LC 39A - RFP for Commercial use

[rcoppola]

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.

There was no deal, no collusion etc...Stop making things sound so nefarious.

As for the good Senators...Their letter mentions not listening to outside influences and that NASA has the expertise to decide for itself who should use the pad. I consider this more of a push-back to various political interests we have heard over the last few weeks. Aderholt, Murray among others.

As for not "being there" until the lease is almost up. If the lease is signed in January 14, they'll be flight testing 2-3 years before the lease is up. Besides, they'll need time to design and implement pad and FSS modifications for both Heavy and Crew Launch capabilities, which they would start almost immediately after the lease is signed.

If ULA needed a human rated launch capability, then they should have put in a bid or at least signed a letter of intent with BO. They did neither. Also, their is no guarantee in the least ULA will be supporting multiple partners as you suggest, for commercial crew.  Besides, Boeing themselves stated that if it made technical and economic sense, they would use F9 and will have ongoing discussions with SpaceX for just that potentiality. It's Boeing that is offering NASA crew service not ULA and even though they are part of ULA, if F9 is cheaper and dependable and they can save/make millions more by using it, they will. Business is business.  If Boeing did decide to use a F9 at SpaceX Pad 39A, it would come with almost everything else they'd need and a hell of a lot cheaper then paying ULA to modify their structures. If anything, I think Boeing is secretly hoping SpaceX gets things moving at 39A.

Musk mentions 50 flights on their manifest to illustrate they have immediate need and will actually be using the pad in quick order beyond anything having to do with HSF. NASA wants the pad used. FL wants the pad used. It's also a comment to set up the comparison of BO having nothing thus far. Regardless,  for Musk, 39A is about having an incredible asset in place for their Crew capability. Which by the way is one of the reasons NASA "wants" them to have it. This is a done deal,  SpaceX will sign the lease in January 14, (depending on the ruling, it may get stretched out another month) The GAO has until Dec 12 to rule. It does not preclude them from doing so sooner.

I think he has every right to be a little frakked off. He's got the rockets, he's got the need for immediate use, he's going to get a crew contract. We all know the relationship between him and ULA, specifically the LM part of ULA. And they just happen to say, almost at the last minute, "Hey yeh, we support BO, but...yeh, no we can't actually commit to using it even if they get it."

So now Musk just called everybody on it.  He'll let other commercial providers use the pad. So with that off the table, it's a foregone conclusion and rightfully so. Now let's just see how many will take him up on it. But one thing is for sure, if/when they do show up, they'll be greeted with a  SpaceX sign attached to the FSS.

[padrat]

If we get Pad A it will not just be used for HSF. Expect to see different vehicles on it....

at least Spacex ones....

[ChrisWilson68]

Thanks, that's good to know!  I'm hoping SpaceX gets it, especially now that they've said they'll let others use it for their crew vehicles.

[joek]

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.

There is no "deal" as yet, whether with SpaceX or anyone else.  The AFP issued in May is part of an "open, competitive process" which leads to such a "deal".  It is also no secret that NASA has been in discussions with several parties (including SpaceX) for well over a year.

As stated in the AFP, there is statutory authority for entering such an agreement:

LC 39A is a potentially useful launch platform for commercial space launch companies that would use the pad to support launch activities while assuming financial and technical responsibility for O&M.  Such commercial use would not only preserve the pad against the deterioration that would result from nonuse, it would further support NASA in fulfilling its mandate to, “seek and encourage, to the maximum extent possible, the fullest commercial use of space.” 51 U.S.C. 20112(a)(4).  Such use is also authorized under the Commercial Space Launch Act, 51 U.S.C. 50913(a)(1), which encourages the acquisition by the private sector of launch or reentry property of the U.S. Government that is excess or otherwise not needed for public use.

However, that authority comes with conditions; NB:"maximum extent possible" and "further support NASA in fulfilling its mandate".  (E.g., Disney could conceivably put in the highest bid with the intent to turn LC-39A into a theme park, but it would run afoul of those conditions.)  Of note:

Subleasing and Assignment:
Subleases are subject to NASA’s reasonable approval.  NASA may withhold its approval subject to a determination that, in its judgment, the transferee,
...
Lacks the relevant experience to use the Premises for the designated Use;
...

Early Termination:

NASA reserves the right to terminate this lease if Tenant fails to use the Premises to prepare for and conduct launch operations.  Tenant will be deemed in compliance if it makes reasonable efforts to meet scheduled launch preparation activities in accordance with a launch operations plan to be provided by tenant as part of the lease agreement.

Going through the list of potential contenders, who fits?  AFAICT, it's down to ULA and SpaceX.  ULA declined to bid.  Space Florida would seem to be a natural, but only if they can line up an agreement with ULA or SpaceX as they have no inherent need and lack experience.

[Robotbeat]

If we get Pad A it will not just be used for HSF. Expect to see different vehicles on it....

at least Spacex ones....

Im assuming that probably also includes plans for the next-gen SpaceX vehicle, the MCT, in addition to Falcon Heavy and F9R.

[guckyfan]

If we get Pad A it will not just be used for HSF. Expect to see different vehicles on it....

at least Spacex ones....

Im assuming that probably also includes plans for the next-gen SpaceX vehicle, the MCT, in addition to Falcon Heavy and F9R.

Even with the most extended optimism MCT will not fly within that 5 year timeframe, IMO.

[padrat]

Honestly, I've heard a hundred times more info about MCT on here than at work. There's going to be so many customers to get taken care of once 1.1 gets flying that I'm not holding my breath....

At least for the near term.....

[QuantumG]

Yeah, but we knew 1.1 was called "F9er" before you did too. 

[Lar]

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.

Everyone here knows I am a huge Elon fan b o i ... but I think maybe he would be better served by "shut up and launch"... launching lots of stuff and eating the competition's lunch is the best trash talk there is.

Just my view.

[jongoff]

Launching lots of stuff and eating the competition's lunch is the best trash talk there is.

You mind if I steal that quote (with attribution)?

~Jon

[rcoppola]

If we get Pad A it will not just be used for HSF. Expect to see different vehicles on it....

at least Spacex ones....

Im assuming that probably also includes plans for the next-gen SpaceX vehicle, the MCT, in addition to Falcon Heavy and F9R.

Even with the most extended optimism MCT will not fly within that 5 year timeframe, IMO.

It doesn't have to actually "fly" within the 5 year lease. Besides, most likely the lease will be extended. It's not 5 years and your out.

[rcoppola]

If we get Pad A it will not just be used for HSF. Expect to see different vehicles on it....

at least Spacex ones....

When you get Pad A...

[Prober]

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.

There is no "deal" as yet, whether with SpaceX or anyone else.  The AFP issued in May is part of an "open, competitive process" which leads to such a "deal".  It is also no secret that NASA has been in discussions with several parties (including SpaceX) for well over a year.

As stated in the AFP, there is statutory authority for entering such an agreement:

LC 39A is a potentially useful launch platform for commercial space launch companies that would use the pad to support launch activities while assuming financial and technical responsibility for O&M.  Such commercial use would not only preserve the pad against the deterioration that would result from nonuse, it would further support NASA in fulfilling its mandate to, “seek and encourage, to the maximum extent possible, the fullest commercial use of space.” 51 U.S.C. 20112(a)(4).  Such use is also authorized under the Commercial Space Launch Act, 51 U.S.C. 50913(a)(1), which encourages the acquisition by the private sector of launch or reentry property of the U.S. Government that is excess or otherwise not needed for public use.

However, that authority comes with conditions; NB:"maximum extent possible" and "further support NASA in fulfilling its mandate".  (E.g., Disney could conceivably put in the highest bid with the intent to turn LC-39A into a theme park, but it would run afoul of those conditions.)  Of note:

Subleasing and Assignment:
Subleases are subject to NASA’s reasonable approval.  NASA may withhold its approval subject to a determination that, in its judgment, the transferee,
...
Lacks the relevant experience to use the Premises for the designated Use;
...

Early Termination:

NASA reserves the right to terminate this lease if Tenant fails to use the Premises to prepare for and conduct launch operations.  Tenant will be deemed in compliance if it makes reasonable efforts to meet scheduled launch preparation activities in accordance with a launch operations plan to be provided by tenant as part of the lease agreement.

Going through the list of potential contenders, who fits?  AFAICT, it's down to ULA and SpaceX.  ULA declined to bid.  Space Florida would seem to be a natural, but only if they can line up an agreement with ULA or SpaceX as they have no inherent need and lack experience.

Thought I caught something with Congress.  It was the costing of $1.2 Million to keep up the Pad.  Some quick thoughts:
 "Disney could conceivably put in the highest bid with the intent to turn LC-39A into a theme park, but it would run afoul of those conditions.)  "    I've been thinking along these lines for some time.  Go up and read about my shrink wrapping to preserve the site until needed.     For historical reasons the site would be excellent for tourists and sure they would pay for a close up inspection.
2nd Any company that takes over this site would need to "preserve" it as it will take years before any are truly ready to use it.   We have seen from experience that most of the .net timelines are not even close. 
My worry is with out a major watchdog on the project, a company will take control and let the site rot.  Then come back and say it needs to be trashed.

[JBF]

Thought I caught something with Congress.  It was the costing of $1.2 Million to keep up the Pad.  Some quick thoughts:
 "Disney could conceivably put in the highest bid with the intent to turn LC-39A into a theme park, but it would run afoul of those conditions.)  "    I've been thinking along these lines for some time.  Go up and read about my shrink wrapping to preserve the site until needed.     For historical reasons the site would be excellent for tourists and sure they would pay for a close up inspection.
2nd Any company that takes over this site would need to "preserve" it as it will take years before any are truly ready to use it.   We have seen from experience that most of the .net timelines are not even close. 
My worry is with out a major watchdog on the project, a company will take control and let the site rot.  Then come back and say it needs to be trashed.

Prober why this instance on historical preservation of an industrial site?  We already have tons of relics from the Apollo program scattered throughout the country.   Preservation for future use makes sense and the lease covers that.

[Barrie]

It seems to me that if you allow for its use for some unmanned F9 flights to prove the pad mods, SpaceX are in a position to make first use, and then more frequent use than any other player.  I see no constructive argument for them not to have unfettered access to the pad.

I used to think it was a friendly rivalry between Musk and Bezos, but now it seems more like real animosity.  It's shaping up like Bezos is Justin Hammer to Musk's Tony Stark.

[rcoppola]

Thought I caught something with Congress.  It was the costing of $1.2 Million to keep up the Pad.  Some quick thoughts:
 "Disney could conceivably put in the highest bid with the intent to turn LC-39A into a theme park, but it would run afoul of those conditions.)  "    I've been thinking along these lines for some time.  Go up and read about my shrink wrapping to preserve the site until needed.     For historical reasons the site would be excellent for tourists and sure they would pay for a close up inspection.
2nd Any company that takes over this site would need to "preserve" it as it will take years before any are truly ready to use it.   We have seen from experience that most of the .net timelines are not even close. 
My worry is with out a major watchdog on the project, a company will take control and let the site rot.  Then come back and say it needs to be trashed.

Prober why this instance on historical preservation of an industrial site?  We already have tons of relics from the Apollo program scattered throughout the country.   Preservation for future use makes sense and the lease covers that.

Agreed. It's called LC for a reason. It's meant to launch things. The Pad is irrelevant. The payload is the goal. The Pad simply facilitates the launching of the payload. And as such, should be modified to whatever extent needed to accommodate the launcher. As it was when we moved from Apollo to Shuttle. I don't want any money or time expended by either NASA or SpaceX to preserve anything not needed to launch Falcons/Dragons and the payloads within, whether they be human or machine.

I respect the idea of preserving heritage. We have monuments, museums and protected lands scattered throughout the country in service to that nobel goal. But this concrete and steel laden piece of land has many years of service left. And it has but one purpose to fulfill in those years...to facilitate the launching of payloads into space. 

[Prober]

Thought I caught something with Congress.  It was the costing of $1.2 Million to keep up the Pad.  Some quick thoughts:
 "Disney could conceivably put in the highest bid with the intent to turn LC-39A into a theme park, but it would run afoul of those conditions.)  "    I've been thinking along these lines for some time.  Go up and read about my shrink wrapping to preserve the site until needed.     For historical reasons the site would be excellent for tourists and sure they would pay for a close up inspection.
2nd Any company that takes over this site would need to "preserve" it as it will take years before any are truly ready to use it.   We have seen from experience that most of the .net timelines are not even close. 
My worry is with out a major watchdog on the project, a company will take control and let the site rot.  Then come back and say it needs to be trashed.

Prober why this instance on historical preservation of an industrial site?  We already have tons of relics from the Apollo program scattered throughout the country.   Preservation for future use makes sense and the lease covers that.

Agreed. It's called LC for a reason. It's meant to launch things. The Pad is irrelevant. The payload is the goal. The Pad simply facilitates the launcher of the payload. And as such, should be modified to whatever extent needed to accommodate the launcher. As it was when we moved from Apollo to Shuttle. I don't want any money or time expended by either NASA or SpaceX to preserve anything not needed to launch Falcons/Dragons and the payloads within, whether they be human or machine.

I respect the idea of preserving heritage. We have monuments, museums and protected lands scattered throughout the country in service to that nobel goal. But this concrete and steel laden piece of land has many years of service left. And it has but one purpose to fulfill in those years...to facilitate the launching of payloads into space.

Make the claim on FH; when 3 FH's have flown successfully out of VAFB.
Until then no need for the FH cape launch site.

[butters]

So the other SpaceX vehicle (besides F9/DragonRider) destined for LC-39A would be FH.

Could they also launch unmanned F9s from LC-39A? Sure. But they can do that (and only that) from LC-40. They'll want to keep LC-39A available for DragonRider and heavy payloads to the extent that LC-40 can keep up with the manifest for Dragon cargo and medium payloads.

And now we wonder how this all impacts the Boca Chica situation...

[rcoppola]

Thought I caught something with Congress.  It was the costing of $1.2 Million to keep up the Pad.  Some quick thoughts:
 "Disney could conceivably put in the highest bid with the intent to turn LC-39A into a theme park, but it would run afoul of those conditions.)  "    I've been thinking along these lines for some time.  Go up and read about my shrink wrapping to preserve the site until needed.     For historical reasons the site would be excellent for tourists and sure they would pay for a close up inspection.
2nd Any company that takes over this site would need to "preserve" it as it will take years before any are truly ready to use it.   We have seen from experience that most of the .net timelines are not even close. 
My worry is with out a major watchdog on the project, a company will take control and let the site rot.  Then come back and say it needs to be trashed.

Prober why this instance on historical preservation of an industrial site?  We already have tons of relics from the Apollo program scattered throughout the country.   Preservation for future use makes sense and the lease covers that.

Agreed. It's called LC for a reason. It's meant to launch things. The Pad is irrelevant. The payload is the goal. The Pad simply facilitates the launcher of the payload. And as such, should be modified to whatever extent needed to accommodate the launcher. As it was when we moved from Apollo to Shuttle. I don't want any money or time expended by either NASA or SpaceX to preserve anything not needed to launch Falcons/Dragons and the payloads within, whether they be human or machine.

I respect the idea of preserving heritage. We have monuments, museums and protected lands scattered throughout the country in service to that nobel goal. But this concrete and steel laden piece of land has many years of service left. And it has but one purpose to fulfill in those years...to facilitate the launching of payloads into space.

Make the claim on FH; when 3 FH's have flown successfully out of VAFB.
Until then no need for the FH cape launch site.

I'm not sure I follow. I'm not really making a claim. I was simply stating that a lunch pad exists to, well, launch things. And that SpaceX or anyone else should be allowed to modify the pad in any way to facilitate that. I was responding to the preservation comments. But speaking of FH, isn't it dependent  upon what the payload is and its' designated orbit as to whether it would be best launched on the east or west coast? I know they need 3 launches to qualify for certain EELV contracts, but those contracts are likely not the only source of need for FH. Besides, it's the capability to launch crew from Pad 39A is what they are truly after. That makes for one hell of a nice buttoned up, completely integrated crew launch proposal.

[rcoppola]

So the other SpaceX vehicle (besides F9/DragonRider) destined for LC-39A would be FH.

Could they also launch unmanned F9s from LC-39A? Sure. But they can do that (and only that) from LC-40. They'll want to keep LC-39A available for DragonRider and heavy payloads to the extent that LC-40 can keep up with the manifest for Dragon cargo and medium payloads.

And now we wonder how this all impacts the Boca Chica situation...

Yeh, I've been thinking the same thing with regards to Boca Chica. I suppose if they really get going with V1.1 and the launch contracts come rolling in, they'd still want a range they can completely control within the new beach closure laws that is. But LC 39A will take a while to modify and Boca Chica will also take time to build from scratch, so much of this is future proofing.