LC 39A - RFP for Commercial use

[Jim]

IIRC the last Delta II launch from SLC17 was Grail.  If NASA opts to buy and use the remaining Delta II's in inventory where will they launch from?  SLC 17 or SLC 41?

In 2010 wasn't SLC 36 turned over to Space Florida for commercial use?  Why could it not be developed?

Thanks

Pete

NASA has bought 4 of the 5 remaining Delta  II's and they are launching from VAFB

SLC-36 is just a grass plot with a blockhouse.

[Prober]

IIRC the last Delta II launch from SLC17 was Grail.  If NASA opts to buy and use the remaining Delta II's in inventory where will they launch from?  SLC 17 or SLC 41?

In 2010 wasn't SLC 36 turned over to Space Florida for commercial use?  Why could it not be developed?

Thanks

Pete

NASA has bought 4 of the 5 remaining Delta  II's and they are launching from VAFB

SLC-36 is just a grass plot with a blockhouse.

Let's make sure LC-39A doesn't become another SLC-36 

[guckyfan]

Let's make sure LC-39A doesn't become another SLC-36 

Why?

[joek]

Let's make sure LC-39A doesn't become another SLC-36 

That's pretty much a given.  39A is on the National Historic Registry.  NASA has few choices: (1) declare the site permanently decommissioned, in which case they have to restore it to Apollo/1960's condition (for which no funds are available); (2) put it in stasis, maintained based on some undefined future need (for which NASA has explicitly stated already they do not have a need, and in any case for which they don't have the funds); or (3) repurpose it, which is what this RFP is about.

Why?

Because the law requires it.

[Lar]

Let's make sure LC-39A doesn't become another SLC-36 

That's pretty much a given.  39A is on the National Historic Registry.  NASA has few choices: (1) declare the site permanently decommissioned, in which case they have to restore it to Apollo/1960's condition (for which no funds are available); (2) put it in stasis, maintained based on some undefined future need (for which NASA has explicitly stated already they do not have a need, and in any case for which they don't have the funds); or (3) repurpose it, which is what this RFP is about.

I forgot this was NRHS listed.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kennedy_Space_Center_Launch_Complex_39
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:National_Register_of_Historic_Places_in_Brevard_County,_Florida

How is that going to influence what can be done? How much would have to be retained?  you can't exactly treat gantries and MLPs like building facades that you preserve during a renovation to stay within guidelines.

[joek]

How is that going to influence what can be done? How much would have to be retained?  you can't exactly treat gantries and MLPs like building facades that you preserve during a renovation to stay within guidelines.

Nothing has to be retained if the site is repurposed.  E.g., Shuttle use of the site did not require retaining the Apollo configuration.  One reason why NASA is looking to repurpose the site.  The alternative is for NASA to revert/maintain it to the Apollo configuration (and thus preclude other use), for which NASA does not have the funds.

[catdlr]

May 17, 2013
 
RELEASE : 13-146
 
 
NASA Seeks Proposals for Commercial Operations at Kennedy's Launch Pad 39A
 
 
WASHINGTON -- NASA released a synopsis Friday announcing plans to issue an announcement for proposals for the commercial use of Launch Pad 39A at the agency's Kennedy Space Center in Florida. The announcement is expected next week.

Use of the launch pad by industry is designed to encourage commercial space activities along Florida's Space Coast and fully use the historic launch complex.

Launch Pad 39A originally was designed to support NASA's Apollo Program and later was modified to launch space shuttles. Today, the agency is modernizing nearby Launch Pad 39B to support government and commercial launches, including NASA's heavy-lift Space Launch System (SLS) rocket and Orion spacecraft, which will provide an entirely new capability for human exploration beyond low-Earth orbit.

"We remain committed to right-sizing our portfolio by reducing the number of facilities that are underused, duplicative, or not required to support the Space Launch System and Orion," said Kennedy Center Director Bob Cabana. "Launch Complex 39A is not required to support our asteroid retrieval mission or our eventual missions to Mars. But it's in the agency's and our nation's best interest in meeting our commitment and direction to enable commercial space operations and allow the aerospace industry to operate and maintain the pad and related facilities."

Assessments conducted by NASA show Launch Pad 39A could serve as a platform for a commercial space company's launch activities if the company assumes financial and technical responsibility of the complex's operations and management. Commercial use of the pad would further support NASA's goal to encourage the commercial use of property the agency does not need for the foreseeable future.

Kennedy is positioning itself for the next era of space exploration, transitioning to a 21st century launch facility with multiple users, both private and government. A dynamic infrastructure is taking shape, designed to host many kinds of spacecraft and rockets capable of sending people on America's next adventures in space.

To view the full announcement, visit Kennedy Space Center's Business Opportunities page:

http://go.nasa.gov/13Bhogu


For more information about NASA and human exploration, visit:

http://www.nasa.gov/exploration

 
- end -

[LaunchedIn68]

NASA has bought 4 of the 5 remaining Delta  II's and they are launching from VAFB

SLC-36 is just a grass plot with a blockhouse.
[/quote]

Thanks for the update on SLC17.

So when SLC36 was demo'd, they not only imploded the launch/service towers but broke up all the concrete as well?

Is laying a new pad at SLC36 too cost prohibitive for a commercial company?  How much was left of SLC40 when SpaceX took it over?

[Jim]

So when SLC36 was demo'd, they not only imploded the launch/service towers but broke up all the concrete as well?

Is laying a new pad at SLC36 too cost prohibitive for a commercial company?  How much was left of SLC40 when SpaceX took it over?

yes

no, just starting from stratch, which costs more.
Everything was available at LC-40.

[Lobo]

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).

Yup; along those lines:
http://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=12921.msg804227#msg804227

Ok, so it looks like LC-17 is too far south and the Range Safety doesn't want to keep using it after Delta II.  That does make sense.
But LC-36, and north of there that they want to keep the launches at does seem like a lot of launch realestate in play.

LC-36 looks to be a grassy medow, but it's just waiting a new launch customer it'd seem.

http://spaceflorida.gov/why-florida/facilities/launch-complex-36

it has an environmental categorical exclusion making it relatively easy to redevelop as a launch pad.
So that would be a launch complex that could have two pads actually, so I could see it being attractive to a commercial launcher like SpaceX.  (although it says only 1.5M lbs of thrust, so I'm not sure why that's the limit, but that would probably not make it viable for SpaceX's needs actually).
   Looks like a lot of new hardware, but a new compex up north of LC-39 in the "Shiloh" area would too.  And might have more hurdles from the EPA and crazy environmentalists, compared to the exclusion LC-36 seems to have.

Dunno much about the row of launch complexes from LC-36 to LC-34.  I guess maybe they are not worth restoring to make a new complex?  Or it's a toxic cleanup site?

LC-34 Is a historical site for the Apollo 1 fire, but...dunno, there's really not much left there.  Could it be renovated and reopened as a new pad?  or are there historical site issues or something?

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

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Spaceport_Florida_Launch_Complex_46


Dunno.  in general it just seems like there's a lot of launch realestate between LC-36 and LC-39 that could be renovated for use.  Not sure that'd it'd really be more than building from scratch, would it?

[Prober]

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).

Yup; along those lines:
http://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=12921.msg804227#msg804227

Ok, so it looks like LC-17 is too far south and the Range Safety doesn't want to keep using it after Delta II.  That does make sense.
But LC-36, and north of there that they want to keep the launches at does seem like a lot of launch realestate in play.

LC-36 looks to be a grassy medow, but it's just waiting a new launch customer it'd seem.

http://spaceflorida.gov/why-florida/facilities/launch-complex-36

it has an environmental categorical exclusion making it relatively easy to redevelop as a launch pad.
So that would be a launch complex that could have two pads actually, so I could see it being attractive to a commercial launcher like SpaceX.  (although it says only 1.5M lbs of thrust, so I'm not sure why that's the limit, but that would probably not make it viable for SpaceX's needs actually).
   Looks like a lot of new hardware, but a new compex up north of LC-39 in the "Shiloh" area would too.  And might have more hurdles from the EPA and crazy environmentalists, compared to the exclusion LC-36 seems to have.

Dunno much about the row of launch complexes from LC-36 to LC-34.  I guess maybe they are not worth restoring to make a new complex?  Or it's a toxic cleanup site?

LC-34 Is a historical site for the Apollo 1 fire, but...dunno, there's really not much left there.  Could it be renovated and reopened as a new pad?  or are there historical site issues or something?

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

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Spaceport_Florida_Launch_Complex_46


Dunno.  in general it just seems like there's a lot of launch realestate between LC-36 and LC-39 that could be renovated for use.  Not sure that'd it'd really be more than building from scratch, would it?

to answer your question: it depends on how your view of what's there.
 
a former used pad(s) has value even if its just concrete down. It can be reused without a lot of starter costs.
 
Take a look at LC-36, some company should have taken advantage of that site.
 
IMHO, SpaceX should have taken advantage of this site years ago for F9.
 
SpaceX has a heavy duty former Titan site that they will continue to under utilize.  They should be using this site for FH.
 
edit: add pic

[joek]

ANNOUNCEMENT FOR PROPOSALS - KSC LAUNCH COMPLEX 39A, SOL AFP-KSC-LC39A (warning MSFT Word, pdf attached).  The package contains additional information, including a map, inventory and an outline of lease terms.

Interesting excerpt from 156025-SOL-001-002:

The following is a listing of NASA identified Artifacts. NASA will require access to these artifacts with proper coordination, and they cannot be damaged or modified during the term of any agreement:

•  Orbiter Access Arm (OAA) U70-0503-99 – Attached to the Fixed Service Structure ~195’ level
•  Gaseous Oxygen Vent Arm (GOX) U78-0001 – Attached to the Fixed Service Structure ~207-227’ level
•  Emergency Egress Bunker J8-1708– Rubber Room and Blast Room

Other smaller artifacts (e.g., phones and warning lights) will be identified prior to the execution of an agreement.

† Mobile Launch Platform (MLP) #2 is currently parked on LC 39A. It is not a part of the facilities and systems for LC 39A. Proposers may request use of the MLP as part of its concept of operations, or if it is not required, arrangements for its removal may be accomplished during agreement negotiations.

[JBF]

That is odd. I wonder if you could just detach them and store them or if it's a way to force the leaser to maintain the existing tower.

[Ronsmytheiii]

Not sure if it is worth another thread, NASA offering to sell MLP's

http://gizmodo.com/nasa-to-sell-giant-shuttle-launch-platforms-wont-help-1189413348


I dont think they will all end up being saved, but probably one and maybe two might.

[padrat]

I'm wondering if it's too late for MLP1. When I drove by it the other day I see they are starting to cut propellant lines off of it....

[newpylong]

According to the KSC updates MLP-1 (the oldest) is pretty much being readied for scrap. The other two stand a chance if someone wants them.

[edkyle99]

According to the KSC updates MLP-1 (the oldest) is pretty much being readied for scrap. The other two stand a chance if someone wants them.

Weren't the numbers flipped after Apollo, so that ML-1 became MLP-3, etc?

 - Ed Kyle

[Jim]

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

It has users planned in the future

[newpylong]

According to the KSC updates MLP-1 (the oldest) is pretty much being readied for scrap. The other two stand a chance if someone wants them.

Weren't the numbers flipped after Apollo, so that ML-1 became MLP-3, etc?

 - Ed Kyle

You are correct, I meant MLP-3.

[edkyle99]

According to the KSC updates MLP-1 (the oldest) is pretty much being readied for scrap. The other two stand a chance if someone wants them.

Weren't the numbers flipped after Apollo, so that ML-1 became MLP-3, etc?

 - Ed Kyle

You are correct, I meant MLP-3.

So, this one, the one Neil, Buzz, and Mike launched from?  Being "readied for scrap"?

 - Ed Kyle