Author Topic: SLC-6 and Blue Origin  (Read 18082 times)

Offline Starshipdown

  • Full Member
  • **
  • Posts: 237
  • Space
  • Liked: 337
  • Likes Given: 358
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.

Offline DigitalMan

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1669
  • Liked: 1170
  • 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 »

Online 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: 11021
  • Arc to Arcturus, then Spike to Spica
  • Sometimes it feels like Trantor in the time of Hari Seldon
  • Liked: 7304
  • Likes Given: 70493
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.**

Offline catdlr

  • Member
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 10747
  • Enthusiast since the Redstones
  • Marina del Rey, California, USA
  • Liked: 8102
  • Likes Given: 7411
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
1