Author Topic: SLC-6 and Blue Origin  (Read 17997 times)

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: 5410
  • Canada
  • Liked: 1783
  • 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: 37380
  • Cape Canaveral Spaceport
  • Liked: 21315
  • 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: 4847
  • Liked: 2773
  • Likes Given: 1090
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.

Online greybeardengineer

  • Full Member
  • *
  • Posts: 160
  • Liked: 424
  • 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: 4847
  • Liked: 2773
  • Likes Given: 1090
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: 1667
  • Liked: 1168
  • 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: 1667
  • Liked: 1168
  • 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.

 

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