Author Topic: LC 39A - RFP for Commercial use (Read 131297 times)

joek · « **Reply #160 on:** 09/27/2013 02:49 am »

Quote from: MrTim on 09/26/2013 10:46 pm

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.

Nope. If providers want a clean pad, LC-39B is being constructed as such, has been advertized as such, and NASA has stated with some frequency that they would love to hear from anyone interested. The silence has been deafening. Suggesting that 39A should therefore be turned into a copy of 39B is premature at best, and reckless at worst.

Quote from: Robotbeat on 09/26/2013 10:50 pm

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.

Agree, although I would rephrase that as "multi-user". And yeah, the locals appear to have told Wolf, Aderholt, et. al. to butt out, including the entire (bipartisan) Florida Congressional delegation, as well as Space Florida.

Space Florida's response is particularly interesting, as they appear to have some experience trying to make a commercial multi-tenant launch site work. They have LC-36 and LC-46 for which they've been trying to find customers. So far they appear to have little traction.

cosmicvoid · « **Reply #161 on:** 09/27/2013 06:37 am »

Saw this news article:

http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2013-09-27/billionaires-battle-as-bezos-musk-companies-vie-for-launch-pad.html

QuantumG · « **Reply #162 on:** 09/27/2013 08:24 am »

Funny to see the whole "Blue Origin is bidding on behalf of ULA" rumor has become fact over at SpaceX.

Robotbeat · « **Reply #163 on:** 09/27/2013 08:40 am »

Blue Origin's commercial crew work assumes it will use an ULA rocket (Atlas V). Blue Origin is probably not within 5 years of fielding their own orbital rocket, so if Blue Origin was bidding on the pad, they were doing it to use an ULA rocket.

QuantumG · « **Reply #164 on:** 09/27/2013 08:52 am »

That's pretty far from what Elon said

Lurker Steve · « **Reply #165 on:** 09/27/2013 01:34 pm »

Quote from: Robotbeat on 09/26/2013 10:50 pm

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.

The question is why isn't it viable ?

Is it because the MLP concept is too expensive or too costly to adapt to current launch vehicles, or purely that the operators don't want to share space and facilities with the competition ? Or maybe that they don't want NASA oversight into each and every thing they do.

jongoff · « **Reply #166 on:** 09/27/2013 02:00 pm »

My guess is that because rockets use fairly different launch interfaces, it will drive up costs. This isn't like an airport, where everyone pretty much needs the same grade of Kerosene and a nice long runway. BO's vehicle uses LOX/LH2, SpaceX's uses LOX/Kero (with the theoretical potential to shift to LOX/Methane down the road), ULA uses LOX/Kero and LOX/LH2. I wouldn't be surprised if they have wildly different locations for propellant and pressurant interconnects, totally different electrical interfaces, etc. There are ways to accommodate all of those things, but they drive up cost. I'd be annoyed too if I were in Elon's shoes--if the other guys aren't likely to have anything ready within 5yrs, having to build in their costs from the start when you can't charge them for it yet is a pretty raw deal.

That said, a lot of the Congressional opposition (from the usual members of the Elon anti-fan-club such as Aderholt, Wolf, etc) is partially Elon's fault for shooting his mouth off in the past. The only good news from this food fight is that maybe more members in Congress now know there are more commercial launch companies out there than SpaceX.

~Jon

Barrie · « **Reply #167 on:** 09/27/2013 02:25 pm »

Maybe SpaceX could play their Boca Chica card, by arguing that they expect to be able to vacate 39A after the 5 year lease, releasing it to the open market again for the benefit of other promising startups (Amazon Galactic, or whatever)

butters · « **Reply #168 on:** 09/27/2013 03:44 pm »

The only way that KSC can become a multi-user commercial spaceport is if SpaceX gets one of the pads and ULA gets the other. Unless the third pad is built, SLS precludes that outcome.

I don't think it was ever reasonable for multiple launch providers to share a pad, no matter how many times they repeated the phrase "clean pad". It's even harder to believe that anybody ever actually thought that SpaceX or ULA would use a "clean pad" based on MLPs and crawler-transporters, even if they didn't have to share.

SpaceX will get the pad, and nobody will take them up on their offer to share. If Congress and/or NASA wants there to be multiple commercial users, then they'll have to vacate LC-39B or build LC-39C.

joek · « **Reply #169 on:** 09/28/2013 04:09 am »

Quote from: Lurker Steve on 09/27/2013 01:34 pm

The question is why isn't it viable ?

Is it because the MLP concept is too expensive or too costly to adapt to current launch vehicles, or purely that the operators don't want to share space and facilities with the competition ? Or maybe that they don't want NASA oversight into each and every thing they do.

Jon Goff nicely covered the technical aspects (thanks), so I'll attempt to address the other aspects; at the risk of oversimplifying...

There are launch site operators (LSO) and there are those with launch licenses. An LSO is licensed to operate a launch site at location X for period Z, not actually launch anything. A launch license is required to launch something. That launch license may be on a per-launch basis, or a more general license to launch vehicle X from site Y for period Z.

As the AFP states, NASA specifically does *not* want to be the LSO for 39A or have "oversight into each and every thing they [the users] do". NASA wants to turn 39A over to an entity which will perform those functions as an FAA licensed LSO. What that means in practice boils down to three basic options:

1. LSO as a party who does not perform launches, but is licensed to operate a launch site. The LSO is responsible for (among other things) ensuring safety requirements are met (as stipulated by the FAA) and coordinating launch activities at the site. (In this case coordination with the Eastern range would also be required.) E.g., Space Florida is the LSO for CCAFS LC-36 and LC-46; East Kern Airport District is LSO for Mojave; ...* Also note the LSO has some inherent risk and liability for operations at their site.

2. LSO as a party who performs launches and also makes the launch site available to other users. E.g., SpaceX or Blue Origin is the LSO for 39A, who are also (or may eventually be) launch licensees and perform launches. This situation is where you might have a conflict of interest if the LSO is also performing launches along with competitors. Is the LSO likely to be a neutral broker? As the LSO (holding the license), what recourse would a competior have? There are no past or current examples of this situation.

3. LSO as "sole user". That is, they are licensed LSO but only for their specific launch vehicles (which still require a launch license). There are no past or current examples of this situation, except possibly Blue Origin's Corn Ranch site (licensed for suborbital only). Although described in some documents as a sole user site, the FAA does not list it. Presumably if SpaceX goes ahead with Boca Chica, it would fall into this category.

* NB: All of those LSO's are for suborbital except Space Florida at LC-36 and LC-46, which has had some interest, but not yet signed tenants.

joek · « **Reply #170 on:** 09/28/2013 04:13 am »

Quote from: Barrie on 09/27/2013 02:25 pm

Maybe SpaceX could play their Boca Chica card, by arguing that they expect to be able to vacate 39A after the 5 year lease, releasing it to the open market again for the benefit of other promising startups (Amazon Galactic, or whatever)

The term of the 39A lease proposed by SpaceX is unclear. Some reports put it at 5 years, others at 15 years (5 years seems very short). Also, 39A and (maybe) Shiloh are more likely competitors with Boca Chica. If SpaceX plays that card--and undoubtedly it is already in play)--it's more likely to add pressure, not relieve it. Which might explain Florida's request to Wolf et. al. to butt out.

MP99 · « **Reply #171 on:** 09/28/2013 08:30 am »

@joek,

Thanks for that explanation.

Cheers, Martin

friendly3 · « **Reply #172 on:** 09/28/2013 11:59 pm »

I love SpaceX and I hope they'll get 39A but I couldn't help it :

Sesquipedalian · « **Reply #173 on:** 09/29/2013 02:37 am »

LOL!

king1999 · « **Reply #174 on:** 09/29/2013 03:09 am »

LOL2:))

Ben the Space Brit · « **Reply #175 on:** 09/29/2013 07:59 pm »

At the post-CASSIOPE presser, Musk said that he wants to use LC-39A for all NASA F9 launches, cargo and crew, with SLC-40 and the presumptive Texas pad for other customers.

THREE East-coast pads? Their backlog must we worse than I thought!

Robotbeat · « **Reply #176 on:** 09/29/2013 09:49 pm »

Quote from: Ben the Space Brit on 09/29/2013 07:59 pm

At the post-CASSIOPE presser, Musk said that he wants to use LC-39A for all NASA F9 launches, cargo and crew, with SLC-40 and the presumptive Texas pad for other customers.

THREE East-coast pads? Their backlog must we worse than I thought!

They want/need to capture a huge portion (most?) of the commercial launch market (and a big chunk/most of NASA's EELV-class launches plus some DoD) to finance their rather ambitious low launch costs. They're going to have to scale up. And if partial reuse allows them to hold the prices as low as they are now or even slightly lower, then they have a chance of doing so. IF they can get their launch rate up....

Lobo · « **Reply #177 on:** 09/30/2013 04:23 pm »

Quote from: MrTim on 09/26/2013 10:46 pm

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.

Although I am no fan of how the President has proceeded with NASA after cancelling CxP. (i.e., letting STS retire as planned as well rather than than extending it until there was another LV launching Orion...and not replacing CxP with some better actual plan), I don't think SpaceX taking over 39A will make anything impossible. Remember, SLS will only need about 2 weeks on the pad, not several like STS. If there are two SLS ML's, and accomodations in the VAB to stack two SLS's at the same time, then a dual SLS launch off of pad 39B is certainly doable with only a 2-3 week loiter time fo the first payload.
A Three SLS mission might require two pads to launch the elements without too much loiter, but the only mission that might need more than 2 SLS launches launching quickly is a Mars mission, and that's decades away, if it ever happens. In which case, NASA could decide to no renew SpaceX's lease of 39A and then conver it to a clean pad for their use. Won't cost any more then than it would today, and it can get other actual use between now and when potentially NASA might need it.

JBF · « **Reply #178 on:** 09/30/2013 04:46 pm »

Quote from: Lobo on 09/30/2013 04:23 pm

Although I am no fan of how the President has proceeded with NASA after cancelling CxP. (i.e., letting STS retire as planned as well rather than than extending it until there was another LV launching Orion...and not replacing CxP with some better actual plan),

Lobo this has been discussed before there is no way NASA could have continued to launch the shuttle without having to rebuild tooling. By the time President Obama entered office there was not much left on the manufacturing side.

Lobo · « **Reply #179 on:** 09/30/2013 04:52 pm »

Quote from: Lurker Steve on 09/27/2013 01:34 pm

Quote from: Robotbeat on 09/26/2013 10:50 pm
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.

The question is why isn't it viable ?

Is it because the MLP concept is too expensive or too costly to adapt to current launch vehicles, or purely that the operators don't want to share space and facilities with the competition ? Or maybe that they don't want NASA oversight into each and every thing they do.

don't know that' it's so much the MLP concept is too expensive into itself. Atlas seems to work find on LC-41 using it. But, it uses a heavy duty rail system with locomotives that push it out and back in. So roll out and roll back can happen pretty quickly/easily. Having the CT roll a MLP all the way back to the VAB if there is some payload or LV issue is pretty slow and combersome compared to LC-41.

But LC-41 is all level. There's no ramp like 39A. You can't really do a rail system like LC-41. Only the CT can take a MLP up the ramp and keep it level. So if they don't want to subject themselves to VAB and CT operations, integrating right at the pad like LC-37 is really probably the only other way to go. And like LC-37, that equipment will be set up specifically for the LV's that it's intended to launch. LC-41 could probably be modified for other LV's of a similar size to Atlas V relatively easily if there were room to construct VIF's for those other LV's which have rails that tie into the existing ones to the pad. But LC-37 could not, I'm pretty sure. And I imagine a SpaceX setup on 39A will look like LC-37 as there's no way to make it like LC-41.

I'm guess that's probably why it might not have been seriously considered as a multi user commmercial space port. Where something like an expanded LC-41 could be. With a series of VIB's in a row, each with tracks that tie into the main tracks that go to the pad. See the picture below, and then imagine line of VIB's behind it, each operated by a different commerical operator. ULA, SpaceX, Oribital, Blue Origin, etc.
Although there would mostly likely need to be an overal LC control authority to manage who gets access to the pad and when to coodinate schedules fairly.