NASA Selects Commercial Firms to Begin Development of Crew Transportation

[Jim]

I could see each of the 4 VAB bays being outfitted for a different launcher, from different companies, each one with a MLP designed for their product, and a flat-pad waiting for them at LC-39.  So, one bay you'd see a Delta IV Phase II, the next you'd see an Atlas V SuperHeavy.  And all NASA would be in charge of is mowing the grass and maintaining the roads.

The VAB and crawlers are still too expensive, even if shared.  Also the flat pad is not viable.  The payloads would have to be attached in the VAB and it is not sited for fueled spacecraft

[Jim]

with a smattering of FAA space equivalents;

FAA doesn't do any ground operations stuff

[mixologist07]

Despite the historical leanings (and believe me, I'm completely in favor of any historic preservation), I would prefer to see whatever option for LC39 that creates/maintains the most jobs for the local economy.  If mothballing LC39 and turning it into a historic site accomplishes this, go for it, but I doubt it.  Turning LC39 into a commercial spaceport and utilizing local labor may be the most cost-effective solution that also gives jobs to those facing uncertainty after SSP retirement.

[Jim]

The only thing viable at LC-39 is the pad real estate.

[bad_astra]

I can't see any reason to maintain the VAB if an SDLV is not adopted. KSC visitor center already has a Saturn V, and it's displayed in a much better way to tourists who can really see the details. You could build an entire indoor amusement park in there, but I don't see that happening.

If you want to see a shuttle stack (albeit a mostly pretend one) or an upright Saturn V drive past them on I-565 in Huntsville.

Maintaining it for a future heavy lift vehicle would I think unfairly influence the design choice. The next time a hurricane causes extensive damage again, who will pay for it? I can't see any commercial providors wanting to be tied to that structure.

The only other thing I could suppose would be if ULA has to have a second production line of EELV to satisfy DoD. Could a Decatur type operation be set up withn the VAB?

[mmeijeri]

The only thing viable at LC-39 is the pad real estate.

How about converting the VAB into an office building? Hasn't that been studied before?

[Swatch]

They make a good point in that article about how they can do a lot to upgrade the infrastructure at the cape.

As long as Shuttle was flying, and we were planning to use Shuttle-derived vehicles, KSC was pretty tied to its current infrastructure because the designers needed to make sure compatibility was maintained.  It was very difficult to make changes to the infrastructure, I bet.

Now they have a clean slate and funding to work with.  If they're smart, they'll reinvent the cape and use it as a prototype launch site for the future.  Also, in today's digital age, there is a great deal more information and knowledge out there how to design systems that are both more readily upgradable and expandable.

Commercial airlines nowadays don't each have their own runways (A-380 excepted  ), they all use the same infrastructure.  Imagine the overhead cost that running all the infrastructure puts on a company.  Add to that the fact the company has to also design, build and fly its product, and you have a very expensive business (rocket business in a nutshell, eh?).  Why are airports the way they are?  Largely because between the 20s and the 40s, the government stepped in and largely standardized the air infrastructure in this country.  NASA and KSC have a chance to try something similar with the cape/KSC.

Imagine NASA developing and offering a generic interface and ground support system for launch providers.  Yes, the launch providers have to work with external requirements, but if they are present from the initial design, then one would have to think the cost of designing to those requirements would greatly undercut the cost of designing, building, and maintaining ones own ground systems.  Also having a generic ground system interface opens up possibilities for additional launch sites across the globe that will readily be available to any launcher/provider.

The most important part of KSC's physical assets; the VAB, the crawlers and LC-39, isn't what they've done in the past... its what CAN they do in the future.  And in order to realize their potential, they need to step out of the past and pave the way to the future.

[cro-magnon gramps]

with a smattering of FAA space equivalents;

FAA doesn't do any ground operations stuff

sorry Jim, don't know the Gov't office that does this sort of vetting, was why I said FAA Equivalents, not implying that FAA themselves would be involved, perhaps a Federal AeroSpace and Technology Section Office will be established specifically for this purpose, FATSO 

[Downix]

Heheh, and once it's a historical national treasure they should make it against the law to make any changes to it. It absolutely has to be preserved the way it was when the last Shuttle flew. And maybe they could put one of the old Saturn Vs in the VAB too. Maybe the one in Huntsville.

in all seriousness, I think that any commercial venture that exists in 10 years will want to build it's own VAB rather than refit something that is going to be 50+ years old; Musk will put his as near to the MLP to facilitate the lifting to a Launch Position, he seems to favour Horisontal Assembly like the Germans did in the 40's and 50's. does anyone know why they switched to Vertical,

Once you get past a set size, starts becoming unweildy.  Altho the Russians did manage to horizontally assemble the N1 and Energia.

[cro-magnon gramps]

They make a good point in that article about how they can do a lot to upgrade the infrastructure at the cape.

As long as Shuttle was flying, and we were planning to use Shuttle-derived vehicles, KSC was pretty tied to its current infrastructure because the designers needed to make sure compatibility was maintained.  It was very difficult to make changes to the infrastructure, I bet.

Now they have a clean slate and funding to work with.  If they're smart, they'll reinvent the cape and use it as a prototype launch site for the future.  Also, in today's digital age, there is a great deal more information and knowledge out there how to design systems that are both more readily upgradable and expandable.

Commercial airlines nowadays don't each have their own runways (A-380 excepted  ), they all use the same infrastructure.  Imagine the overhead cost that running all the infrastructure puts on a company.  Add to that the fact the company has to also design, build and fly its product, and you have a very expensive business (rocket business in a nutshell, eh?).  Why are airports the way they are?  Largely because between the 20s and the 40s, the government stepped in and largely standardized the air infrastructure in this country.  NASA and KSC have a chance to try something similar with the cape/KSC.

Imagine NASA developing and offering a generic interface and ground support system for launch providers.  Yes, the launch providers have to work with external requirements, but if they are present from the initial design, then one would have to think the cost of designing to those requirements would greatly undercut the cost of designing, building, and maintaining ones own ground systems.  Also having a generic ground system interface opens up possibilities for additional launch sites across the globe that will readily be available to any launcher/provider.

The most important part of KSC's physical assets; the VAB, the crawlers and LC-39, isn't what they've done in the past... its what CAN they do in the future.  And in order to realize their potential, they need to step out of the past and pave the way to the future.

sorry, don't buy it, the future is HERE now, not some 10 years from now; I see it all the time with my kids; a new phone comes out, with new tech, and they have to have it; same goes with their computers; and it gets them into all sorts of problems financially; what you are proposing is the same sort of problems for the Space industry; lets refurbish what we have with new tech that exists now, and utilize it NOW, rather than wait for that bright and shiny new technology around the corner; and as new technology comes online, apply it, where appropriate;

[Swatch]

sorry, don't buy it, the future is HERE now, not some 10 years from now; I see it all the time with my kids; a new phone comes out, with new tech, and they have to have it; same goes with their computers; and it gets them into all sorts of problems financially; what you are proposing is the same sort of problems for the Space industry; lets refurbish what we have with new tech that exists now, and utilize it NOW, rather than wait for that bright and shiny new technology around the corner; and as new technology comes online, apply it, where appropriate;

That's exactly what I'm suggesting.   You refurbish KSC with the technology you have now, and with a plan that allows common use.  Essentially, they will have to gut KSC to the core and build it ground up... but there's no sense in reinventing things such as the VAB, the crawler and the crawler ways.  These are all solid assets.  LC-39 will probably be gutted down to the flame trench.  Then you turn around and make necessary repairs to the foundations and design a ground support system around common interfaces.

You can't refurbish KSC with a specific vehicle in mind because frankly, there is no vehicle out there RIGHT NOW.  Instead you build your ground systems first and make sure they are flexible enough to allow them to be utilized by whatever might come along.  You pretty much have bounding cases to build to right now.  Use Saturn V as your upper bound, and use EELV/Delta II as your lower bound.  (or you can design it in a more modular way and potentially have no upper bound and a lower bound limited only by your smallest 'module').

There are ways to design FOR the next big tech while USING the current tech.  This is exactly what the interstate system did, and though it has its pitfalls, it has lived up to and exceeded its goals.

[Patchouli]

sorry, don't buy it, the future is HERE now, not some 10 years from now; I see it all the time with my kids; a new phone comes out, with new tech, and they have to have it; same goes with their computers; and it gets them into all sorts of problems financially; what you are proposing is the same sort of problems for the Space industry; lets refurbish what we have with new tech that exists now, and utilize it NOW, rather than wait for that bright and shiny new technology around the corner; and as new technology comes online, apply it, where appropriate;

That's exactly what I'm suggesting.   You refurbish KSC with the technology you have now, and with a plan that allows common use.  Essentially, they will have to gut KSC to the core and build it ground up... but there's no sense in reinventing things such as the VAB, the crawler and the crawler ways.  These are all solid assets.  LC-39 will probably be gutted down to the flame trench.  Then you turn around and make necessary repairs to the foundations and design a ground support system around common interfaces.

You can't refurbish KSC with a specific vehicle in mind because frankly, there is no vehicle out there RIGHT NOW.  Instead you build your ground systems first and make sure they are flexible enough to allow them to be utilized by whatever might come along.  You pretty much have bounding cases to build to right now.  Use Saturn V as your upper bound, and use EELV/Delta II as your lower bound.  (or you can design it in a more modular way and potentially have no upper bound and a lower bound limited only by your smallest 'module').

There are ways to design FOR the next big tech while USING the current tech.  This is exactly what the interstate system did, and though it has its pitfalls, it has lived up to and exceeded its goals.

Sounds similar to what they were going to do to the facilities in the first place to support Ares I and V.
Though this probably would entitle adding back support for Kerolox vehicles.

Also might consider adding facilities for horizontal launched vehicles at the Shuttle landing strip.
Not every new vehicle is going to be vertical take off.

[Jorge]

sorry, don't buy it, the future is HERE now, not some 10 years from now; I see it all the time with my kids; a new phone comes out, with new tech, and they have to have it; same goes with their computers; and it gets them into all sorts of problems financially; what you are proposing is the same sort of problems for the Space industry; lets refurbish what we have with new tech that exists now, and utilize it NOW, rather than wait for that bright and shiny new technology around the corner; and as new technology comes online, apply it, where appropriate;

That's exactly what I'm suggesting.   You refurbish KSC with the technology you have now, and with a plan that allows common use.  Essentially, they will have to gut KSC to the core and build it ground up... but there's no sense in reinventing things such as the VAB, the crawler and the crawler ways.  These are all solid assets.  LC-39 will probably be gutted down to the flame trench.  Then you turn around and make necessary repairs to the foundations and design a ground support system around common interfaces.

You can't refurbish KSC with a specific vehicle in mind because frankly, there is no vehicle out there RIGHT NOW.  Instead you build your ground systems first and make sure they are flexible enough to allow them to be utilized by whatever might come along.  You pretty much have bounding cases to build to right now.  Use Saturn V as your upper bound, and use EELV/Delta II as your lower bound.  (or you can design it in a more modular way and potentially have no upper bound and a lower bound limited only by your smallest 'module').

Saturn V may be the upper bound height-wise but SRB-based HLVs are the bounding case weight wise (Saturn V was empty while stacked and rolled to the pad but SRBs must be previously loaded, so the load on the VAB floor, crawler, and crawlerway is higher).

[cro-magnon gramps]

Saturn V may be the upper bound height-wise but SRB-based HLVs are the bounding case weight wise (Saturn V was empty while stacked and rolled to the pad but SRBs must be previously loaded, so the load on the VAB floor, crawler, and crawlerway is higher).
[/quote]

as I understand it, without the figures, not that technical, but have seen them on other posts:

the SRB/ET/Shuttle stack has been rolling out of the VAB for 20-30 years now, with no problems, or very little, for the VAB Floor/crawler/Crawerway,
    if a SHLV were assembled in the VAB, w/o the Shuttle, there "maybe" a slight increase in weight, but that is for the experts on here to enlighten me; but it is hopefully not the game changer, that prevents this scenario; if it were, I think it would have come up in discussion last fall when 5 seg, SRBs became the baseline;

[Swatch]

Saturn V may be the upper bound height-wise but SRB-based HLVs are the bounding case weight wise (Saturn V was empty while stacked and rolled to the pad but SRBs must be previously loaded, so the load on the VAB floor, crawler, and crawlerway is higher).

Sorry, I wasn't thinking in terms of physical size...  I think as you pointed out that KSC's facilities are acceptable from a physical limitation standpoint (not much limitation

I'm thinking in terms of ground support systems.  Fluid flow rates, Fluid storage capacity, acoustic environments, thrust limitation, etc. etc.  I would think those systems are the reason we have 3 different pads for 3 different rockets more so than the physical limitations of the launch pads.

[Danderman]

The money shot:

[telomerase99]

I'm not too worried about work lost on constellation given that Parragon was working on Constellation, Boeing, etc etc. I think that really what is happening is that NASA is going to change the means of its procurement to a more COTS approach as outlined in the article by Max Vozoff.

http://www.thespacereview.com/article/1461/1

He is compelling and I would not be surprised if someone in the Obama administration had this in their mind when coming up with the budget.

[HMXHMX]

I'm not too worried about work lost on constellation given that Parragon was working on Constellation, Boeing, etc etc. I think that really what is happening is that NASA is going to change the means of its procurement to a more COTS approach as outlined in the article by Max Vozoff.

http://www.thespacereview.com/article/1461/1

He is compelling and I would not be surprised if someone in the Obama administration had this in their mind when coming up with the budget.

They may have had this in mind as well.  :)

When David Gump and I wrote this proposal in 2004 we never thought that it would be accepted so enthusiastically, nor be given high enough marks during the first six months that we become one of only two firms (of eleven) to be carried into the option period at full funding.  That was a pre-Griffin era, of course, which explains much.

(And FYI, for the ever vocal critics out there, I don't intend to argue the points made in the proposal; I no longer have to defend it.  First, it was a different – more optimistic – environment six years ago, and second, take it up with the NASA officials of that day, who selected t/Space.  I attach this proposal summary simply as background on early steps that brought us to both COTS and perhaps even the current plan, yet has been seen by only a handful of people up to now.)

[vt_hokie]

I'm definitely a fan of the DreamChaser concept, but is there any realistic way of getting it operational within, say, 5 years?  Heck, it's taken longer than that for Rutan's "SpaceShipTwo" to materialize, and it still hasn't even made its first test flight.  And that's just a high flying airplane that tops out briefly at Mach 3.5 or so! 

Would there be an atmospheric landing test vehicle for DreamChaser prior to building the orbital version, as with the space shuttle or X-37?  I just don't see how the development of this vehicle, even with unlimited funding, is somehow going to happen on a much shorter timescale than any similar vehicle development project in history. 

Given the ISS end date of 2020 (and we'll be fortunate if it lasts that long), I just don't see how a brand new vehicle can be ready in time to support ISS ops for any significant time period, if at all.

[mmeijeri]

See this thread:

Buzz Aldrin advocates HL-20 can be ready by 2013

I'm not claiming he is right about this.