-
Boeing’s CST-100 leases OPF-3 following NASA agreement with Space Florida
by
Chris Bergin
on 31 Oct, 2011 15:31
-
-
#1
by
Ben the Space Brit
on 31 Oct, 2011 15:42
-
Should be interesting to see what they actually do there. Will they just pre-flight there or will they do post-flight and refurbishing for future missions?
-
#2
by
Namechange User
on 31 Oct, 2011 16:07
-
Should be interesting to see what they actually do there. Will they just pre-flight there or will they do post-flight and refurbishing for future missions?
It seems to me it will be something like this:
OPF 3 - Final manufacturing and vehicle processing. Possible/Probable turnaround of already flown vehicles
SSME Processing Facility - Vehicle manufacturing prior to final assembly. Logistics support, manufacturing support for previously flown vehicles.
PCC - Office space and mission control for monitoring launch ops and then on-orbit oprations and revcovery.
-
#3
by
Jason1701
on 31 Oct, 2011 16:15
-
I love how Chris termed Boeing a "Suitor."
-
#4
by
baldusi
on 31 Oct, 2011 16:25
-
They will actually put the factory there? Might then be the case that's bigger than 3.6m?
-
#5
by
butters
on 31 Oct, 2011 16:26
-
The OPFs are broadly useful for NASA's commercial launch providers. The less convincing prospect is whether any commercial launch service will elect to utilize LC-39 or the VAB. The CT/MLP infrastructure is a big operational burden which isn't readily compatible with existing pad flow concepts for Atlas, Delta, and Falcon. Maybe if ATK does that Liberty Stick thing, but otherwise I find it difficult to imagine an EELV crawling out to LC-39B on an MLP.
-
#6
by
Chris Bergin
on 31 Oct, 2011 16:29
-
I love how Chris termed Boeing a "Suitor."
Heh - that works though, right? You've got me all worried now
-
#7
by
simpl simon
on 31 Oct, 2011 16:29
-
Is anybody discussing money? Has Space Florida acquired OPF-3 free of charge? Any info on what Boeing is paying for the lease?
-
#8
by
Namechange User
on 31 Oct, 2011 16:33
-
Any info on what Boeing is paying for the lease?
I would be very, very surprised if that is ever disclosed. That is between Boeing and NASA and is likely proprietary.
-
#9
by
kch
on 31 Oct, 2011 16:40
-
-
#10
by
simpl simon
on 31 Oct, 2011 16:46
-
Any info on what Boeing is paying for the lease?
I would be very, very surprised if that is ever disclosed. That is between Boeing and NASA and is likely proprietary.
I would be very, very surprised as well, but no harm in asking.
And why is it between Boeing and NASA if Space Florida has acquired the building?
-
#11
by
Cherokee43v6
on 31 Oct, 2011 16:49
-
Any info on what Boeing is paying for the lease?
I would be very, very surprised if that is ever disclosed. That is between Boeing and NASA and is likely proprietary.
I would be very, very surprised as well, but no harm in asking.
And why is it between Boeing and NASA if Space Florida has acquired the building?
Supposition on my part. Space Florida is acting as a Commercial Realtor, recruiting appropriate businesses on behalf of NASA for the available facilites. Without knowing more about the specifics of the relationship between NASA and Space Florida, this makes the most sense.
-
#12
by
Ronsmytheiii
on 31 Oct, 2011 17:10
-
Should be interesting to see what they actually do there. Will they just pre-flight there or will they do post-flight and refurbishing for future missions?
It seems to me it will be something like this:
OPF 3 - Final manufacturing and vehicle processing. Possible/Probable turnaround of already flown vehicles
SSME Processing Facility - Vehicle manufacturing prior to final assembly. Logistics support, manufacturing support for previously flown vehicles.
PCC - Office space and mission control for monitoring launch ops and then on-orbit oprations and revcovery.
Was Boeing actually awarded the SSME processing facility, or just speculation?
-
#13
by
Namechange User
on 31 Oct, 2011 17:24
-
Was Boeing actually awarded the SSME processing facility, or just speculation?
That's my understanding.
-
#14
by
Downix
on 31 Oct, 2011 17:34
-
The OPFs are broadly useful for NASA's commercial launch providers. The less convincing prospect is whether any commercial launch service will elect to utilize LC-39 or the VAB. The CT/MLP infrastructure is a big operational burden which isn't readily compatible with existing pad flow concepts for Atlas, Delta, and Falcon. Maybe if ATK does that Liberty Stick thing, but otherwise I find it difficult to imagine an EELV crawling out to LC-39B on an MLP.
I would recommend you look at the 21st Century Space Complex slideshows on L2.
-
#15
by
collectSPACE
on 31 Oct, 2011 18:12
-
-
#16
by
sdsds
on 31 Oct, 2011 18:23
-
Is anybody discussing money?
Well, if you believe what other sites are reporting:
Former shuttle commander Robert Cabana, director of the Kennedy Space Center, said the deal was a win-win arrangement for the government.
"There is no financial exchange of funds between space Florida and KSC," he said. "We are turning over the use of the OPF bay three, which NASA no longer has a definitive need for and that we do not have funding to maintain. We would be tearing it down, so we are allowing Space Florida, through this use agreement, to have it for 15 years ... at no cost to NASA."
Space Florida, in turn, will lease the building to Boeing
-
#17
by
Robotbeat
on 31 Oct, 2011 18:26
-
The OPFs are broadly useful for NASA's commercial launch providers. The less convincing prospect is whether any commercial launch service will elect to utilize LC-39 or the VAB. The CT/MLP infrastructure is a big operational burden which isn't readily compatible with existing pad flow concepts for Atlas, Delta, and Falcon. Maybe if ATK does that Liberty Stick thing, but otherwise I find it difficult to imagine an EELV crawling out to LC-39B on an MLP.
Have to agree with that, from my limited perspective not being in Florida myself (not right now, at least).
OPF and other similar facilities do seem to provide useful space for NASA's commercial launch and spacecraft providers.
-
#18
by
sdsds
on 31 Oct, 2011 18:35
-
The less convincing prospect is whether any commercial launch service will elect to utilize LC-39 or the VAB. The CT/MLP infrastructure is a big operational burden which isn't readily compatible with existing pad flow concepts for Atlas, Delta, and Falcon. [...] I find it difficult to imagine an EELV crawling out to LC-39B on an MLP.
For AV-402 ULA called the concept "ULA-K39-02." The image attached is from
http://ulalaunch.com/site/docs/publications/AtlasDeltaCrewLaunch2010.pdf
-
#19
by
Lars_J
on 31 Oct, 2011 19:03
-
Any info on what Boeing is paying for the lease?
I would be very, very surprised if that is ever disclosed. That is between Boeing and NASA and is likely proprietary.
Don't they have to disclose it since it is a lease of a govt owned property? No national security secrecy would seem to be required here.
Just wondering, it seems odd.
-
#20
by
Namechange User
on 31 Oct, 2011 19:11
-
Any info on what Boeing is paying for the lease?
I would be very, very surprised if that is ever disclosed. That is between Boeing and NASA and is likely proprietary.
Don't they have to disclose it since it is a lease of a govt owned property? No national security secrecy would seem to be required here.
Just wondering, it seems odd.
Doubt it. If I were Boeing, I would call it competition sensitive. With any government contract you can see the total value, what it is generally for, etc but you do not have rights to the details, an example being company rates, because it is company sensitive.
-
#21
by
Ronsmytheiii
on 31 Oct, 2011 19:17
-
The less convincing prospect is whether any commercial launch service will elect to utilize LC-39 or the VAB. The CT/MLP infrastructure is a big operational burden which isn't readily compatible with existing pad flow concepts for Atlas, Delta, and Falcon. Maybe if ATK does that Liberty Stick thing, but otherwise I find it difficult to imagine an EELV crawling out to LC-39B on an MLP.
Boeing went out of their way to show CST-100/Atlas on a MLP on LC-39 in a video Collect Space posted on youtube:
-
#22
by
Robotbeat
on 31 Oct, 2011 20:02
-
I'm pretty sure he wasn't having a hard time imagining a "powerpoint" of an EELV crawling out to LC-39B, but rather it actually happening.
It's quite true that it'd be much different from the current EELV concept of operations. That translates into extra costs and schedule shifts to the right.
-
#23
by
Jim
on 31 Oct, 2011 20:41
-
PCC - Office space and mission control for monitoring launch ops and then on-orbit oprations and revcovery.
Also control center for assembly and integration testing.
-
#24
by
sdsds
on 31 Oct, 2011 21:58
-
It's quite true that it'd be much different from the current EELV concept of operations. That translates into extra costs and schedule shifts to the right.
You're implicitly comparing this Concept of Operations to some other, but you don't say which. Is it one of the ones ULA describes in their paper? Do you agree with their assessments regarding, "Existing Infrastructure, New Infrastructure, Potential Advantages, and Potential Disadvantages" for each?
More particularly, do you agree with the ULA assessment that the ULA-K39-02 concept has among its advantages the, "Potential for moderate cost?" 'Cause it doesn't sound like you do, yet it isn't clear if you have considered the factors that led ULA to characterize this concept in that way.
-
#25
by
Robotbeat
on 31 Oct, 2011 22:03
-
It's quite true that it'd be much different from the current EELV concept of operations. That translates into extra costs and schedule shifts to the right.
You're implicitly comparing this Concept of Operations to some other, but you don't say which. Is it one of the ones ULA describes in their paper? Do you agree with their assessments regarding, "Existing Infrastructure, New Infrastructure, Potential Advantages, and Potential Disadvantages" for each?
More particularly, do you agree with the ULA assessment that the ULA-K39-02 concept has among its advantages the, "Potential for moderate cost?" 'Cause it doesn't sound like you do, yet it isn't clear if you have considered the factors that led ULA to characterize this concept in that way.
I'm comparing to what the EELVs ALREADY use. What else is there to compare it to?
-
#26
by
sdsds
on 31 Oct, 2011 22:14
-
I'm comparing to what the EELVs ALREADY use. What else is there to compare it to?
Ah, I see now. You're comparing a human spaceflight concept of operations to one used for unmanned missions. I thought maybe you were referring to e.g. the concept ULA calls ULA-C41-01, one of the ones that involve AV-402 launches from SLC-41.
-
#27
by
butters
on 31 Oct, 2011 22:37
-
One thing that LC-39 has going for it is that it's not LC-41 or LC-37B. I'm given to understand that the DoD has issued a stern warning to ULA about making pad modifications for supporting human spaceflight, concerned that it might interrupt the launch manifest for their (exclusively unmanned) payloads.
So ULA might want to consider using LC-39 for manned launches because it's less expensive (at least in the short term) than building a whole new launch complex or displeasing their biggest customer by modifying their existing pads.
In this respect, I can understand the PowerPoint slides and animated videos depicting operational concepts for launching Atlas V from LC-39. But I suspect that when the terms of the leasing agreement are set the cost implications become more clear, it just won't be cost-effective to use LC-39. Who wants to pay annual salaries to retain the only people in the world who know how to operate and maintain those absurd crawler-transporters?
-
#28
by
robertross
on 31 Oct, 2011 23:11
-
Is anybody discussing money?
Well, if you believe what other sites are reporting:
Former shuttle commander Robert Cabana, director of the Kennedy Space Center, said the deal was a win-win arrangement for the government.
"There is no financial exchange of funds between space Florida and KSC," he said. "We are turning over the use of the OPF bay three, which NASA no longer has a definitive need for and that we do not have funding to maintain. We would be tearing it down, so we are allowing Space Florida, through this use agreement, to have it for 15 years ... at no cost to NASA."
Space Florida, in turn, will lease the building to Boeing
That could be a good deal even if they only charged for utilities and any maintenance required on the building. It's the tax base to the region that gets propped up, with jobs, spin-offs, and tourism which is what Space Florida is more than likely interested in.
-
#29
by
grakenverb
on 31 Oct, 2011 23:56
-
(We also posted a new Boeing CST-100 overview video here: http://www.collectspace.com/cst100_opf3)
After watching that I can't help but wonder if Boeing is planning on launching Kyle, Cartman, and Stan into orbit.
-
#30
by
Robotbeat
on 01 Nov, 2011 03:12
-
I'm comparing to what the EELVs ALREADY use. What else is there to compare it to?
Ah, I see now. You're comparing a human spaceflight concept of operations to one used for unmanned missions. I thought maybe you were referring to e.g. the concept ULA calls ULA-C41-01, one of the ones that involve AV-402 launches from SLC-41.
It stands to reason if using an MLP, etc, were the cheapest/best way to do it, they'd use it for unmanned launches as well.
-
#31
by
Namechange User
on 01 Nov, 2011 03:24
-
It stands to reason that maybe folks are interested in LC-39. Not long ago everyone was saying how we should tear everything down. Now, today, here is Boeing using many of the facilities for something else. While it goes against the better judgement of the "internet experts", maybe, just maybe, "the internet" does not know all it thinks it knows.
Maybe, just maybe, there are other issues to consider. And maybe, just maybe, there will be multiple customers at LC-39 because contrary to "internet myth" all facilities are not created equal and some customers really want to not have the "utopia" that others have naivly claimed possible on the internet.
Maybe, just maybe, more are willing to consider LC-39 than are known.
-
#32
by
Ben the Space Brit
on 01 Nov, 2011 09:13
-
It stands to reason that maybe folks are interested in LC-39. Not long ago everyone was saying how we should tear everything down. Now, today, here is Boeing using many of the facilities for something else. While it goes against the better judgement of the "internet experts", maybe, just maybe, "the internet" does not know all it thinks it knows.
It is worth noting that, for me at least, the assumption that LC-39 wasn't wanted came from a certain
NASA expert, with connections with ULA, who was quite sure that no commercial company would be interested in the site's overheads. Maybe you should take that up with him rather than be scornful about "Internet Experts".
-
#33
by
Jim
on 01 Nov, 2011 10:19
-
It stands to reason that maybe folks are interested in LC-39. Not long ago everyone was saying how we should tear everything down. Now, today, here is Boeing using many of the facilities for something else. While it goes against the better judgement of the "internet experts", maybe, just maybe, "the internet" does not know all it thinks it knows.
Maybe, just maybe, there are other issues to consider. And maybe, just maybe, there will be multiple customers at LC-39 because contrary to "internet myth" all facilities are not created equal and some customers really want to not have the "utopia" that others have naivly claimed possible on the internet.
Maybe, just maybe, more are willing to consider LC-39 than are known.
Maybe the internet experts are right. OPF-3 does not equate to LC-39 and actually is independent of it. Boeing gets to operate as it sees fit and does not require KSC support for what goes on within its new buildings.
As for the rest of LV-39 (VAB, CT, MLP, Pad, etc), the better judgement of the "internet experts" still holds true and nobody is going to go near it unless it is paid to (even if offered for free like OPF-3)
-
#34
by
erioladastra
on 01 Nov, 2011 10:32
-
It stands to reason that maybe folks are interested in LC-39. Not long ago everyone was saying how we should tear everything down. Now, today, here is Boeing using many of the facilities for something else. While it goes against the better judgement of the "internet experts", maybe, just maybe, "the internet" does not know all it thinks it knows.
Maybe, just maybe, there are other issues to consider. And maybe, just maybe, there will be multiple customers at LC-39 because contrary to "internet myth" all facilities are not created equal and some customers really want to not have the "utopia" that others have naivly claimed possible on the internet.
Maybe, just maybe, more are willing to consider LC-39 than are known.
Maybe the internet experts are right. OPF-3 does not equate to LC-39 and actually is independent of it. Boeing gets to operate as it sees fit and does not require KSC support for what goes on within its new buildings.
As for the rest of LV-39 (VAB, CT, MLP, Pad, etc), the better judgement of the "internet experts" still holds true and nobody is going to go near it unless it is paid to (even if offered for free like OPF-3)
Not sure where the confusion is coming from but Boeing and SNC, if selected, will be using ULA's facilities at LC-41, including their launch platform. Nothing will be used from 39 or the VAB for CCDev that I know of.
-
#35
by
ChefPat
on 01 Nov, 2011 11:28
-
After watching that I can't help but wonder if Boeing is planning on launching Kyle, Cartman, and Stan into orbit.
Just as long as it's not Kenny.
-
#36
by
baldusi
on 01 Nov, 2011 13:16
-
Is anybody discussing money?
Well, if you believe what other sites are reporting:
Former shuttle commander Robert Cabana, director of the Kennedy Space Center, said the deal was a win-win arrangement for the government.
"There is no financial exchange of funds between space Florida and KSC," he said. "We are turning over the use of the OPF bay three, which NASA no longer has a definitive need for and that we do not have funding to maintain. We would be tearing it down, so we are allowing Space Florida, through this use agreement, to have it for 15 years ... at no cost to NASA."
Space Florida, in turn, will lease the building to Boeing
That could be a good deal even if they only charged for utilities and any maintenance required on the building. It's the tax base to the region that gets propped up, with jobs, spin-offs, and tourism which is what Space Florida is more than likely interested in.
I think it was beancounter that stated that NASA has a weird accounting system where they get charged internally by the square foot, regardless of the actual cost (probably with some shadow foot price for the type of building). Thus, lending it away for free would actually "free" internal budget money. And yes, property tax, utilities, maintenance and even the guy who moans the grass are costs transferred to the lessee.
I'm wondering about the escape system on LC-39. If I'm not mistaken, there's a blast proof bunker beneath them, with environmental control, for a catastrophic failure case. If this was still usable, and an equivalent system would be required at the other pads, it could be a certain saving.
And if NASA forced every CCDev to actually launch from LC-39, it would be sort of a moot point to launch from anywhere else.
Yet, it's too early to tell anything about without some serious insider information. Even with that, the internal assessments might be wrong. It wouldn't be the first time people didn't made the most economical (even the most efficient) choice, you know?
-
#37
by
wolfpack
on 01 Nov, 2011 13:38
-
Is anybody discussing money?
Well, if you believe what other sites are reporting:
Former shuttle commander Robert Cabana, director of the Kennedy Space Center, said the deal was a win-win arrangement for the government.
"There is no financial exchange of funds between space Florida and KSC," he said. "We are turning over the use of the OPF bay three, which NASA no longer has a definitive need for and that we do not have funding to maintain. We would be tearing it down, so we are allowing Space Florida, through this use agreement, to have it for 15 years ... at no cost to NASA."
Space Florida, in turn, will lease the building to Boeing
That could be a good deal even if they only charged for utilities and any maintenance required on the building. It's the tax base to the region that gets propped up, with jobs, spin-offs, and tourism which is what Space Florida is more than likely interested in.
I think it was beancounter that stated that NASA has a weird accounting system where they get charged internally by the square foot, regardless of the actual cost (probably with some shadow foot price for the type of building). Thus, lending it away for free would actually "free" internal budget money. And yes, property tax, utilities, maintenance and even the guy who moans the grass are costs transferred to the lessee.
I'm wondering about the escape system on LC-39. If I'm not mistaken, there's a blast proof bunker beneath them, with environmental control, for a catastrophic failure case. If this was still usable, and an equivalent system would be required at the other pads, it could be a certain saving.
And if NASA forced every CCDev to actually launch from LC-39, it would be sort of a moot point to launch from anywhere else.
Yet, it's too early to tell anything about without some serious insider information. Even with that, the internal assessments might be wrong. It wouldn't be the first time people didn't made the most economical (even the most efficient) choice, you know?
I remember reading somewhere that those bunkers are not in a useable state. Could be wrong, though.
-
#38
by
Namechange User
on 01 Nov, 2011 13:48
-
It stands to reason that maybe folks are interested in LC-39. Not long ago everyone was saying how we should tear everything down. Now, today, here is Boeing using many of the facilities for something else. While it goes against the better judgement of the "internet experts", maybe, just maybe, "the internet" does not know all it thinks it knows.
Maybe, just maybe, there are other issues to consider. And maybe, just maybe, there will be multiple customers at LC-39 because contrary to "internet myth" all facilities are not created equal and some customers really want to not have the "utopia" that others have naivly claimed possible on the internet.
Maybe, just maybe, more are willing to consider LC-39 than are known.
Maybe the internet experts are right. OPF-3 does not equate to LC-39 and actually is independent of it. Boeing gets to operate as it sees fit and does not require KSC support for what goes on within its new buildings.
As for the rest of LV-39 (VAB, CT, MLP, Pad, etc), the better judgement of the "internet experts" still holds true and nobody is going to go near it unless it is paid to (even if offered for free like OPF-3)
I guess we'll see. Last time I checked, OPF-3 was on LC-39.
-
#39
by
Downix
on 01 Nov, 2011 14:57
-
It stands to reason that maybe folks are interested in LC-39. Not long ago everyone was saying how we should tear everything down. Now, today, here is Boeing using many of the facilities for something else. While it goes against the better judgement of the "internet experts", maybe, just maybe, "the internet" does not know all it thinks it knows.
Maybe, just maybe, there are other issues to consider. And maybe, just maybe, there will be multiple customers at LC-39 because contrary to "internet myth" all facilities are not created equal and some customers really want to not have the "utopia" that others have naivly claimed possible on the internet.
Maybe, just maybe, more are willing to consider LC-39 than are known.
Maybe the internet experts are right. OPF-3 does not equate to LC-39 and actually is independent of it. Boeing gets to operate as it sees fit and does not require KSC support for what goes on within its new buildings.
As for the rest of LV-39 (VAB, CT, MLP, Pad, etc), the better judgement of the "internet experts" still holds true and nobody is going to go near it unless it is paid to (even if offered for free like OPF-3)
Not sure where the confusion is coming from but Boeing and SNC, if selected, will be using ULA's facilities at LC-41, including their launch platform. Nothing will be used from 39 or the VAB for CCDev that I know of.
As LC-41 has no crew access, you must be referring to unmanned launches.
-
#40
by
Downix
on 01 Nov, 2011 14:59
-
It stands to reason that maybe folks are interested in LC-39. Not long ago everyone was saying how we should tear everything down. Now, today, here is Boeing using many of the facilities for something else. While it goes against the better judgement of the "internet experts", maybe, just maybe, "the internet" does not know all it thinks it knows.
Maybe, just maybe, there are other issues to consider. And maybe, just maybe, there will be multiple customers at LC-39 because contrary to "internet myth" all facilities are not created equal and some customers really want to not have the "utopia" that others have naivly claimed possible on the internet.
Maybe, just maybe, more are willing to consider LC-39 than are known.
Maybe the internet experts are right. OPF-3 does not equate to LC-39 and actually is independent of it. Boeing gets to operate as it sees fit and does not require KSC support for what goes on within its new buildings.
As for the rest of LV-39 (VAB, CT, MLP, Pad, etc), the better judgement of the "internet experts" still holds true and nobody is going to go near it unless it is paid to (even if offered for free like OPF-3)
That is not what I am hearing, if anything the opposite.
-
#41
by
Jim
on 01 Nov, 2011 15:13
-
Commercial operators and LC-39 are mutually exclusive terms.
Only users will be NASA managed operations.
Commercial Crew isn't going to launch from LC-39 due to costs. It makes any proposal non competitive.
-
#42
by
Downix
on 01 Nov, 2011 15:29
-
Commercial operators and LC-39 are mutually exclusive terms.
Only users will be NASA managed operations.
Commercial Crew isn't going to launch from LC-39 due to costs. It makes any proposal non competitive.
So does the use of LC-41 and LC-37, which also have high costs for commercial launches. The difference here is that LC-39 is being outfitted to handle the operations right now, with many of the systems needed in place. To use the others requires development, which will add cost which then needs to be added to the already high pad costs of LC-41 and LC-37. Unless you are thinking Commercial Crew is going to get very high flight rates, the added costs of LC-39 no longer look so daunting.
-
#43
by
baldusi
on 01 Nov, 2011 15:43
-
Everybody is discussing that LC-39 is too expensive. But that only happens if NASA passes the full cost. If NASA only give dry leases for the "cheap" parts, and then rents the "launch" parts at marginal cost, then it might even came up cheaper for the tenant than paying full price for the "own" pad. It would mean a massive subsidy from a certain point of view, but, at the same time, will still save money for NASA wrt giving it no use while having to keep it running until SLS.
In fact, it might even allow them to move some SLS money (pad and supporting infrastructure) and use it for Commercial Crew.
-
#44
by
Ben the Space Brit
on 01 Nov, 2011 15:46
-
What's the chances of an all-new 'Commercial Crew' clean pad, maybe at LC-37A?
-
#45
by
Jim
on 01 Nov, 2011 16:09
-
Commercial operators and LC-39 are mutually exclusive terms.
Only users will be NASA managed operations.
Commercial Crew isn't going to launch from LC-39 due to costs. It makes any proposal non competitive.
So does the use of LC-41 and LC-37, which also have high costs for commercial launches. The difference here is that LC-39 is being outfitted to handle the operations right now, with many of the systems needed in place. To use the others requires development, which will add cost which then needs to be added to the already high pad costs of LC-41 and LC-37. Unless you are thinking Commercial Crew is going to get very high flight rates, the added costs of LC-39 no longer look so daunting.
Not true.
A. Commercial crew costs off of 41 or 37 are basically the same as unmanned mission, those are baseline costs. Crew access would be additional cost but it is not high.
B. LC-39 is not being outfitted to handle Atlas or Delta. Those are additional costs and substantial.
c. LC-39 has very high O&M costs (obscenely high)
d. Even with a new VIF, LC-41 is cheaper.
Hence, commercial crew is not going off LC-39.
NASA managed ops off of LC-39 is not commercial crew.
-
#46
by
Jim
on 01 Nov, 2011 16:10
-
Everybody is discussing that LC-39 is too expensive. But that only happens if NASA passes the full cost.
Which NASA has to.
-
#47
by
BrightLight
on 01 Nov, 2011 16:18
-
Everybody is discussing that LC-39 is too expensive. But that only happens if NASA passes the full cost.
Which NASA has to.
Does that mean that a new cost structure can not be developed where NASA pays for the bulk of the operating cost for LC -39 and commercial pays a smaller portion. Is NASA financing fixed and no new approaches are viable?
-
#48
by
JosephB
on 01 Nov, 2011 16:19
-
It stands to reason that maybe folks are interested in LC-39. Not long ago everyone was saying how we should tear everything down. Now, today, here is Boeing using many of the facilities for something else. While it goes against the better judgement of the "internet experts", maybe, just maybe, "the internet" does not know all it thinks it knows.
Maybe, just maybe, there are other issues to consider. And maybe, just maybe, there will be multiple customers at LC-39 because contrary to "internet myth" all facilities are not created equal and some customers really want to not have the "utopia" that others have naivly claimed possible on the internet.
Maybe, just maybe, more are willing to consider LC-39 than are known.
Maybe the internet experts are right. OPF-3 does not equate to LC-39 and actually is independent of it. Boeing gets to operate as it sees fit and does not require KSC support for what goes on within its new buildings.
As for the rest of LV-39 (VAB, CT, MLP, Pad, etc), the better judgement of the "internet experts" still holds true and nobody is going to go near it unless it is paid to (even if offered for free like OPF-3)
Not sure where the confusion is coming from but Boeing and SNC, if selected, will be using ULA's facilities at LC-41, including their launch platform. Nothing will be used from 39 or the VAB for CCDev that I know of.
Makes sense. They way I read ULA's document is that ULA-C41-01 was cheapest & quickest.
-
#49
by
Jim
on 01 Nov, 2011 16:37
-
Everybody is discussing that LC-39 is too expensive. But that only happens if NASA passes the full cost.
Which NASA has to.
Does that mean that a new cost structure can not be developed where NASA pays for the bulk of the operating cost for LC -39 and commercial pays a smaller portion. Is NASA financing fixed and no new approaches are viable?
they have to pay their fair share
-
#50
by
BrightLight
on 01 Nov, 2011 16:39
-
If LC-41 is the choice of ULA, then my argument is moot.
-
#51
by
baldusi
on 01 Nov, 2011 16:51
-
Everybody is discussing that LC-39 is too expensive. But that only happens if NASA passes the full cost.
Which NASA has to.
Does that mean that a new cost structure can not be developed where NASA pays for the bulk of the operating cost for LC -39 and commercial pays a smaller portion. Is NASA financing fixed and no new approaches are viable?
they have to pay their fair share
I'm sorry, but I'm a cynic, and assuming that NASA wants to offer a really low cost, how much could they tweak the definition "fair"?
-
#52
by
Lurker Steve
on 01 Nov, 2011 17:12
-
Commercial operators and LC-39 are mutually exclusive terms.
Only users will be NASA managed operations.
Commercial Crew isn't going to launch from LC-39 due to costs. It makes any proposal non competitive.
So does the use of LC-41 and LC-37, which also have high costs for commercial launches. The difference here is that LC-39 is being outfitted to handle the operations right now, with many of the systems needed in place. To use the others requires development, which will add cost which then needs to be added to the already high pad costs of LC-41 and LC-37. Unless you are thinking Commercial Crew is going to get very high flight rates, the added costs of LC-39 no longer look so daunting.
Not true.
A. Commercial crew costs off of 41 or 37 are basically the same as unmanned mission, those are baseline costs. Crew access would be additional cost but it is not high.
B. LC-39 is not being outfitted to handle Atlas or Delta. Those are additional costs and substantial.
c. LC-39 has very high O&M costs (obscenely high)
d. Even with a new VIF, LC-41 is cheaper.
Hence, commercial crew is not going off LC-39.
NASA managed ops off of LC-39 is not commercial crew.
Now that LC-39 has been converted to a "clean" pad, what makes the O&M costs so high ? the standing army is gone. If you add RP-1 fuel tanks to complement the existing LH2 and LOX infrastructure, what makes this pad much more expensive than the flat piece of land just a few miles away ? Other than the fact that one pad is owned by CCAFS and the other is part of KSC, why so expensive ? You would think the military base would have greater overhead.
-
#53
by
Namechange User
on 01 Nov, 2011 17:32
-
Now that LC-39 has been converted to a "clean" pad, what makes the O&M costs so high ? the standing army is gone. If you add RP-1 fuel tanks to complement the existing LH2 and LOX infrastructure, what makes this pad much more expensive than the flat piece of land just a few miles away ? Other than the fact that one pad is owned by CCAFS and the other is part of KSC, why so expensive ? You would think the military base would have greater overhead.
LC-39 is more than pad B. It is Pad A, the VAB, the OPFs and all the other supporting infrastructure.
Pad A is currently mothballed, awaiting something. The rest of it will be maintained by NASA as always, it will not go anywhere.
So, it is really a matter for how NASA choses to execute its use. There are many proposals out there that would allow LC39 to be used by various users (and what you just saw with Boeing is an example of that). It is possible to launch multiple configs out of LC39 as well (again there are designs for exactly that) so it ultimately comes down to a cost sharing arrangement where if NASA offers some sort of rate to multiple users (but the sum is attractive to NASA) then perhaps we will see more.
Ultimately it will be about cost (so NASA would know what it needs to do)and that decision will be made by the potential users.
-
#54
by
sdsds
on 01 Nov, 2011 18:29
-
Lots of factors could be in play. Suppose for a moment there were a contingent within NASA who strongly believed the future of the agency revolved around NASA vehicles lifting off from LC-39 powered by RP-1 engines. They would be using phrases like 21st Century Launch Complex, and would be thinking there was $1.9 billion over five years available to "modernize" KSC facilities and, "Reduce launch costs not only for NASA, but for other users." Those funds don't come out of the commercial crew budget, and they could pay for restoration of RP-1 storage and delivery to the pads....
-
#55
by
erioladastra
on 01 Nov, 2011 19:12
-
It stands to reason that maybe folks are interested in LC-39. Not long ago everyone was saying how we should tear everything down. Now, today, here is Boeing using many of the facilities for something else. While it goes against the better judgement of the "internet experts", maybe, just maybe, "the internet" does not know all it thinks it knows.
Maybe, just maybe, there are other issues to consider. And maybe, just maybe, there will be multiple customers at LC-39 because contrary to "internet myth" all facilities are not created equal and some customers really want to not have the "utopia" that others have naivly claimed possible on the internet.
Maybe, just maybe, more are willing to consider LC-39 than are known.
Maybe the internet experts are right. OPF-3 does not equate to LC-39 and actually is independent of it. Boeing gets to operate as it sees fit and does not require KSC support for what goes on within its new buildings.
As for the rest of LV-39 (VAB, CT, MLP, Pad, etc), the better judgement of the "internet experts" still holds true and nobody is going to go near it unless it is paid to (even if offered for free like OPF-3)
Not sure where the confusion is coming from but Boeing and SNC, if selected, will be using ULA's facilities at LC-41, including their launch platform. Nothing will be used from 39 or the VAB for CCDev that I know of.
As LC-41 has no crew access, you must be referring to unmanned launches.
Why would you assume that? ULA is working designs for access.
-
#56
by
Jim
on 01 Nov, 2011 19:17
-
Now that LC-39 has been converted to a "clean" pad, what makes the O&M costs so high ? the standing army is gone. If you add RP-1 fuel tanks to complement the existing LH2 and LOX infrastructure, what makes this pad much more expensive than the flat piece of land just a few miles away ? Other than the fact that one pad is owned by CCAFS and the other is part of KSC, why so expensive ? You would think the military base would have greater overhead.
VAB, CT, MLP, the pad systems (ESC, comm, power grid), and the management of those by KSC makes it more expensive.
-
#57
by
Downix
on 01 Nov, 2011 20:38
-
Now that LC-39 has been converted to a "clean" pad, what makes the O&M costs so high ? the standing army is gone. If you add RP-1 fuel tanks to complement the existing LH2 and LOX infrastructure, what makes this pad much more expensive than the flat piece of land just a few miles away ? Other than the fact that one pad is owned by CCAFS and the other is part of KSC, why so expensive ? You would think the military base would have greater overhead.
VAB, CT, MLP, the pad systems (ESC, comm, power grid), and the management of those by KSC makes it more expensive.
The numbers don't add up to back you with this Jim, especially if ammortized over multiple launchers. LC-39 has very low marginal costs, which means if you utilize it more, the lower it costs. So the very systems you claim make it more expensive are its best strengths to lower costs.
-
#58
by
Jim
on 01 Nov, 2011 22:01
-
LC-39 has very low marginal costs,
It's high fixed costs negate this and the flight rates wont be high enough to put a dent in it
-
#59
by
rsnellenberger
on 01 Nov, 2011 22:31
-
LC-39 has very low marginal costs,
It's high fixed costs negate this and the flight rates wont be high enough to put a dent in it
Be interesting to compare the total fixed costs for Patrick AFB & CCAFS against those of KSC...
-
#60
by
robertross
on 01 Nov, 2011 23:31
-
Here's a question for these costs of LC-39:
If NASA is paying for a 'service' for commercial crew access to (for now) the ISS, then could it not simply say the facilities (or portions thereof) are 'free issued' to the service provider (ie: borne by NASA)?
Any launches 'above and beyond' ISS flights/NASA-purchased, would have to be paid for by some formula.
Yes, no?
I know the accounting may not work, but with all the funding being provided to CCDev, what is so different from also including launch facilities to sweeten the deal, much like OPF-3 to Space Florida?
-
#61
by
Namechange User
on 01 Nov, 2011 23:47
-
Here's a question for these costs of LC-39:
If NASA is paying for a 'service' for commercial crew access to (for now) the ISS, then could it not simply say the facilities (or portions thereof) are 'free issued' to the service provider (ie: borne by NASA)?
Any launches 'above and beyond' ISS flights/NASA-purchased, would have to be paid for by some formula.
Yes, no?
I know the accounting may not work, but with all the funding being provided to CCDev, what is so different from also including launch facilities to sweeten the deal, much like OPF-3 to Space Florida?
This is the point I tried to address earlier. There are some really awesome designs and concepts how to make the whole LC-39 complex adaptable and modular.
Given that and the fact the complex itself is not going anywhere and will to some degree or another be a cost to NASA, it has been considered (and the exact details I am not aware of nor what the latest and greatest status is) of allowing other providers to use the complex.
There would be some sort of lease associated with it, allowing a funding stream back to NASA. Of course it needs to be small enough so that it is cost effective to the user, but when coupled with other users, the sum total is "enough" to "sufficiently" (and those terms are subjective on purpose because it is for NASA to decide) offset the total cost the government pays and is worth it to proceed with these designs and concepts.
Of course this could nullify concerns about making changes to other pad structures, etc and eliminate certain manifest issues. This would natually be something for NASA, USAF, etc to consider in partnership with the potential LC-39 users and if they do that, how and when time will tell.
-
#62
by
Robotbeat
on 01 Nov, 2011 23:49
-
Here's a question for these costs of LC-39:
If NASA is paying for a 'service' for commercial crew access to (for now) the ISS, then could it not simply say the facilities (or portions thereof) are 'free issued' to the service provider (ie: borne by NASA)?
Any launches 'above and beyond' ISS flights/NASA-purchased, would have to be paid for by some formula.
Yes, no?
I know the accounting may not work, but with all the funding being provided to CCDev, what is so different from also including launch facilities to sweeten the deal, much like OPF-3 to Space Florida?
Do we want a commercial crew service with its possible cost reductions or not?
As a taxpayer, I want NASA to choose the most cost-effective domestic option (that helps grow a larger market as a side-effect). Do you want a more expensive launch infrastructure just because it leaves some of KSC's little managerial kingdoms intact?
(And makes gosh-darned sure that if there is any commercial crew industry that arises out of NASA's commercial crew program investment that it stays firmly under the mothering eye of NASA. I wish this weren't true, but that's exactly what it appears to be. And I say that as someone who is applying to a job actually building/analyzing the LC-39 modifications needed... In other words, I have an interest in having a perspective which SUPPORTS using LC-39 for commercial crew, but I simply think it's a bad idea.)
-
#63
by
Jim
on 02 Nov, 2011 00:04
-
Here's a question for these costs of LC-39:
If NASA is paying for a 'service' for commercial crew access to (for now) the ISS, then could it not simply say the facilities (or portions thereof) are 'free issued' to the service provider (ie: borne by NASA)?
Any launches 'above and beyond' ISS flights/NASA-purchased, would have to be paid for by some formula.
Yes, no?
I know the accounting may not work, but with all the funding being provided to CCDev, what is so different from also including launch facilities to sweeten the deal, much like OPF-3 to Space Florida?
OPF-3 was going to be razed, it was excessed. NASA doesn't have to maintain it or pay to tear it down.
But what NASA provides to CCT proposers will be taken into account in the selection process.
-
#64
by
robertross
on 02 Nov, 2011 00:33
-
Here's a question for these costs of LC-39:
If NASA is paying for a 'service' for commercial crew access to (for now) the ISS, then could it not simply say the facilities (or portions thereof) are 'free issued' to the service provider (ie: borne by NASA)?
Any launches 'above and beyond' ISS flights/NASA-purchased, would have to be paid for by some formula.
Yes, no?
I know the accounting may not work, but with all the funding being provided to CCDev, what is so different from also including launch facilities to sweeten the deal, much like OPF-3 to Space Florida?
OPF-3 was going to be razed, it was excessed. NASA doesn't have to maintain it or pay to tear it down.
But what NASA provides to CCT proposers will be taken into account in the selection process.
Thanks for the answers by all.
I think the crux of the matter is bolded above.
Because at the end of the day, if NASA wants this 'service', it is going to pay for it one way or the other, and I see no difference between using pre-existing facilities, or sharing facilities with enough synergies, that can be of benefit to a commercial enterprise while NASA's needs are fully met.
In the case of OPF-3 & Space Florida: After 15 years, things 'might' have changed enough in the grand scheme of things for those companies to develop their own facilities (doubtful), pay full (or a higher) price for use of these facilities, or the ISS has splashed down, the economies of the world (or the US) can't support human spaceflight, and all this is moot and could rot away.
-
#65
by
Downix
on 02 Nov, 2011 01:07
-
LC-39 has very low marginal costs,
It's high fixed costs negate this and the flight rates wont be high enough to put a dent in it
High fixed costs mean even a single flight addition causes a price reduction to be more significant.
-
#66
by
pathfinder_01
on 02 Nov, 2011 01:27
-
High fixed costs mean even a single flight addition causes a price reduction to be more significant.
High Fixed costs=High Fixed costs period. Meaning unless thoose fixes costs buy you something special(which in the case of a rocket launch probably not) they are not worth it.
-
#67
by
Jason1701
on 02 Nov, 2011 01:38
-
LC-39 has very low marginal costs,
It's high fixed costs negate this and the flight rates wont be high enough to put a dent in it
High fixed costs mean even a single flight addition causes a price reduction to be more significant.
By that logic, we want the highest fixed costs possible, so we experience the maximum cost reduction with each additional flight.
-
#68
by
Downix
on 02 Nov, 2011 01:44
-
LC-39 has very low marginal costs,
It's high fixed costs negate this and the flight rates wont be high enough to put a dent in it
High fixed costs mean even a single flight addition causes a price reduction to be more significant.
By that logic, we want the highest fixed costs possible, so we experience the maximum cost reduction with each additional flight.
It depends on your utilization rate. That is why the Shuttle paradigm was hurt so severely by the lack of utilization, it threw a wrench into the costs. But this is the logic behind large factories built in anticipation of volume production.
-
#69
by
Downix
on 02 Nov, 2011 01:45
-
High fixed costs mean even a single flight addition causes a price reduction to be more significant.
High Fixed costs=High Fixed costs period. Meaning unless thoose fixes costs buy you something special(which in the case of a rocket launch probably not) they are not worth it.
Tell that to every mass production company ever to enter business. Their whole model is based on high fixed costs.
-
#70
by
pathfinder_01
on 02 Nov, 2011 02:11
-
Tell that to every mass production company ever to enter business. Their whole model is based on high fixed costs.
err. no. All factories/companies have fixed costs. However larger factories have higher fixed costs(more space to heat/cool/patrol). With mass production it is hoped that your fixed costs are spread over enough product(that sells) else you won't have a profit(i.e. GM before the bailout).
If you have a large factory that isn't running near capacity, you may have a problem. It can indeed make sense to reduce the size of your facility(or close factories) if the amount of product being produced(or sold) is less than the capacity of the plant and if by doing so you reduce your cost.
-
#71
by
sdsds
on 02 Nov, 2011 02:13
-
And makes gosh-darned sure that if there is any commercial crew industry that arises out of NASA's commercial crew program investment that it stays firmly under the mothering eye of NASA. I wish this weren't true
Yes, the OPF-3 etc. lease does look a bit like NASA "mothering" Boeing. How funny is that!? Luckily for those who fear this as a trend, SpaceX will never accept it and Elon assures us he personally will make certain SpaceX is in the commercial crew business.... So we needn't fear this kind of OPF-3 arrangement will become the only game in town!
-
#72
by
Downix
on 02 Nov, 2011 02:14
-
Tell that to every mass production company ever to enter business. Their whole model is based on high fixed costs.
err. no. All factories/companies have fixed costs. However larger factories have higher fixed costs(more space to heat/cool/patrol). With mass production it is hoped that your fixed costs are spread over enough product(that sells) else you won't have a profit(i.e. GM before the bailout).
If you have a large factory that isn't running near capacity, you may have a problem. It can indeed make sense to reduce the size of your facility(or close factories) if the amount of product being produced(or sold) is less than the capacity of the plant and if by doing so you reduce your cost.
We have a facility here that is not running near capacity, not even at a fraction of capacity. As you put it, we have a problem. Utilizing it for commercial crew adds to that, utilizing its space capacity. Add a few more, then you make up the capacity needed to make the fixed costs fall in line.
-
#73
by
pathfinder_01
on 02 Nov, 2011 02:49
-
We have a facility here that is not running near capacity, not even at a fraction of capacity. As you put it, we have a problem. Utilizing it for commercial crew adds to that, utilizing its space capacity. Add a few more, then you make up the capacity needed to make the fixed costs fall in line.
Or simply launch out of the normal Atlas pads or build new pads that require fewer works......
-
#74
by
Downix
on 02 Nov, 2011 03:19
-
We have a facility here that is not running near capacity, not even at a fraction of capacity. As you put it, we have a problem. Utilizing it for commercial crew adds to that, utilizing its space capacity. Add a few more, then you make up the capacity needed to make the fixed costs fall in line.
Or simply launch out of the normal Atlas pads or build new pads that require fewer works......
And then have more pads to pay for, as LC-39 is needed for SLS regardless. This is a sure fire way to further increase costs across the board.
-
#75
by
Jim
on 02 Nov, 2011 09:51
-
And makes gosh-darned sure that if there is any commercial crew industry that arises out of NASA's commercial crew program investment that it stays firmly under the mothering eye of NASA. I wish this weren't true
Yes, the OPF-3 etc. lease does look a bit like NASA "mothering" Boeing. How funny is that!? Luckily for those who fear this as a trend, SpaceX will never accept it and Elon assures us he personally will make certain SpaceX is in the commercial crew business.... So we needn't fear this kind of OPF-3 arrangement will become the only game in town!
No, it is no different than the USAF giving Spacex SLC-40 and SLC-4.
Also, NASA did not give OPF-3 to Boeing, Space Florida did.
Additionally, Spacex got recovery funds from NASA for infrastructure upgrades
-
#76
by
Jim
on 02 Nov, 2011 09:55
-
We have a facility here that is not running near capacity, not even at a fraction of capacity. As you put it, we have a problem. Utilizing it for commercial crew adds to that, utilizing its space capacity. Add a few more, then you make up the capacity needed to make the fixed costs fall in line.
Or simply launch out of the normal Atlas pads or build new pads that require fewer works......
And then have more pads to pay for, as LC-39 is needed for SLS regardless. This is a sure fire way to further increase costs across the board.
No, Atlas and Delta use of LC-39 makes sense if SLC-41 andSLC-37 can't handle addition flights
-
#77
by
simonbp
on 02 Nov, 2011 16:10
-
What's the chances of an all-new 'Commercial Crew' clean pad, maybe at LC-37A?
That's what I want to know. If commercial crew on Atlas V takes off in a big way, then a second Atlas V launch site begins to make a lot of sense, and having it in parallel with the current site is the most economical solution.
That said, the current DoD/NASA Atlas V flight rate is sufficiently low that you'd need really regular crew flights for it to really impinge on the schedule at the current facilities.
-
#78
by
Lurker Steve
on 02 Nov, 2011 17:20
-
What's the chances of an all-new 'Commercial Crew' clean pad, maybe at LC-37A?
That's what I want to know. If commercial crew on Atlas V takes off in a big way, then a second Atlas V launch site begins to make a lot of sense, and having it in parallel with the current site is the most economical solution.
That said, the current DoD/NASA Atlas V flight rate is sufficiently low that you'd need really regular crew flights for it to really impinge on the schedule at the current facilities.
How long does it normally take to integrate the payload with an Atlas ? Can they move a completed CST-100 over from OPF-3, and be ready be launch in less than 4 weeks ? How quickly does integration need to happen in order not interfere with the existing DOD / NASA launch pace.
-
#79
by
Downix
on 02 Nov, 2011 19:31
-
We have a facility here that is not running near capacity, not even at a fraction of capacity. As you put it, we have a problem. Utilizing it for commercial crew adds to that, utilizing its space capacity. Add a few more, then you make up the capacity needed to make the fixed costs fall in line.
Or simply launch out of the normal Atlas pads or build new pads that require fewer works......
And then have more pads to pay for, as LC-39 is needed for SLS regardless. This is a sure fire way to further increase costs across the board.
No, Atlas and Delta use of LC-39 makes sense if SLC-41 andSLC-37 can't handle addition flights
I can think of several reasons why, such as LC-41 and LC-37B are not configured for crew flight, which will require funding to add while LC-39 is already to be configured for crew flight, saving that funding. Also, IIRC, part of the agreement between the USAF and ULA includes EELV flights from LC-41 and LC-37 having a portion of the USAF's costs for them added starting in 2012, which obviously flights from LC-39 would not as it would be NASA paying itself for its own launch pad. According to the DTIC, these added costs for NASA will range from $40-$90 million per launch starting in 2012, which would be eliminated by launching at a NASA controlled facility rather than a USAF if I am reading the report by the Office of Inspector General correctly.
-
#80
by
mike robel
on 02 Nov, 2011 19:44
-
I dare say 39 is not configured to launch anything at present.
-
#81
by
Jim
on 02 Nov, 2011 20:44
-
1. I can think of several reasons why, such as LC-41 and LC-37B are not configured for crew flight, which will require funding to add while LC-39 is already to be configured for crew flight, saving that funding.
2.Also, IIRC, part of the agreement between the USAF and ULA includes EELV flights from LC-41 and LC-37 having a portion of the USAF's costs for them added starting in 2012, which obviously flights from LC-39 would not as it would be NASA paying itself for its own launch pad. According to the DTIC, these added costs for NASA will range from $40-$90 million per launch starting in 2012, which would be eliminated by launching at a NASA controlled facility rather than a USAF if I am reading the report by the Office of Inspector General correctly.
Wrong.
1. LC-39 is configured to do nothing wrt Atlas or Delta. The work required to accommodate an Atlas would be just as expensive as new VIF and MLP or even more.
LC-39 has no umbilical tower, no crew access, no Atlas LCC interface, no Atlas propellant skids, etc.
2. NASA isnt buying an Atlas, the spacecraft contractor is. And since this is commercial crew, the contractor would have to pay NASA to use LC-39 and the additional costs of an LC-39 Atlas crew.
Commercial Crew is going to avoid LC-39.
-
#82
by
Downix
on 02 Nov, 2011 20:55
-
1. I can think of several reasons why, such as LC-41 and LC-37B are not configured for crew flight, which will require funding to add while LC-39 is already to be configured for crew flight, saving that funding.
2.Also, IIRC, part of the agreement between the USAF and ULA includes EELV flights from LC-41 and LC-37 having a portion of the USAF's costs for them added starting in 2012, which obviously flights from LC-39 would not as it would be NASA paying itself for its own launch pad. According to the DTIC, these added costs for NASA will range from $40-$90 million per launch starting in 2012, which would be eliminated by launching at a NASA controlled facility rather than a USAF if I am reading the report by the Office of Inspector General correctly.
Wrong.
1. LC-39 is configured to do nothing wrt Atlas or Delta. The work required to accommodate an Atlas would be just as expensive as new VIF and MLP.
LC-39 has no umbilical tower, no crew access, no Atlas LCC interface, no Atlas propellant skids, etc.
Those are all provided by the platform, which would need to be built regardless, so is a wash in the scope of this discussion.
2. NASA would still be paying for VAFB, Denver, and Decatur ops. And it would have to payload for an LC-39 crew.
Irrelevant for the scope of this, as those would be paid for regardless of which launch pad you are operating out of. When the costs are the same between the two, you cannot use them as an argument basis between two choices. So please, tell us how paying an extra $40-100 million per-launch at LC-41 + all of the development cost is going to save money over an effectively free use of LC-39 for Commercial Crew once the Atlas / Delta mobile launch platform is built?
-
#83
by
Jim
on 02 Nov, 2011 21:05
-
1. Those are all provided by the platform, which would need to be built regardless, so is a wash in the scope of this discussion.
2. Irrelevant for the scope of this, as those would be paid for regardless of which launch pad you are operating out of. When the costs are the same between the two, you cannot use them as an argument basis between two choices. So please, tell us how paying an extra $40-100 million per-launch at LC-41 + all of the development cost is going to save money over an effectively free use of LC-39 for Commercial Crew once the Atlas / Delta mobile launch platform is built?
1. Your basic premise is wrong. there is no Atlas or Delta platform being built. Nor no need for one.
2. the additional cost to NASA is not $40-100 million per-launch
ULA would built another VIF and MLP for commercial crew before going to LC-39.
The only way a ULA vehicle launches from LC-39 if NASA buys the launch vehicle and provides the launch operations and then it is not commercial crew.
-
#84
by
sdsds
on 04 Nov, 2011 17:36
-
Some timeline information:
In OPF-3, the immediate future involves removing the infrastructure of work platforms and ground systems that were used to service space shuttles that returned for orbit and were being prepped for another flight. That should take about a year, said Boeing's John Mulholland.
After that, fixtures tailored to the CST-100 will be moved onto the floor, which, at some 29,000 square feet, is large enough to accommodate several CST-100 capsules at once as they go through the assembly.
[...] Boeing envisions the first missions carrying astronauts to the space station, possibly as soon as 2015. [...] Boeing expects to hire 550 people by 2015, when the floor of the OPF is expected to be in full operationhttp://www.nasa.gov/exploration/commercial/OPF_Boeing.html
-
#85
by
Ronsmytheiii
on 22 Nov, 2011 16:52
-
-
#86
by
Ronsmytheiii
on 22 Nov, 2011 20:55
-
