LC 39A - RFP for Commercial use

[Lurker Steve]

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.

SpaceX could make mods to the pad that would make it unsuitable, or at least too costly for use by non-SpaceX vehicles. For instance, I doubt any other company would modify their launcher to be compatible with their new TEL design.

Iron Man does not hang out with Justin Bieber.

[Lars_J]

I would think that a lease of 39A would put Boca Chica on hold, for now. Until flight rates significantly improve, only one west coast FH pad is needed. But that is only my speculation.

[Barrie]

SpaceX could make mods to the pad that would make it unsuitable, or at least too costly for use by non-SpaceX vehicles.

If it was unnecessary and willful, doing that would make them look bad.

You are right  - a more likely companion for Justin Beiber would be Pee Wee Herman.

Re: Boca Chica - I assumed Boca Chica is part of a long game for a new, larger rocket that needs to be manufactured and launched in the same place.

[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.

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.

SpaceX is a commercial interest and should not be favored over the "national" interest with regards Pad 39A.   Its not a pile of junk there, its millions of taxpayers investment.
Further the SLS pad is not completed and I would not be the one to lease out another "national" pad until the SLS pad is completed.

[Lars_J]

SpaceX is a commercial interest and should not be favored over the "national" interest with regards Pad 39A.   Its not a pile of junk there, its millions of taxpayers investment.

... which costs millions to maintain, millions which NASA can ill afford to spend. It is an empty launch pad in a useful location with some existing infrastructure - not a religious monument.

Besides, how is 39A any more "national" than the pads at CCAFS, next door?

[Robotbeat]

This whole idea that historical preservation is more important than actually fulfilling the hopes and promises of Apollo is completely beyond me. Space exploration and utilization is far more important than some misplaced nostalgia.

And it's a FAR greater tribute to Apollo to actually, you know, launch stuff into space.

I'm starting to think that Elon is actually right. Some people really would oppose this use out of a desire to spite SpaceX.

[rcoppola]

SpaceX is a commercial interest and should not be favored over the "national" interest with regards Pad 39A.   Its not a pile of junk there, its millions of taxpayers investment.

... which costs millions to maintain, millions which NASA can ill afford to spend. It is an empty launch pad in a useful location with some existing infrastructure - not a religious monument.

Besides, how is 39A any more "national" than the pads at CCAFS, next door?

Absolutely agree Lars_J.

The national interest is to have millions of dollars of usable hardware actually used as opposed to rotting away.
Our national interest is to have a private concern actually  "Pay" to use what we are currently paying not to use.
Our national interest is to have a commercial customer utilize said infrastructure to help grow their business, get more launches, create more jobs, hire more people who pay more taxes to invest in future infrastructure to....you get the idea.

[Lurker Steve]

This whole idea that historical preservation is more important than actually fulfilling the hopes and promises of Apollo is completely beyond me. Space exploration and utilization is far more important than some misplaced nostalgia.

And it's a FAR greater tribute to Apollo to actually, you know, launch stuff into space.

I'm starting to think that Elon is actually right. Some people really would oppose this use out of a desire to spite SpaceX.

If you want to launch from pad 39A, then it's simple.

NASA retains ownership and performs the maintenance.

Set the launch fees just high enough to cover the costs of operation and maintenance of the structures.

Actually both pads (A and B) should be identical, so that if one pad is busy with one commercial launcher or SLS, then other can be used.

Or, are you going to say that other launch companies would rather launch from a pad run by Space X rather than NASA ?

[Robotbeat]

Of course NASA maintains ownership, that's why it's called a lease.

I don't know why you think NASA should be doing the maintenance. Doesn't make any sense.

[Ronsmytheiii]

This whole idea that historical preservation is more important than actually fulfilling the hopes and promises of Apollo is completely beyond me. Space exploration and utilization is far more important than some misplaced nostalgia.

And it's a FAR greater tribute to Apollo to actually, you know, launch stuff into space.

I'm starting to think that Elon is actually right. Some people really would oppose this use out of a desire to spite SpaceX.

I agree with your statement up until the last point.  Blue Origin might not be in a position to actually use the pad now, but if the original SpaceX proposal for exclusive use went through then Blue Origin would be locked out of an existing pad for the foreseeable future, which would be an enormous handicap compared to SpaceX. Now that SpaceX has indicated that they might allow other users for the pad, it might not be so pressing for Blue Origin, but they still need a foot in the door even if they arent ready right now.

[rcoppola]

This whole idea that historical preservation is more important than actually fulfilling the hopes and promises of Apollo is completely beyond me. Space exploration and utilization is far more important than some misplaced nostalgia.

And it's a FAR greater tribute to Apollo to actually, you know, launch stuff into space.

I'm starting to think that Elon is actually right. Some people really would oppose this use out of a desire to spite SpaceX.

If you want to launch from pad 39A, then it's simple.

NASA retains ownership and performs the maintenance.

Set the launch fees just high enough to cover the costs of operation and maintenance of the structures.

Actually both pads (A and B) should be identical, so that if one pad is busy with one commercial launcher or SLS, then other can be used.

Or, are you going to say that other launch companies would rather launch from a pad run by Space X rather than NASA ?

You're missing the point. NASA does not want to maintain the Pad, manage the pad or any such thing. They want to lease it and get it off their hands. They do not want to manage a commercial pad and shouldn't want to.

And why and/or how would both pads be identical when you will have different rockets with different infrastructure needs. 39B can be a "clean" pad because SLS will have the Crawler and MLT. SpaceX will not and should not have  such items for FH or crewed flights at 39A. All these commercial rockets that will supposedly clammer to use these pads use different engines, connectors, fuels, are different length, widths, get to the pads on uniquely designed transporters, etc etc..

Maybe I'm out on a limb here so anyone please correct me but exactly where is this multi-use pad people seem so sure will work? Every pad I know of is specifically designed for it's launcher.  I keep hearing all about this multi-use concept. Sounds great in theory but where is it in practice?

Multi-use is better aligned with a Spaceport concept that has areas for each launcher to build the pad they need.
I mean isn't that what KSC/CCAFS are?  Large spaceports with many different rockets, each with their own pad? I mean what's with this whole, "We need everyone to be able to utilize one pad." concept? Why?

And yes, NASA owns the land. It's a lease, not a sale. 

[rcoppola]

This whole idea that historical preservation is more important than actually fulfilling the hopes and promises of Apollo is completely beyond me. Space exploration and utilization is far more important than some misplaced nostalgia.

And it's a FAR greater tribute to Apollo to actually, you know, launch stuff into space.

I'm starting to think that Elon is actually right. Some people really would oppose this use out of a desire to spite SpaceX.

I agree with your statement up until the last point.  Blue Origin might not be in a position to actually use the pad now, but if the original SpaceX proposal for exclusive use went through then Blue Origin would be locked out of an existing pad for the foreseeable future, which would be an enormous handicap compared to SpaceX. Now that SpaceX has indicated that they might allow other users for the pad, it might not be so pressing for Blue Origin, but they still need a foot in the door even if they arent ready right now.

Honest question:
Why do they need a foot in the door at 39A? Are there no other pads available for them to use when/if they need to?

[Robotbeat]

This whole idea that historical preservation is more important than actually fulfilling the hopes and promises of Apollo is completely beyond me. Space exploration and utilization is far more important than some misplaced nostalgia.

And it's a FAR greater tribute to Apollo to actually, you know, launch stuff into space.

I'm starting to think that Elon is actually right. Some people really would oppose this use out of a desire to spite SpaceX.

I agree with your statement up until the last point.  Blue Origin might not be in a position to actually use the pad now, but if the original SpaceX proposal for exclusive use went through then Blue Origin would be locked out of an existing pad for the foreseeable future, which would be an enormous handicap compared to SpaceX. Now that SpaceX has indicated that they might allow other users for the pad, it might not be so pressing for Blue Origin, but they still need a foot in the door even if they arent ready right now.

I wasn't talking about Blue Origin, but about people here who think that it should be turned into a museum (i.e. costing a bunch of money) instead of actually launching stuff (i.e. making money).

[Ronsmytheiii]

Honest question:
Why do they need a foot in the door at 39A? Are there no other pads available for them to use when/if they need to?

From earlier in the thread:

The old pads are gone, and so, obviously, are Saturn and Shuttle.  SLC 17 is going to be demolished and safety rules prevent anything new there.  SLC 36 is a field of grass.  The old ICBM Row is largely a toxic cleanup site.  The only pads left are SLC 46 (ex Trident/Athena) and the lineup from SLC 37 on the south to SLC 39B on the north (37, 40, 41, 39A, 39B).

LC-46 sounds like it's available for reactivation.

It has users planned in the future

[rcoppola]

Honest question:
Why do they need a foot in the door at 39A? Are there no other pads available for them to use when/if they need to?

From earlier in the thread:

The old pads are gone, and so, obviously, are Saturn and Shuttle.  SLC 17 is going to be demolished and safety rules prevent anything new there.  SLC 36 is a field of grass.  The old ICBM Row is largely a toxic cleanup site.  The only pads left are SLC 46 (ex Trident/Athena) and the lineup from SLC 37 on the south to SLC 39B on the north (37, 40, 41, 39A, 39B).

LC-46 sounds like it's available for reactivation.

It has users planned in the future

Thank you.
So there are other opportunities. I mean, all these pads were once fields of grass / swamp etc.
To some extent or another, any pad will need to be modified. So if BO, as they have stated, are ready to put in a substantial amount of capital to build and run a pad for multiple operators, a clean parcel of lawn would seem like an ideal way to go.

[MrTim]

{snip}I'm starting to think that Elon is actually right. Some people really would oppose this use out of a desire to spite SpaceX.

Not me. I oppose the idea for the same reason I oppose several other Obama administration activities - because it's a clear case of bait-and-switch.

The current administration trashed the Constellation program and proclaimed that it was ushering-in a bold new era of commercial spaceflight in which KSC would be evolved into a 21st-century multi-user commercial spaceport. That's fine, I had my own issues with Cx, and given the right plan, there are good arguments for "commercial". We were shown nice computer graphics of the new multi-user LC-39 "clean" pads while "flexible path" exploration powerpoints were circulated.

It turns out, however, that nothing of the sort appear to be actually happening.

If pads 39A and 39B were identical and had all the infrastructure to support LOX, LH2, RP, etc and each user simply had his own custom MLP then we'd be looking at something akin to what was advertized. By unloading Pad39A to "commercial" and then letting a contract for only one user to use it, however, the Obama team plans to make moon and mars SLS missions impossible (if the pads are not identical and available for SLS, then multiple-SLS missions beyond LEO are not realistically going to happen) while shifting control of yet another unique government asset to another campaign contributor. This is not a forward-looking national space policy, it's a Chicago-style political tactic, and it stinks.

[Robotbeat]

The multi-user "clean pad" approach wasn't really viable. From what I can tell, it wasn't supported by the administration or really anyone who wasn't locally involved.

[rcoppola]

{snip}I'm starting to think that Elon is actually right. Some people really would oppose this use out of a desire to spite SpaceX.

Not me. I oppose the idea for the same reason I oppose several other Obama administration activities - because it's a clear case of bait-and-switch.

The current administration trashed the Constellation program and proclaimed that it was ushering-in a bold new era of commercial spaceflight in which KSC would be evolved into a 21st-century multi-user commercial spaceport. That's fine, I had my own issues with Cx, and given the right plan, there are good arguments for "commercial". We were shown nice computer graphics of the new multi-user LC-39 "clean" pads while "flexible path" exploration powerpoints were circulated.

It turns out, however, that nothing of the sort appear to be actually happening.

If pads 39A and 39B were identical and had all the infrastructure to support LOX, LH2, RP, etc and each user simply had his own custom MLP then we'd be looking at something akin to what was advertized. By unloading Pad39A to "commercial" and then letting a contract for only one user to use it, however, the Obama team plans to make moon and mars SLS missions impossible (if the pads are not identical and available for SLS, then multiple-SLS missions beyond LEO are not realistically going to happen) while shifting control of yet another unique government asset to another campaign contributor. This is not a forward-looking national space policy, it's a Chicago-style political tactic, and it stinks.

I have my issues with the administration too, but where would the funds come from to do this? NASA doesn't even want to (can afford to) maintain Pad39A let alone spend the money to turn it into an identical clean pad. Besides, they only built one MLT and refurbished one Crawler. So what's the point of having 2 SLS pads, with only one way to get the SLS there.

[Jim]

while shifting control of yet another unique government asset to another campaign contributor.

And this post is Rush style BS with no basis in truth.

[Jim]

then multiple-SLS missions beyond LEO are not realistically going to happen

Good, they shouldn't be happening.  There is no need for it.