I dare say 39 is not configured to launch anything at present.
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.
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?
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.
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
