-
#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.
