 pm »
Has New Glenn been approved to use the dogleg south from the Cape?
I imagine that receiving that approval would be cheaper and faster than building a second complete launch site and then bringing the rocket over via barge through the Panama Canal every time they want to launch from it.
If both stages are reusable, you just have to bring a few rockets via the Panama Canal to the west coast and keep reusing them there.
Sure, but then you need to build a refurbishment factory on the West Coast.

Although since Blue Origin is primarily in the warehouse-building business, they're certainly capable of doing that.

Online DanClemmensen

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 5325
  • Earth (currently)
  • Liked: 4157
  • Likes Given: 1674
Re: SLC-6 and Blue...
« Reply #16 on: 04/11/2023 12:59 am »
Has New Glenn been approved to use the dogleg south from the Cape?
I imagine that receiving that approval would be cheaper and faster than building a second complete launch site and then bringing the rocket over via barge through the Panama Canal every time they want to launch from it.
If both stages are reusable, you just have to bring a few rockets via the Panama Canal to the west coast and keep reusing them there.

If both stages are reusable, they only need to transport a very few boosters via ship. The second stages can be launched on missions from Florida and landed at the West Coast landing site after their payloads are delivered to orbit.

Offline Zed_Noir

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 5418
  • Canada
  • Liked: 1788
  • Likes Given: 1287
Re: SLC-6 and Blue Origin
« Reply #17 on: 04/11/2023 01:43 am »
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.

Offline Vahe231991

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1689
  • 11 Canyon Terrace
  • Liked: 462
  • Likes Given: 199
Re: SLC-6 and Blue Origin
« Reply #18 on: 04/11/2023 01:51 am »
https://twitter.com/SciGuySpace/status/1645502085297840143

Is 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.

Offline GWH

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1741
  • Canada
  • Liked: 1924
  • Likes Given: 1277
Re: SLC-6 and Blue Origin
« Reply #19 on: 04/11/2023 02:21 am »
Why?  Aside from a scant few Space Force missions that they currently don't have what's the advantage over a Florida launch and dog leg. They have the performance.

Would it really be worth the cost for their customers?

Offline Tomness

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 659
  • Into the abyss will I run
  • Liked: 289
  • Likes Given: 736
Re: SLC-6 and Blue Origin
« Reply #20 on: 04/11/2023 03:49 am »
https://twitter.com/SciGuySpace/status/1645502085297840143

Is 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.

All will be abandoned, all will be destroyed... last of STS will be scattered to Four Winds...

Offline Zed_Noir

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 5418
  • Canada
  • Liked: 1788
  • Likes Given: 1287
Re: SLC-6 and Blue Origin
« Reply #21 on: 04/11/2023 04:13 am »
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.
For real?
To elaborated.

ULA basically gutted the shuttle launch infrastructure at the SLC-6 site and totally rebuild the infrastructure for the Delta-IV and Delta-IV Heavy.

AIUI one of the benefits for anyone taking over the SLC-6 site is a lot less regulatory paperwork than at some new green field site somewhere else on the Vandenberg base.

Offline Jim

  • Night Gator
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 37395
  • Cape Canaveral Spaceport
  • Liked: 21335
  • Likes Given: 428
Re: SLC-6 and Blue Origin
« Reply #22 on: 04/11/2023 12:53 pm »

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.

no, it is not the question.  There wasn't a question for Shuttle to Delta IV at SLC-6, Titan IV to Atlas V at SLC-41, Titan IV to Falcon 9 at SLC-40, Saturn IB to Delta IV at SLC-37, etc

Offline EL_DIABLO

  • Full Member
  • *
  • Posts: 180
  • Liked: 143
  • Likes Given: 157
Re: SLC-6 and Blue Origin
« Reply #23 on: 04/22/2023 11:34 am »
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.

Pretty much, the Bezos way. Sucks as it would have been cool to have Starship at SLC-6.

Offline Steve G

  • Regular
  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 574
  • Ottawa, ON
    • Stephen H Garrity
  • Liked: 612
  • Likes Given: 56
Re: SLC-6 and Blue Origin
« Reply #24 on: 04/22/2023 01:45 pm »
Why would it suck for New Glenn to use SLC-6? Why should Starship have more rights to SLC-6 than New Glenn?

Offline EL_DIABLO

  • Full Member
  • *
  • Posts: 180
  • Liked: 143
  • Likes Given: 157
Re: SLC-6 and Blue Origin
« Reply #25 on: 04/22/2023 05:59 pm »
Why 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.

Offline Tomness

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 659
  • Into the abyss will I run
  • Liked: 289
  • Likes Given: 736
Re: SLC-6 and Blue Origin
« Reply #26 on: 04/22/2023 06:59 pm »
Why 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.

Offline Vahe231991

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1689
  • 11 Canyon Terrace
  • Liked: 462
  • Likes Given: 199
Re: SLC-6 and Blue Origin
« Reply #27 on: 04/22/2023 08:52 pm »
Why would it suck for New Glenn to use SLC-6? Why should Starship have more rights to SLC-6 than New Glenn?
Eric Berger got word about reports of Blue Origin possibly wanting to take over SLC-6, as noted on this thread.

Offline Robert_the_Doll

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 764
  • Florida
  • Liked: 1215
  • Likes Given: 435
Re: SLC-6 and Blue Origin
« Reply #28 on: 04/22/2023 09:22 pm »
Why 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.

This was the basis behind Blue Origin's protest to the GAO since their understanding was that there could be more than one user, and believed from that view that NASA reneged on what it said with regard to the pad being multi-user.

So, there never would have been any actual hold up or Blue Origin being the sole tenant in a lease as became the case with SpaceX as the two companies would've both had access, along with possibly other users.

Offline joek

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 4851
  • Liked: 2774
  • Likes Given: 1092
Re: SLC-6 and Blue Origin
« Reply #29 on: 04/22/2023 09:48 pm »
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.
...

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.
« Last Edit: 04/22/2023 09:52 pm by joek »

Offline Robert_the_Doll

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 764
  • Florida
  • Liked: 1215
  • Likes Given: 435
Re: SLC-6 and Blue Origin
« Reply #30 on: 04/23/2023 02:31 am »
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.
...

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.

It is not a matter of that they were right or wrong. The point is that is what they believed. You were putting words and meaning into my statement that was not there, nor intended. And if it had been true, Blue Origin was happy enough to share with SpaceX and whoever else wanted to use LC-39A.

Offline EL_DIABLO

  • Full Member
  • *
  • Posts: 180
  • Liked: 143
  • Likes Given: 157
Re: SLC-6 and Blue Origin
« Reply #31 on: 04/23/2023 01:55 pm »
Why 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.

Offline greybeardengineer

  • Full Member
  • *
  • Posts: 161
  • Liked: 428
  • Likes Given: 40
Re: SLC-6 and Blue Origin
« Reply #32 on: 04/23/2023 04:20 pm »
Why 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.

https://spacenews.com/37162blue-origin-files-formal-protest-of-proposed-shuttle-pad-lease/

Offline joek

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 4851
  • Liked: 2774
  • Likes Given: 1092
Re: SLC-6 and Blue Origin
« Reply #33 on: 04/23/2023 04:54 pm »
It 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.

Offline w9gb

  • Member
  • Posts: 21
  • Liked: 14
  • Likes Given: 2
Re: SLC-6 and Blue Origin
« Reply #34 on: 04/23/2023 05:21 pm »
Actually, US Space Force has two (2) decisions to make after conclusion of the Delta Heavy program (~2025).

At Vandenberg, SLC-6 will be available. 
This launch site would be logical for heavy and super-heavy launch vehicles,
since no launch site currently at Vandenberg support this “Lift Class”.
It will be an expensive remodel/rework project — to build correctly.
Blue Origin spent $1 billion for SLC-36 / SLC-11 demolition, rework, and new facility infrastructure.

Due to the limited number of launch sites, Space Force should emphasize a “clean-pad” design with ability to support multiple vendors/rockets. KSC 39B design would be a baseline for discussions.
==
At Cape Canaveral, SLC-37 will be available.  This launch site is at the north end of “Missile Row”.
This launch site was originally an extension of Saturn I(B) at SLC-34, for launching the Saturn IB and Saturn C-3 (cancelled). 
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Saturn_C-3

While the SLC-37 site could support a Complex 39 style design and construction,
it makes more sense to remodel this launch pad like SLC-36 (now the south end of active Canaveral launch sites)
to support Saturn C-3, Vulcan Heavy, or New Glenn class launch vehicles (100,000 lb to LEO) and diameters > 5.5m)

SLC-37 should be a “clean-pad” design with facilities to support NRO/DoD requirements and
multiple vendors (BO, Relativity, RocketLab, SpaceX, Lockheed, Firefly) with vertical and horizontal integration.
It should also be configured to support manned spacecraft.

The SLC-39B facility is “clean-pad” for SLS, and future heavy-lift Saturn 8/Nova class launchers (New Armstrong?).
SpaceX Starship thrust (15 million +) exceeds the 12 million thrust (Saturn 8 ) used for Flame Trench design.
« Last Edit: 04/23/2023 05:31 pm by w9gb »

Offline Robert_the_Doll

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 764
  • Florida
  • Liked: 1215
  • Likes Given: 435
Re: SLC-6 and Blue Origin
« Reply #35 on: 04/23/2023 06:47 pm »
It 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.

Online DigitalMan

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1668
  • Liked: 1169
  • Likes Given: 76
Re: SLC-6 and Blue Origin
« Reply #36 on: 04/23/2023 07:21 pm »
It 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."

Offline Robert_the_Doll

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 764
  • Florida
  • Liked: 1215
  • Likes Given: 435
Re: SLC-6 and Blue Origin
« Reply #37 on: 04/23/2023 09:21 pm »
It 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."

I am afraid that it is you that is wrong and you need to stop as well, though it seems that you and others are attempting to get this thread derailed so that it can be locked.

The article linked to as well as to others mentioned, SpaceX wanted exclusive use of the pad.

 You are simply throwing propaganda out there. From the NASA press release concerning the lease signing ceremony:

"NASA today signed a property agreement with SpaceX, which allows them to develop Launch Complex 39A to serve as a platform for the company's future commercial launch activities," he said during a news briefing at the pad. "
- NASA administrator Charles Bolden

 From SpaceNews:

"SpaceX wanted exclusive use of the pad, which the Hawthorne, Calif., company said could be used to launch the Falcon Heavy booster it is developing. Blue Origin — whose case was supported by its business partner United Launch Alliance (ULA) — wanted to make the pad a multiuser facility. "

Offline Starshipdown

  • Full Member
  • **
  • Posts: 237
  • Space
  • Liked: 337
  • Likes Given: 349
Re: SLC-6 and Blue Origin
« Reply #38 on: 04/23/2023 09:37 pm »
It 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.

Online DigitalMan

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1668
  • Liked: 1169
  • Likes Given: 76
Re: SLC-6 and Blue Origin
« Reply #39 on: 04/23/2023 09:40 pm »
It 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.

I think NASA wisely determined it wasn't reasonable to lease 39A to an entity that would become a landlord rather than an actual operator. SpaceX offered to allow others to use it by multiple statements from the company, but even today, there is nobody else able to launch humans to orbit currently.

Offline Starshipdown

  • Full Member
  • **
  • Posts: 237
  • Space
  • Liked: 337
  • Likes Given: 349
Re: SLC-6 and Blue Origin
« Reply #40 on: 04/23/2023 10:00 pm »
It 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.

I think NASA wisely determined it wasn't reasonable to lease 39A to an entity that would become a landlord rather than an actual operator. SpaceX offered to allow others to use it by multiple statements from the company, but even today, there is nobody else able to launch humans to orbit currently.

NASA is the landlord or would be in the original scenario. They would simply be leasing out the pad to several different users. They might've decided at some point that what you say is true. But that isn't necessarily what Blue was offering per se, rather it was co-leasing with others. Maybe they would be the primary tenant, but that's different from being a landlord.

SpaceX could never have tolerated other users, we can see that in hindsight with their goals and how they arranged their infrastructure around LC-39A. Not to mention the launch scheduling issues which no doubt would've cropped up by 2021.

Online DigitalMan

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1668
  • Liked: 1169
  • Likes Given: 76
Re: SLC-6 and Blue Origin
« Reply #41 on: 04/23/2023 10:15 pm »
It 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.

I think NASA wisely determined it wasn't reasonable to lease 39A to an entity that would become a landlord rather than an actual operator. SpaceX offered to allow others to use it by multiple statements from the company, but even today, there is nobody else able to launch humans to orbit currently.

NASA is the landlord or would be in the original scenario. They would simply be leasing out the pad to several different users. They might've decided at some point that what you say is true. But that isn't necessarily what Blue was offering per se, rather it was co-leasing with others. Maybe they would be the primary tenant, but that's different from being a landlord.

SpaceX could never have tolerated other users, we can see that in hindsight with their goals and how they arranged their infrastructure around LC-39A. Not to mention the launch scheduling issues which no doubt would've cropped up by 2021.

I'll just leave this here:
https://spacenews.com/37389musk-calls-out-blue-origin-ula-for-phony-blocking-tactic-on-shuttle-pad/

Quote
On Friday, SpaceX appeared to change its position on Pad 39A exclusivity, emailing reporters to say NASA and other launch providers would be welcome to use the launch complex if SpaceX gets the five-year lease.

I had been focused solely on SpaceX intentions for use after winning the lease. I am happy to provide this link to show intentions had changed before winning the lease.
« Last Edit: 04/23/2023 10:16 pm by DigitalMan »

Offline EL_DIABLO

  • Full Member
  • *
  • Posts: 180
  • Liked: 143
  • Likes Given: 157
Re: SLC-6 and Blue Origin
« Reply #42 on: 04/23/2023 10:43 pm »
Wasn't my intention to spark a debate on 39A, that being said this whole sharing a pad for different vehicles doesn't seem reasonable (whether it's SpaceX or BO).

Ideally you'd have BO and SpaceX swapping SLC-6 and SLC-4, that way you can have both Starship and New Glenn launching from Vandenberg.

Why 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.

https://spacenews.com/37162blue-origin-files-formal-protest-of-proposed-shuttle-pad-lease/

Uhm .... yes?
« Last Edit: 04/23/2023 10:49 pm by EL_DIABLO »

Offline zubenelgenubi

  • Global Moderator
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 11002
  • Arc to Arcturus, then Spike to Spica
  • Sometimes it feels like Trantor in the time of Hari Seldon
  • Liked: 7293
  • Likes Given: 70076
Re: SLC-6 and Blue Origin
« Reply #43 on: 04/24/2023 03:09 am »
...though it seems that you and others are attempting to get this thread derailed so that it can be locked.

Moderator:
No, but six posts of further squabbling about Kennedy LC-39A (not the topic!) were deleted. ⚠️ 🚫 ❌️
« Last Edit: 04/24/2023 03:13 am by zubenelgenubi »
Support your local planetarium! (COVID-panic and forward: Now more than ever.) My current avatar is saying "i wants to go uppies!" Yes, there are God-given rights. Do you wish to gainsay the Declaration of Independence?

Offline GWH

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1741
  • Canada
  • Liked: 1924
  • Likes Given: 1277
Re: SLC-6 and Blue Origin
« Reply #44 on: 04/24/2023 11:33 pm »
Well, looks like it won't be Blue flying from there after all.

Does that mean SpaceX is now on topic for this thread? (ducks)  ;D

https://twitter.com/thejackbeyer/status/1650642350895517696

Offline Chris Bergin

Re: SLC-6 and Blue Origin
« Reply #45 on: 04/24/2023 11:38 pm »
This thread is DECEASED! :D
Support NSF via L2 -- Help improve NSF -- Site Rules/Feedback/Updates
**Not a L2 member? Whitelist this forum in your adblocker to support the site and ensure full functionality.**

Online catdlr

  • Member
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 10645
  • Enthusiast since the Redstones
  • Marina del Rey, California, USA
  • Liked: 7909
  • Likes Given: 7359
Re: SLC-6 and Blue Origin
« Reply #46 on: 04/24/2023 11:39 pm »

Does that mean SpaceX is now on topic for this thread? (ducks)  ;D



I just requested moderation to lock this thread and start a SpaceX-specific thread.  It's in their hands.
Tony De La Rosa, ...I'm no Feline Dealer!! I move mountains.  but I'm better known for "I think it's highly sexual." Japanese to English Translation.

Offline Chris Bergin

Re: SLC-6 and Blue Origin
« Reply #47 on: 04/24/2023 11:39 pm »
Patience Tony. Was just setting up the new thread ;D

https://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=58733.0
« Last Edit: 04/24/2023 11:39 pm by Chris Bergin »
Support NSF via L2 -- Help improve NSF -- Site Rules/Feedback/Updates
**Not a L2 member? Whitelist this forum in your adblocker to support the site and ensure full functionality.**

 

Advertisement NovaTech
Advertisement Northrop Grumman
Advertisement
Advertisement Margaritaville Beach Resort South Padre Island
Advertisement Brady Kenniston
Advertisement NextSpaceflight
Advertisement Nathan Barker Photography
0