Proposed Shiloh Commercial Launch Complex

[yg1968]

An update:
http://www.floridatoday.com/story/news/local/2014/07/11/lawmakers-fire-alternatives-shiloh-complex/12561465/

[yg1968]

An article on Senator Nelson's response to SpaceX launching commercial missions from Texas instead of Florida:
http://www.floridatoday.com/story/money/business/2014/08/05/despite-spacex-plans-nelson-pushes-brevard-launches/13645271/

Nelson met Monday at Patrick Air Force Base with Air Force representatives from the Air Force's 45th Space Wing, Space Command and the Space and Missile Systems Center. He remains optimistic that a roughly six-mile stretch of abandoned pads south of Launch Complex 37 can be put to good use, whether by SpaceX or other emerging commercial launchers. "There's a great future there," he said.

See also the video of the interview here:
http://t.co/y0JxFVwwnq

[Zed_Noir]

An article on Senator Nelson's response to SpaceX launching commercial missions from Texas instead of Florida:
http://www.floridatoday.com/story/money/business/2014/08/05/despite-spacex-plans-nelson-pushes-brevard-launches/13645271/

Nelson met Monday at Patrick Air Force Base with Air Force representatives from the Air Force's 45th Space Wing, Space Command and the Space and Missile Systems Center. He remains optimistic that a roughly six-mile stretch of abandoned pads south of Launch Complex 37 can be put to good use, whether by SpaceX or other emerging commercial launchers. "There's a great future there," he said.

I believe those abandon launch sites qualified for EPA Super-fund status. So I don't see anyone in a rush to use those launch pads with associated costly cleanup costs.

[yg1968]

Not really related to Shiloh but other land at KSC might be available for commercial use:
http://www.spacenews.com/article/civil-space/42264ksc-to-offer-undeveloped-center-property-for-commercial-users

[sghill]

Here's the NASA Inspector General's report related to KSC's development plans that was released yesterday: http://oig.nasa.gov/audits/reports/FY15/IG-15-003.pdf

Lot's of juicy details!  Happy reading!

The opening statement jumps out related to Shiloh:

"In addition, we found Kennedy faces growing competition from commercial spaceports operated by non-Federal
entities. Indeed, in September 2012, Space Florida submitted to NASA a proposal on behalf of the state of Florida requesting transfer of approximately 150–200 acres of Kennedy property in the area generally known as Shiloh with the goal of creating a commercial spaceport at the Center’s doorstep. NASA responded that while it supports Space Florida’s efforts and would be willing to discuss making land available, the Shiloh property continues to serve the Agency’s long-term mission requirements and therefore Kennedy does not consider it excess property available for transfer. Specifically, Kennedy officials contend the land serves as a buffer zone between NASA operations and local communities and is a potential site for future mission requirements. However, when we inquired about the issue Kennedy personnel were unable to provide any details as to the need for the buffer zone or information about specific future missions involving the property.

Commercial companies we spoke with identified four main constraints to operating at Kennedy: (1) possible conflicts between their operations and Federal missions, (2) the time consuming and bureaucratic nature of the Center’s safety review process, (3) issues with getting personnel timely access to facilities, and (4) difficulty obtaining services such as specialized launch support equipment or technical consulting. Although Kennedy has taken steps to address these issues, company officials continue to express concern, noting that although these constraints have not yet deterred them from conducting business with Kennedy, this may change as the commercial space industry grows and additional non-Federal launch sites become available. Accordingly, the better Kennedy can position itself now as a commercial-friendly launch site, the more competitive it will be in the future."


The OIG also makes three recommendations to which NASA is responding:
"In order to promote full and open competition for NASA leasing opportunities and incorporate lessons
learned, we recommended the Associate Administrator for Mission Support:

1. Develop additional guidance specifying the circumstances under which competition is
appropriate when leasing NASA’s assets to commercial partners and clarifying the procedures
that should be used in such competitions, including providing a clear statement of evaluation
factors in the solicitation.

2. Institute a robust communication strategy that ensures all potential commercial partners remain
aware of changes to lease terms and conditions that may affect the development of proposals.

In order to better facilitate commercial activities at Kennedy, we recommended the Associate Administrator for Mission Support:

3. Examine ways to amend policies and practices that govern commercial space activities with the goal
of reducing the costs and burdens on commercial partners interested in conducting business at
Kennedy while ensuring the appropriate level of safety and security.

We provided a draft of this report to NASA management for review and comment, and they concurred
with our recommendations and described the corrective action they plan to take. We consider
management’s planned action responsive to our recommendations. Accordingly, the recommendations
are resolved and will be closed upon verification and completion of the proposed actions.


Notice that range operations flexibility isn't addressed, and that's really the crucial problem out there in attracting commercial launch services.  I do get that NASA doesn't have control over that aspect, as the Air Force controls the range, so the OIG isn't going to address it, but the problem is still there.

The OIG does make note of the operations challenge in the report on page 14.:

"NASA policy requires inclusion of a “Priority of Use” clause in most agreements with commercial
partners. This clause gives priority to NASA operations over commercial activities and allows the Agency
to determine which company has priority when conflicts arise between two commercial partners.
Representatives from five of the seven entities we interviewed noted the clause reduces partners’
control over their activities and increases the risk operations will be delayed, which can negatively affect
profits and overall competiveness in the market. Moreover, they said their companies are under market
pressure to conduct timely and cost-efficient operations and that if launch sites where they have more
control over schedules become available, they may prefer those sites to Kennedy."

And relatedly from FloridaToday regarding the abandoned launch complex areas at Canaveral and operational issues at the range: "Responding in writing to Posey's question earlier this year, Brig. Gen. Nina Armagno, commander of the 45th Space Wing, said locating an independent launch range on Air Force property "is not operationally feasible."  She also said the Air Force is working with future government and commercial customers "who desire the security, infrastructure and existing range capabilities the 45th Space Wing provides."

Just not the flexibility they require....

[RonM]

If Florida can't get KSC to cooperate, there's a site right across the border on the Georgia coast that would make a good spaceport. I'm sure the state of Georgia would be willing to cut launch providers a deal.

[baldusi]

Range could lower its time between missions if they had the need. It's just extra resources that need to be bought in (equipment and personnel). And the worst case scenario for launch conflicts is usually less than a week. The radar issue was a one in a decade event. But again, if the need for launch rate was actually there, range could do it.
If there was such a need range duties would probably be better transferred to the FAA, though. So it is not applicable to this report.

[sghill]

Range could lower its time between missions if they had the need. It's just extra resources that need to be bought in (equipment and personnel). And the worst case scenario for launch conflicts is usually less than a week. The radar issue was a one in a decade event. But again, if the need for launch rate was actually there, range could do it.
If there was such a need range duties would probably be better transferred to the FAA, though. So it is not applicable to this report.

I agree with the sentiment, but I don't think you are appreciating the magnitude of the challenge here.  The Air Force has a mission to fulfill, and it doesn't involve accommodating anyone else's launch schedule; it involves protecting the United States. It isn't going to change unless the President and Congress tell it to. 

What I'd like to see are parallel range facilities operated for the benefit of and paid for by commercial operators (perhaps through some sort of syndicate) under the aegis of the Air Force so that both needs can be met.  They've done this for decades between NASA and the Air Force.  Commercial operators would just be a third party at the table.  Air Force mission needs will have priority, but for those vast amounts of time when Air Force operations aren't in the way, the commercial operators can function as they need to.  I think Space Florida is envisioning something along these lines, but I haven't spoken to Frank DiBello about this specific topic.

That still doesn't solve the equally challenging problem of clearing the range of people and nearby workers for a higher launch rate near the Cape.

[Llian Rhydderch]

Here's the NASA Inspector General's report related to KSC's development plans that was released yesterday: http://oig.nasa.gov/audits/reports/FY15/IG-15-003.pdf

Lot's of juicy details!  Happy reading!

The opening statement jumps out related to Shiloh:

"In addition, we found Kennedy faces growing competition from commercial spaceports operated by non-Federal entities. Indeed, in September 2012, Space Florida submitted to NASA a proposal on behalf of the state of Florida requesting transfer of approximately 150–200 acres of Kennedy property in the area generally known as Shiloh with the goal of creating a commercial spaceport at the Center’s doorstep. NASA responded that ...

...

The OIG also makes three recommendations to which NASA is responding:
"In order to promote full and open competition for NASA leasing opportunities and incorporate lessons
learned, we recommended the Associate Administrator for Mission Support:

1. Develop additional guidance specifying the circumstances under which competition is
appropriate ...

...

3. Examine ways to [reduce] costs and burdens on commercial partners ...

...

companies are under market pressure to conduct timely and cost-efficient operations "

Competition between suppliers of launch site locations and services, when it is allowed to happen, will result in additional innovation as well as lower cost provision of launch site services.  The market process at work!  ... is a beautiful thing to behold. 

[edkyle99]

It irritates that the US Air Force and US Navy are essentially "squatting" on vast tracts of largely unused land at Cape Canaveral - a long-proven ideal location for orbital launch sites.  They have created a place that largely consists of overgrown demolished former launch sites.  The last test launch of a military missile from Cape Canaveral proper was probably, when, 1989?  For whatever reasons, and I'm sure they can provide a long list of reasons, they are squandering what should be an enormous economic resource for both Florida and the United States. 

 - Ed Kyle

[Jim]

Competition between suppliers of launch site locations and services, when it is allowed to happen, will result in additional innovation as well as lower cost provision of launch site services.  The market process at work! 

Not really.  It already has been in place for some time.    Launch site services have already been commercialized long ago.   The launch service contractors already use commercial subcontractors to provide most services vs going to the base or range contractors for them.  There are commercial spacecraft processing facilities at both US prime launch sites.   The greatest difference in launch sites is security and operational conflicts.   The movement to GPS metric tracking and autonomous FTS has been in work without any "market process".  Launch site locations are still going be driven by safety considerations and the FAA has stricter flight safety requirements than the USAF.  .

The "innovation" and "lower cost provision of launch site services" is driven more by spacecraft design.  Factory to pad type testing and use of less hazardous propellants would provide the greatest savings in launch site ops. 

[sdsds]

I'm sure they can provide a long list of reasons [why] they are squandering what should be an enormous economic resource

Yes, I too am sure there is a long list of reasons they can provide. So too regarding Shiloh NASA can provide, "buffer zone between NASA operations and local communities" and "potential site for future mission requirements" as reasons for blocking commercial use of that land.

In each case the skeptic wonders, "Are there other reasons which they cannot (or choose not to) provide, for which the provided reasons are merely cover?"

[Jim]

It irritates that the US Air Force and US Navy are essentially "squatting" on vast tracts of largely unused land at Cape Canaveral - a long-proven ideal location for orbital launch sites.  They have created a place that largely consists of overgrown demolished former launch sites.  The last test launch of a military missile from Cape Canaveral proper was probably, when, 1989?  For whatever reasons, and I'm sure they can provide a long list of reasons, they are squandering what should be an enormous economic resource for both Florida and the United States. 

 - Ed Kyle

See second to last paragraph here

http://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=30750.msg1275810#msg1275810

edited

[Llian Rhydderch]

It irritates that the US Air Force and US Navy are essentially "squatting" on vast tracts of largely unused land at Cape Canaveral - a long-proven ideal location for orbital launch sites.  They have created a place that largely consists of overgrown demolished former launch sites.  The last test launch of a military missile from Cape Canaveral proper was probably, when, 1989?  For whatever reasons, and I'm sure they can provide a long list of reasons, they are squandering what should be an enormous economic resource for both Florida and the United States. 

 - Ed Kyle

See last paragraph here

http://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=30750.msg1275810#msg1275810

The last para there is "Just not the flexibility they require...."

I'd say that sums up a part of the problem.

[sghill]

It irritates that the US Air Force and US Navy are essentially "squatting" on vast tracts of largely unused land at Cape Canaveral - a long-proven ideal location for orbital launch sites.  They have created a place that largely consists of overgrown demolished former launch sites.  The last test launch of a military missile from Cape Canaveral proper was probably, when, 1989?  For whatever reasons, and I'm sure they can provide a long list of reasons, they are squandering what should be an enormous economic resource for both Florida and the United States. 

 - Ed Kyle

I'm going to respectfully disagree here. 

Undeveloped coastal property with access to transport infrastructure that isn't already tied up as part of a community or in conservation for wildlife is wildly unavailable- especially for rocket launches.  Keeping that range available for as-yet-unforeseen future uses is hugely important from a strategic national asset perspective. 

Any time I think of the problems the Cape is facing, I also think of the Naval Air Station Oceana's problems with encroaching development.  Navy has threatened to go elsewhere because it's simply too overgrown to safely continue air operations out of Oceana, and Virginia Beach is going to (is currently?) purchase and condemn 3,400 homes in order to keep the base there: http://www.bracresponse.com/

The point is that Oceana wouldn't have  its problems now if they'd (the city and the Navy) let it remain woods and swamp nearby.  Same goes with the Cape.  Compared to that problem, a few derelict rocket gantries are small potatoes