LC 39A - RFP for Commercial use

[joek]

In the procurement world, which this isn't, protests can be filed as early as draft RFP.  I think BO is just covering its bases.

Good point.  There was an interesting section in the Q&A released after the AFP...

Documents Previously Released To Select Potential Bidders: Will NASA provide all proposers with a copy of all written materials it has given to Space Exploration Technologies (SpaceX) related to LC 39A (in light of NASA’s public acknowledgement that NASA has been in discussions with SpaceX related to LC 39A for over a year, including comments emailed by NASA spokesperson Michael Braukus and reported in the 11 March 2012 edition of SpaceFlight Now that “KSC did an assessment of options for SpaceX to consider relative to their non-exclusive use of pad 39A,” and that at that time in 2012 NASA “KSC is currently in a second round of more detailed discussion”)? Please provide copies as soon as possible (preferably no later than 5 June 2013) to support NASA’s deadline for submission of proposals by proposers who have not had early access to these documents.

Answer: NASA declines to provide information on any discussions it has had with companies expressing an interest in LC 39A.

[joek]

Who else was there. I've never seen that reported?

Space Florida?  They downplayed the significance at the time (still promoting Shiloh) and seemed to have reservations because NASA will not indemnify operators for prior environmental conditions.  However, AFAICT they have never publicly stated they aren't interested in LC-39, and *not* throwing their hat in the ring would seem odd.

[yg1968]

Letters from Congressmen and Senators Rubio and Nelson supporting the lease of LC-39A:
http://nasawatch.com/archives/2013/09/congress-voices.html

[yg1968]

SpaceX statement:
http://nasawatch.com/archives/2013/09/spacex-statemen.html

[mr. mark]

"SpaceX has nearly 50 missions on manifest to launch over the proposed 5 year lease period and we can easily make use of the additional launch site. At the time we submitted the bid, SpaceX was unaware any other parties had interest in using the pad. However, if awarded this limited duration lease on 39A, SpaceX would be more than happy to support other commercial space pioneers at the pad, and allow NASA to make use of the pad if need be."

This is political cover for when NASA awards them a single use lease. They can say they offered NASA a compromise and when NASA does otherwise and awards them single use, SpaceX will say they gave NASA a way out but NASA knew best and awarded SpaceX the contract.

[ChrisWilson68]

NASA wants them to have it for very sound, strategic reasons.

Source please.

I don't think one is required - it would simply be a good business decision. Would you rather lease your building to someone who clearly has a sound business model and anticipated revenue or someone who proposes that they will?

there were more than two bidders

Who else was there. I've never seen that reported?

We're all agreed that SpaceX and Blue Origin are two of the bidders.

ATK and ULA have said they didn't bid.

The only other organizations I can think of who are likely to have been interested in 39A who would be in a position to make a bid are the other two CCiCap awardees: Boeing and Sierra Nevada.  With their CCiCap work, each obviously wants to be in the business of ferrying astronauts to the ISS, and doing so is the most obvious reason for wanting use of 39A.

[ChrisWilson68]

Who else was there. I've never seen that reported?

Space Florida?  They downplayed the significance at the time (still promoting Shiloh) and seemed to have reservations because NASA will not indemnify operators for prior environmental conditions.  However, AFAICT they have never publicly stated they aren't interested in LC-39, and *not* throwing their hat in the ring would seem odd.

Space Florida doesn't do any launches of their own.  They try to get companies that do do launches to do them from Florida.  As such, they're not in a position to lease 39A themselves.

[ChrisWilson68]

I wonder if one contender could be Lockheed Martin for the Athena III, LC-39's SRB infrastructure would be useful for the first stage.

LC-39's SRB infrastructure consists of stacking SRB segments in the VAB and rolling out to the pad on a crawler-transporter.  That's incredibly expensive infrastructure for Athena III's 2.5 segment first stage.

LM chose Kodiak, Alaska over Vandenberg as a West Coast launch site for Athena III, so I'm betting they don't have need for much "SRB infrastructure".  If they can build whatever they need in Alaska, they can certainly find a more cost-effective solution than stacking in the VAB and using the crawler.

39A's real appeal lies is crew launch.

[joek]

Space Florida doesn't do any launches of their own.  They try to get companies that do do launches to do them from Florida.  As such, they're not in a position to lease 39A themselves.

No; Space Florida is also (among other things) a licensed launch site operator with pads at CCAFS and which they got approval to expand last year.  If one were looking for a multi-tenant launch site operator in that area, Space Florida is the first name that comes to mind.

[Ronsmytheiii]

LC-39's SRB infrastructure consists of stacking SRB segments in the VAB and rolling out to the pad on a crawler-transporter.  That's incredibly expensive infrastructure for Athena III's 2.5 segment first stage.

That is just part of the SRB infrastructure at LC-39, there are the rail lines that bring in the SRB segments and the RPSF where the segments are received and checked out.  Plus all of this infrastructure will still have funding from SLS, so why reinvent the wheel?  Liberty uses the LC-39 area, why not Athena III?

LM chose Kodiak, Alaska over Vandenberg as a West Coast launch site for Athena III, so I'm betting they don't have need for much "SRB infrastructure".

Vandenberg doesnt have large segment SRB infrastructure after Titan IV went away, apples and oranges to compare the two.

[oldAtlas_Eguy]

"SpaceX has nearly 50 missions on manifest to launch over the proposed 5 year lease period and we can easily make use of the additional launch site. At the time we submitted the bid, SpaceX was unaware any other parties had interest in using the pad. However, if awarded this limited duration lease on 39A, SpaceX would be more than happy to support other commercial space pioneers at the pad, and allow NASA to make use of the pad if need be."

This is political cover for when NASA awards them a single use lease. They can say they offered NASA a compromise and when NASA does otherwise and awards them single use, SpaceX will say they gave NASA a way out but NASA knew best and awarded SpaceX the contract.

Although your thoughts are plausible, there is some truth. The current bid and subsequent contract would be for single use unless a new bid or contract modification later is performed (basicly a new bid without throwing out the existing contract). A change to SpaceX's bid may be in the works with a resulting lower lease payment to do multi vehicle support or more favorable terms (providing something to negotiate).

The item missing, not published, in these bid's is the lease payment amounts (if any). Sometimes takeover maintenance lease agreements comes with a lease payment amount of $1. But we don't know the amounts each bidder proposed. Just that they will maintain certain infrastructure and build others to enable the pad's use. At the end of the lease all fixed infrastructure will be the property of the US Government.

[Prober]

"SpaceX has nearly 50 missions on manifest to launch over the proposed 5 year lease period and we can easily make use of the additional launch site. At the time we submitted the bid, SpaceX was unaware any other parties had interest in using the pad. However, if awarded this limited duration lease on 39A, SpaceX would be more than happy to support other commercial space pioneers at the pad, and allow NASA to make use of the pad if need be."

This is political cover for when NASA awards them a single use lease. They can say they offered NASA a compromise and when NASA does otherwise and awards them single use, SpaceX will say they gave NASA a way out but NASA knew best and awarded SpaceX the contract.

Although your thoughts are plausible, there is some truth. The current bid and subsequent contract would be for single use unless a new bid or contract modification later is performed (basicly a new bid without throwing out the existing contract). A change to SpaceX's bid may be in the works with a resulting lower lease payment to do multi vehicle support or more favorable terms (providing something to negotiate).

The item missing, not published, in these bid's is the lease payment amounts (if any). Sometimes takeover maintenance lease agreements comes with a lease payment amount of $1. But we don't know the amounts each bidder proposed. Just that they will maintain certain infrastructure and build others to enable the pad's use. At the end of the lease all fixed infrastructure will be the property of the US Government.

Mr. Mark and yourself are right about a few items.   This is a hot button issue atm with Congress.  If you watched the last meeting (made me sick).   The administration wouldn't even answer the questions about it.  The phone calls are pouring into Congress about this matter so I wasn't surprised when I see SpaceX putting out the news release.
 
http://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=32898.0
Edit: add link

[JBF]

Mr. Mark and yourself are right about a few items.   This is a hot button issue atm with Congress.  If you watched the last meeting (made me sick).   The administration wouldn't even answer the questions about it.  The phone calls are pouring into Congress about this matter so I wasn't surprised when I see SpaceX putting out the news release.
 
http://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=32898.0
Edit: add link

The Administration won't answer questions because the proposals are still being evaluated. As such they are considered confidential.

[Step55]

New article by Spacenews.com "Musk Calls Out Blue Origin, ULA for ‘Phony Blocking Tactic’ on Shuttle Pad Lease"

http://www.spacenews.com/article/launch-report/37389musk-calls-out-blue-origin-ula-for-%E2%80%98phony-blocking-tactic%E2%80%99-on-shuttle-pad

Musk’s email is reproduced below in its entirety.

From a SpaceX standpoint, we view [Blue Origin] and [United Launch Alliance’s] action as a phony blocking tactic and an obvious one at that. BO has not yet succeeded in creating a reliable suborbital spacecraft, despite spending over 10 years in development. It is therefore unlikely that they will succeed in developing an orbital vehicle that will meet NASA’s exacting standards in the next 5 years, which is the length of the lease. That said, I can’t say for sure whether [Blue Origin’s] action stems from malice. No such doubt exists about ULA’s motivation.

However, rather than fight this issue, there is an easy way to determine the truth, which is simply to call their bluff. If they do somehow show up in the next  5 years with a vehicle qualified to NASA’s human rating standards that can dock with the Space Station, which is what Pad 39A is meant to do, we will gladly accommodate their needs. Frankly, I think we are more likely to discover unicorns dancing in the flame duct.

[ugordan]

Frankly, I think we are more likely to discover unicorns dancing in the flame duct.

Quite strong words for someone who'll be having white-knuckle time come Sunday.

[Zond]

This is turning into quite the soap opera.  I think NASA would have been glad if they found one entity to take over the pad and now they have two billionaires fighting it out and a lot of political lobbying.

[Lurker Steve]

Mr. Mark and yourself are right about a few items.   This is a hot button issue atm with Congress.  If you watched the last meeting (made me sick).   The administration wouldn't even answer the questions about it.  The phone calls are pouring into Congress about this matter so I wasn't surprised when I see SpaceX putting out the news release.
 
http://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=32898.0
Edit: add link

The Administration won't answer questions because the proposals are still being evaluated. As such they are considered confidential.

I assume that no one noticed in the Senator's comments that they support a "open, competitive process" regarding the future use of LC-39A. Apparently, that is not how the deal between NASA and SpaceX originated.

Musk is talking out of both sides of his mouth at the same time.

At one point, he says LC-39 is built for launching humans into space, but he won't be there until the 5 year lease is almost completed. Also ULA will need a human rated launch facility in the same time period as SpaceX. And they will need to support multiple partners, so they have the potential for more crewed flights in the initial 5 year period than SpaceX.

Then he mentions his manifest of 50 flights, which aren't HSF flights either.

He has already gotten plenty of surplus NASA equipment on the cheap. He shouldn't have a fit if he doesn't get his way on everything.

[Lars_J]

Frankly, I think we are more likely to discover unicorns dancing in the flame duct.

Quite strong words for someone who'll be having white-knuckle time come Sunday.

Hah, yes. Looks like someone managed to catch Elon in a candid mood.

[ChrisWilson68]

Mr. Mark and yourself are right about a few items.   This is a hot button issue atm with Congress.  If you watched the last meeting (made me sick).   The administration wouldn't even answer the questions about it.  The phone calls are pouring into Congress about this matter so I wasn't surprised when I see SpaceX putting out the news release.
 
http://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=32898.0
Edit: add link

The Administration won't answer questions because the proposals are still being evaluated. As such they are considered confidential.

I assume that no one noticed in the Senator's comments that they support a "open, competitive process" regarding the future use of LC-39A. Apparently, that is not how the deal between NASA and SpaceX originated.

What deal are you talking about?  There's no evidence I'm aware of that there was any sort of secret deal between NASA and SpaceX about 39A -- or anything else, for that matter.

NASA and SpaceX talk all the time.  NASA also talks to other companies.  The talks are private, but that doesn't mean there was a secret deal.  SpaceX could well have discussed the possibility of using LC 39A with people at NASA and requested information to help them decide if it was feasible for them to do so.  There's nothing unusual about that kind of discussion, and it's something any other company could have asked about, too.  If NASA had just given a contract to SpaceX after that, that wouldn't have been fair.  But, instead, NASA put out a request for bids.  SpaceX apparently bid thinking nobody else had competing plans.  Blue Origin is unhappy because SpaceX was talking to NASA about it before.  But there's no evidence BO couldn't have talked to NASA about it too if it had occurred to them.

Musk is talking out of both sides of his mouth at the same time.

At one point, he says LC-39 is built for launching humans into space, but he won't be there until the 5 year lease is almost completed.

It's not clear when SpaceX will actually first launch a vehicle capable of taking a crew into orbit.  SpaceX has repeatedly said they could go much faster with more funding.  With both pad abort and Max-Q tests scheduled in the next few months (and the Dragons for those tests partially built), it's reasonable to think SpaceX could believe they could launch within 2 years.

Anyway, SpaceX apparently wants the pad for some reason for the next five years.  Why would they want it if they didn't have a use for it?  It's certainly not to block anyone else during the time before they launch, since nobody else is further along than SpaceX.

Also ULA will need a human rated launch facility in the same time period as SpaceX. And they will need to support multiple partners, so they have the potential for more crewed flights in the initial 5 year period than SpaceX.

Yeah, ULA has two partners with hopes of launching crew.  From that it doesn't follow that their expected (in the probability theory sense) number of crewed flights is higher than that of SpaceX.  SpaceX has a vehicle that has gone to and from the ISS several times, which is an argument in favor of SpaceX being more likely to be able to deliver more crew in that five year period.

Then he mentions his manifest of 50 flights, which aren't HSF flights either.

Even if they're not HSF flights, they are relevant to Musk's argument because he's arguing SpaceX is likely to be able to make good use of the pad.  A brisk cargo business makes it more likely they will succeed with crew, by his argument.

He has already gotten plenty of surplus NASA equipment on the cheap. He shouldn't have a fit if he doesn't get his way on everything.

SpaceX has never gotten anything that wasn't also available to anyone else who wanted it, if those other entities had been willing to provide the same value in return to NASA.

[ChrisWilson68]

Frankly, I think we are more likely to discover unicorns dancing in the flame duct.

Quite strong words for someone who'll be having white-knuckle time come Sunday.

Hah, yes. Looks like someone managed to catch Elon in a candid mood. :)

That's part of what makes SpaceX so much fun to watch -- Elon says things that really don't help him out, which shows how much he's a true believer.