LC 39A - RFP for Commercial use

[Lobo]

Saw this news article:

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

Man, sounds like a big headache.  Might be better for SpaceX to seek a different LC or go ahead and do the necessary modificatiosn to LC-40 to allow it to launch crews and FH.
Too bad, would LOVE to see 39A launching rocket regularly.

[Jim]

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.

Spaceport Authority.  They can do it like an airport.

[Lobo]

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.

Hmmm...I understood that was not the case, and it could have been extended by at least a few flights.  And the current manifest of launches at that time (Feb 2010 was when CxP's cancellation was announced).  STS-130 was launched in Feb 2010.  Four more launches on the manifest and then 135 was added.  ET-94 could have been flown with a reduced payload as mainly a crew rotation and resupply mission, and there were three other tanks in various stages of construction when manufacturing was stopped.  ET-139, 140, and 141, with 139 being almost completed.  IF you just finished those, and then cut back launch operations after STS-130 to one launch every 6 months to finish the ISS payloads and then do resupply and crew rotation services that gives you 9 more flights.  At two a year, that's gets you your last STS launch in say August 2014.  So the next US crew launch would be needed in Feb 2015.
Instead of the general and vague plan the President put forth, if he put forth a plan to replace Ares 1 with a short fueled Orion flying to the ISS on a heavy configuration of an EELV (Atlas 5-552 or D4H) by February 2015 (the plan at that time had been for Ares 1 and Orion flying by 2015).  There would have been good optics for the President to talk about using existing US LV's rather than creating a new LV that would duplicate their capability, and the need to get it done by the last possibile Shuttle launch so that we wouldn't need to be reliant on the Russians.  And during this time (Feb 2010-Feb 2015) the details of an Ares V replacement would put in place and be ready for development after Orion was alunching on EELV...which could be AJAX, Direct, or evolved EELV.

So I'm not sure what "tooling" you are talking about.  To maintain STS indefinately I believe you are right.   But those tanks were already under consctruction so I'm pretty sure they could have been completed with existing tooling.  I thought of the remaining 3 orbiters, one of them would have needed an overhaul to fly  any more, another could have flown a couple of more times before overhaul, and the other had more flights than that (it had most recently been overhauled).  But I can't remember which was which.  Retire the one that needed the overhaul, and fly out the other two.  A flight every 6 months was enough time for one to do a mission, land, and be reprocessed and launch again if need be.  So they really only needed to be flying one Oribiter with the other on hand in reserve.
Maybe I'm misunderstanding that?
And I would think the SRB sets that flew on the last few missions could have been refurbished and refueled and reused for those extra 4 missions. 
And obivously there are 15 existing RS-25D's that could have been refurbished and reused for those 4 extra flights.

That's what I mean about extending STS.  Just temporarily within it's possibily to be exteneded until we had Orion flying on an EELV, to reduce the gap.  A D4H or AV-552 should have probably been available in a man-rated configuration in about 3 years if NASA wanted it( Or at least that's the number I've heard thrown around), and for probably just a small part of what would have been needed to get ARes 1 to fly. 
I believe it was reasonably possible to have gotten those extra flights out of it before any major investment was needed.  If I understand it correctly anyway.

Edit:  This NSF article seems to indicate the 3 tanks in construction could have been finished and flown.  And the Russian Soyuz could have been used for emergency rescue on the very last flight.  In this article, that would have been STS-136.  But I'm talking about STS-136, 137, 138 and 139and then Soyuz being the LON back up for STS-139...as that -would- litterally fly out the very last tank.

http://www.nasaspaceflight.com/2010/07/nasa-refine-launch-dates-deadline-for-sts-135/

[Lobo]

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.

Spaceport Authority.  They can do it like an airport.

Ahh, gotcha.

I am correct about LC-41's layout being capable of such a shared expansion?  The pad itself I'm sure would need some mods, but if each user designed/modifies their LV to interface with a standard Atlas V type mobile launcher with UT, it sure seems like it coule work.  Especially since the Atlas VIB is just off to the side of the amin rail set to the pad.  Looks like you could put a SpaceX VIB behind it, an Orbital one behind that, and and BO one behind that. (hypothetically)

And obivously each LV would have to be within a certain parameter of width and thrust power, similar to EELV.  As Antares and Falcon would be.  (I don't know what BO's LV's would look like).   You couldn't put too big of an LV on a pad only build to handle X amount of thrust and weight.

[Lurker Steve]

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.

Spaceport Authority.  They can do it like an airport.

That's why I thought a company like United Space Alliance, or whatever is left, would have been a decent option.
They were familiar with the pad, and are independent of any current launcher.

[pathfinder_01]

That's why I thought a company like United Space Alliance, or whatever is left, would have been a decent option.
They were familiar with the pad, and are independent of any current launcher.

Who ever gets the pad, the pad is going to have to be greatly modified. USA has been disolved and unless 39C and 39D get built there wouldn't be much of a need for any company to coordinate launches.

[Robotbeat]

USA isn't exactly independent, anyway. Maybe there's some sort of legal firewall, but they're owned by the same people who own ULA.

[Lars_J]

Speaking of USA, I looked at their web site, and I saw this... This is probably just some old conceptual art for a shared use pad, with different MLP's for SLS, Delta IV, Altlas V, and Falcon 9. (oddly enough on a stool type setup instead of an MLP - and it appears to be pre-v1.1)

I know this is out of date, but I hadn't seen it before...

[ChrisWilson68]

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.

Spaceport Authority.  They can do it like an airport.

Ahh, gotcha.

I am correct about LC-41's layout being capable of such a shared expansion?  The pad itself I'm sure would need some mods, but if each user designed/modifies their LV to interface with a standard Atlas V type mobile launcher with UT, it sure seems like it coule work.  Especially since the Atlas VIB is just off to the side of the amin rail set to the pad.  Looks like you could put a SpaceX VIB behind it, an Orbital one behind that, and and BO one behind that. (hypothetically)

And obivously each LV would have to be within a certain parameter of width and thrust power, similar to EELV.  As Antares and Falcon would be.  (I don't know what BO's LV's would look like).   You couldn't put too big of an LV on a pad only build to handle X amount of thrust and weight.

That concept forces all the launchers to use a launch infrastructure model that is very different from what they've chosen.  Presumably, they chose the infrastructure models they chose for a reason, and it would be more difficult and costly for them to try to fit into the shared model.  And the only real benefit they'd get is to share a flame trench.  It's surely cheaper and easier for each launcher to have its own pad -- which is why they do!

[joek]

I am correct about LC-41's layout being capable of such a shared expansion?  The pad itself I'm sure would need some mods, but if each user designed/modifies their LV to interface with a standard Atlas V type mobile launcher with UT, it sure seems like it coule work.  Especially since the Atlas VIB is just off to the side of the amin rail set to the pad.  Looks like you could put a SpaceX VIB behind it, an Orbital one behind that, and and BO one behind that. (hypothetically)

Hypothetically, yes.  The original plan way-back-when was for up to four Atlas V VIFs.  A 2010 Space Florida estimate for an additional Atlas V VIF and MLP was $340M and three years to complete.  Presumably the cost and time for others would be in the same range (assuming of course ULA et. al. was agreeable).  Note that is considerably more than SpaceX claims for the cost of refurbishing LC-41 ($50M) and SLC-4E ($100M).

[oldAtlas_Eguy]

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.

Spaceport Authority.  They can do it like an airport.

Ahh, gotcha.

I am correct about LC-41's layout being capable of such a shared expansion?  The pad itself I'm sure would need some mods, but if each user designed/modifies their LV to interface with a standard Atlas V type mobile launcher with UT, it sure seems like it coule work.  Especially since the Atlas VIB is just off to the side of the amin rail set to the pad.  Looks like you could put a SpaceX VIB behind it, an Orbital one behind that, and and BO one behind that. (hypothetically)

And obivously each LV would have to be within a certain parameter of width and thrust power, similar to EELV.  As Antares and Falcon would be.  (I don't know what BO's LV's would look like).   You couldn't put too big of an LV on a pad only build to handle X amount of thrust and weight.

That concept forces all the launchers to use a launch infrastructure model that is very different from what they've chosen.  Presumably, they chose the infrastructure models they chose for a reason, and it would be more difficult and costly for them to try to fit into the shared model.  And the only real benefit they'd get is to share a flame trench.  It's surely cheaper and easier for each launcher to have its own pad -- which is why they do!

The only economical reason to share a "flame trench" is that you are not going to launch more than maybe 2 times a year. SpaceX in all probability would launch 7+ (Gov[3 CRS+2 CCP + other NASA and DOD + 2 FH] launches) times a year off of LC39A. The pad would practicly be always in use.

[JBF]

Hypothetically, yes.  The original plan way-back-when was for up to four Atlas V VIFs.  A 2010 Space Florida estimate for an additional Atlas V VIF and MLP was $340M and three years to complete.  Presumably the cost and time for others would be in the same range (assuming of course ULA et. al. was agreeable).  Note that is considerably more than SpaceX claims for the cost of refurbishing LC-41 ($50M) and SLC-4E ($100M).

joek is that a recent figure for SLC-4E or the old estimate?

[Jim]

Hypothetically, yes.  The original plan way-back-when was for up to four Atlas V VIFs.  A 2010 Space Florida estimate for an additional Atlas V VIF and MLP was $340M and three years to complete.  Presumably the cost and time for others would be in the same range (assuming of course ULA et. al. was agreeable).  Note that is considerably more than SpaceX claims for the cost of refurbishing LC-41 ($50M) and SLC-4E ($100M).

joek is that a recent figure for SLC-4E or the old estimate?

Neither Spacex pad is capable of handling EELV payloads, so those mods need to be added in.

[Ronsmytheiii]

Speaking of USA, I looked at their web site, and I saw this... This is probably just some old conceptual art for a shared use pad, with different MLP's for SLS, Delta IV, Altlas V, and Falcon 9. (oddly enough on a stool type setup instead of an MLP - and it appears to be pre-v1.1)

I know this is out of date, but I hadn't seen it before...

Maybe they put in a bid for LC-39A?  Doesn't quite look like they are gone, and have the most experience operating there....

http://www.unitedspacealliance.com/universal-launch-complex.cfm

[ChrisWilson68]

Speaking of USA, I looked at their web site, and I saw this... This is probably just some old conceptual art for a shared use pad, with different MLP's for SLS, Delta IV, Altlas V, and Falcon 9. (oddly enough on a stool type setup instead of an MLP - and it appears to be pre-v1.1)

I know this is out of date, but I hadn't seen it before...

Maybe they put in a bid for LC-39A?  Doesn't quite look like they are gone, and have the most experience operating there....

http://www.unitedspacealliance.com/universal-launch-complex.cfm

Haven't most of the USA people with STS experience been laid off?  I'm not sure they actually have much remaining experience relevant to LC-39A launch operations.  It's also not clear how much any of that experience translates to supporting the site as a multi-user launch complex.

[joek]

Hypothetically, yes.  The original plan way-back-when was for up to four Atlas V VIFs.  A 2010 Space Florida estimate for an additional Atlas V VIF and MLP was $340M and three years to complete.  Presumably the cost and time for others would be in the same range (assuming of course ULA et. al. was agreeable).  Note that is considerably more than SpaceX claims for the cost of refurbishing LC-41 ($50M) and SLC-4E ($100M).

joek is that a recent figure for SLC-4E or the old estimate?

Found the SLC-4E references...

LA Times 12-Jul-2011:

Hawthorne-based rocket venture SpaceX said it was investing $30 million at the base's Space Launch Complex 4-East for its upcoming 22-story Falcon Heavy rocket.

SpaceFlight Now 28-Sep-2013:

Elon Musk, SpaceX's CEO and chief designer, said the company spent 17 months and nearly $100 million modifying the launch complex ...

[oldAtlas_Eguy]

So with the SLC-4E data point they could be up and launching off of 39A by 17 months from Jan 1 2014 or June 1 2015. Spending would probably be $50-60M in 2014 followed by the remainder of another $50M in 2015 at a higher construction pace.

If SpaceX hits its 2014 target of 10+ launches then the profits ~$100M from such would cover the costs plus other development work or building of other launch sites. Boca Chica would take longer and probably cost more because of no infrastructure such as no flame duct or flame duct infrastructure (water suppresion, fuel/LOX storage, piping, power, etc..).

Some of the existing 39A pad infrastructure will be reusable some will not. Just as in the case of SLC-4E the Shuttle distinct pad structure and infrastructure would be demolished.

[Prober]

Billionaire rocketeers duke it out for shuttle launch padhttp://news.yahoo.com/billionaire-rocketeers-duke-shuttle-launch-pad-001952648--finance.html
Some info, but also some errors.

[docmordrid]

>
Boca Chica would take longer and probably cost more because of no infrastructure such as no flame duct or flame duct infrastructure (water suppresion, fuel/LOX storage, piping, power, etc..).
>

OTOH, a clean slate with no demo, rehabilitation or disposal costs.

[Lurker Steve]

>
Boca Chica would take longer and probably cost more because of no infrastructure such as no flame duct or flame duct infrastructure (water suppresion, fuel/LOX storage, piping, power, etc..).
>

OTOH, a clean slate with no demo, rehabilitation or disposal costs.

Think about how much Elon will make selling pieces of the structures removed from LC-39 on EBay.