LC 39A - RFP for Commercial use

[joek]

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.

Not sure those are comparable.  The SLC-4E costs likely represent a minimum.  As Jim also pointed out:

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

  So if handling EELV (vertical integration) payloads is required, there will be additional costs.

Also, way back kraisee pointed out that the cost for the EELV pads are on the order of $500M each.  I expect SpaceX's costs will be similar.

In short, I don't think we have sufficient information to make an informed estimate, other than it will likely be more expensive (on the order of several hundred million $) than SpaceX's past numbers suggest.

[ChrisWilson68]

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

  So if handling EELV (vertical integration) payloads is required, there will be additional costs.

Also, way back kraisee pointed out that the cost for the EELV pads are on the order of $500M each.  I expect SpaceX's costs will be similar.

I agree that vertical integration will add a significant cost.  But I find it hard to believe that vertical integration alone will cost $400 million, which is the difference between what SpaceX has paid and that $500 million per pad figure for the EELVs.

It wouldn't be the first time SpaceX has found a way to doing things much less expensively.

[woods170]

As Jim also pointed out:

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

  So if handling EELV (vertical integration) payloads is required, there will be additional costs.

Does Jim actually work for SpaceX? The answer is No.
With regards to SpaceX I take the word from forum members who actually work for SpaceX over the word of Jim. Jim knows a lot, but not everything. And he has a tendency to project his own experiences in the spaceflight business on other companies, such as SpaceX. Sometimes that works out just fine. In other cases it doesn't.

[Lurker Steve]

If the DOD demonstration missions require vertical integration (both F9 and FH), how will SpaceX get that done ?

Do they need to re-do the pads again ?

[JBF]

If the DOD demonstration missions require vertical integration (both F9 and FH), how will SpaceX get that done ?

Do they need to re-do the pads again ?

No they will just add a MST that rolls in after the rocket is vertical.

[Jim]

As Jim also pointed out:

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

  So if handling EELV (vertical integration) payloads is required, there will be additional costs.

Does Jim actually work for SpaceX? The answer is No.
With regards to SpaceX I take the word from forum members who actually work for SpaceX over the word of Jim. Jim knows a lot, but not everything. And he has a tendency to project his own experiences in the spaceflight business on other companies, such as SpaceX. Sometimes that works out just fine. In other cases it doesn't.

That isn't my opinion.  The DOD requires vertical payload integration, that has been stated in many places.  Current SpX pads don't support this at this time, that is obvious to anybody.

[oldAtlas_Eguy]

As Jim also pointed out:

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

  So if handling EELV (vertical integration) payloads is required, there will be additional costs.

Does Jim actually work for SpaceX? The answer is No.
With regards to SpaceX I take the word from forum members who actually work for SpaceX over the word of Jim. Jim knows a lot, but not everything. And he has a tendency to project his own experiences in the spaceflight business on other companies, such as SpaceX. Sometimes that works out just fine. In other cases it doesn't.

That isn't my opinion.  The DOD requires vertical payload integration, that has been stated in many places.  Current SpX pads don't support this at this time, that is obvious to anybody.

The assumption that all DOD payloads require vertical integration is wrong.

Only some, the heaviest almost completely, like those that would fly on an FH propably do requirie it. But saying all require it is misleading. In fact the STP sat dosen't. But if SpaceX can show that they can do vertical in 2015 on STP that would help with demonstarting that capability to DOD. Otherwise they would just bid on the non-vertical integration requireing sats.

NOTE: Commercial Crew is going to require something similar to a vertical integration capability. A "white room" (an environmentally controlled enclosure) for crew access after the vehicle is vertical. If sat processing enclosure is also accomodated in this retractable facility then they would have what is needed to do vertical. SpaceX has already stated that they would like to use 39A for such CCP flights leaving SLC-41 for comercial and horizontal integration only at a cheaper per flight price.

[newpylong]

How about the the VAB and Crawler Transporter-1 possibly? Or just use the VAB and their own erector on wheels...

Would be nice to see the facility used outside of once a year for SLS. I know they cleared all the old orbiter processing equipment out of the high bays in hopes of getting multi-use...

[woods170]

As Jim also pointed out:

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

  So if handling EELV (vertical integration) payloads is required, there will be additional costs.

Does Jim actually work for SpaceX? The answer is No.
With regards to SpaceX I take the word from forum members who actually work for SpaceX over the word of Jim. Jim knows a lot, but not everything. And he has a tendency to project his own experiences in the spaceflight business on other companies, such as SpaceX. Sometimes that works out just fine. In other cases it doesn't.

That isn't my opinion.  The DOD requires vertical payload integration, that has been stated in many places.  Current SpX pads don't support this at this time, that is obvious to anybody.

Correct. However, you originally said that SpaceX pads cannot handle EELV payloads. There is a slight difference in semantics here. EELV payload does not equal DOD payload in every single case. Had you stated that SpaceX pads currently cannot handle DOD payloads, you would have been correct. But you managed to do so on only your second attempt. Your first statement is your opinion (and not entirely correct).

[JBF]

This is getting pretty off-topic. Please try to stick to LC-39A RFP issues.

[Jim]

Correct. However, you originally said that SpaceX pads cannot handle EELV payloads. There is a slight difference in semantics here. EELV payload does not equal DOD payload in every single case. Had you stated that SpaceX pads currently cannot handle DOD payloads, you would have been correct. But you managed to do so on only your second attempt. Your first statement is your opinion (and not entirely correct).

Sematics.  EELV payloads are not the same as EELV class payloads.  EELV is a DOD program.   I never said that Spacex pads couldn't handle EELV class payloads.

[simonbp]

The way I interpreted what Elon said on the media call was that if SpaceX got 39A, then all NASA launches (he specifically said ISS resupply and crew as well as interplanetary) would be at 39A, and LC-40 would be reserved for "national security" launches.

Presumably that means that if they got 39A, SpaceX would modify LC-40 for whatever requirements that certain three-letter-agencies require, without any need to worry about crew getting the way. It also means that we may see SpaceX launches out of 39A much sooner than whatever the timescale for MCT is.

[oldAtlas_Eguy]

A 5 year lease only covers 1 Oct 2014 to 30 Sep 2018.

SpaceX possible first use either a FH 4 QTR 2015 - 2 QTR 2016 or a CC 3 QTR 2015 - 4 QTR 2017 or a Cargo Dragon 3 QTR 2015.
Note : CC varies so much because of its schedule dependency on NASA budgets.
Max number of flights 13.

BO possible first use is a CC 3 QTR 2016 – 4 QTR 2017 (Same variability note problem as for SpaceX)
BO own vehicle's first launch 2 QTR 2018 – beyond the end of the lease.
Max total number of flights is 4.

[Zed_Noir]

A 5 year lease only covers 1 Oct 2014 to 30 Sep 2018.

SpaceX possible first use either a FH 4 QTR 2015 - 2 QTR 2016 or a CC 3 QTR 2015 - 4 QTR 2017 or a Cargo Dragon 3 QTR 2015.
Note : CC varies so much because of its schedule dependency on NASA budgets.
Max number of flights 13.

What are you basing the maximum flight number on? Presumably if SpaceX builds a new multi-vehicle processing hangar or several individual vehicle processing hangars near the pad would increase the number of flights possible.

[ChrisWilson68]

How about the the VAB and Crawler Transporter-1 possibly? Or just use the VAB and their own erector on wheels...

Would be nice to see the facility used outside of once a year for SLS. I know they cleared all the old orbiter processing equipment out of the high bays in hopes of getting multi-use...

The VAB and crawler are exactly what SpaceX avoids -- big, complex, expensive, and slow.  There's no chance SpaceX will use them.  And no need.  Falcon 9 and Falcon Heavy can use much simpler, cheaper mechanisms, as at the existing pads.  A service tower will likely be added for vertical payload integration and crew ingress, but that's far smaller, simpler, cheaper, and faster than the VAB/crawler system.

[oldAtlas_Eguy]

A 5 year lease only covers 1 Oct 2014 to 30 Sep 2018.

SpaceX possible first use either a FH 4 QTR 2015 - 2 QTR 2016 or a CC 3 QTR 2015 - 4 QTR 2017 or a Cargo Dragon 3 QTR 2015.
Note : CC varies so much because of its schedule dependency on NASA budgets.
Max number of flights 13.

What are you basing the maximum flight number on? Presumably if SpaceX builds a new multi-vehicle processing hangar or several individual vehicle processing hangars near the pad would increase the number of flights possible.

The max number of flights is based on the number of gov flights over the 5 years 2014 through 2018 and when the pad would be available for its first flight ~17+ months from lease signing.

These government flights include all of the cargo Dragon including possible commercial ones to Alpha, the DragonRider flights and a few F9 gov sta flights with also a few FH flights both gov and commercial.

[rcoppola]

I keep seeing a "5" year lease listed. Yes that has been suggested but currently there are no "official" legally binding lease terms documented let alone an actual signed lease.

One of the things that was driving the shorter 5 year lease proposal was SpaceX wanting exclusive use. Since SpaceX has agreed to "welcome" other commercial ventures including SLS if needed, that should free them up to obtain a longer lease then having had negotiated exclusive use.

Besides the first year of the lease, at minimum, will be used up with pad and infrastructure mods to even be able to use it. So, no, I don't agree with the notion of 5 years. I think by the time the Gov't opens up again and BO's protest is kicked back to NASA with comments / recommendations sometime in December or January, SpaceX will sign a lease considerably longer then then 5 years. Also one additional factor will be the decision to extend ISS to 2028. That will put more cargo and crew orders on the books for SpaceX.

[AnalogMan]

Came across this Draft EA which was recently published relating to commercial use of KSC launch complexes.

Draft Environmental Assessment for Multi-Use of Launch Complexes 39A and 39B John F. Kennedy Space Center, FL
November 1, 2013

Launch vehicles covered in this EA include Atlas V, Delta IV, Delta IV Heavy, Liberty, Falcon 9 and 9 v1.1, Falcon Heavy, Antares, Radially Segmented Launch Vehicle (RSLV-S), Athena IIc, Xaero, and the Space Launch System (SLS). The potential for up to two launches per month by NASA and/or commercial users would provide the ability to continue space exploration.

Purpose and Need
As established by the Office of the President and directed from Congress, it is NASA’s mission to expand commercial uses of space and the space industry. This directive is detailed in the NASA Authorization Act of 2010 and the Space Act of 1958, as amended. The Proposed Action is consistent with both of these policy directives.

Under the Proposed Action, NASA would permit the establishment and operation of commercial venture capabilities at John F. Kennedy Space Center (KSC), under its jurisdiction for activities supporting both government and commercial civil space activities as described in this document. This would be accomplished through the execution of long-term land use leases and Space Act Agreements. [...] The purpose of this EA is to document potential environmental impacts from the construction of a Horizontal Integration Facility (HIF) at one or more of five possible locations, provide Rocket Propellant 1 (RP-1) Storage either at individual locations or a common area, and to allow multiple users to launch vehicles from Launch Complex (LC) 39A and LC 39B.

http://environmental.ksc.nasa.gov/projects/documents/MASTERMulti-UseDraft.pdf

(copy also attached)

[Galactic Penguin SST]

Radially Segmented Launch Vehicle (RSLV-S)? Wuazzthat?

[Jarnis]

Radially Segmented Launch Vehicle (RSLV-S)? Wuazzthat?

Found a reference here;

http://marshallstar.msfc.nasa.gov/11-9-06.pdf

A radially segmented launch vehicle — such as the one slated to
employ the stainless steel propellant tanks from Walker — gets its
name from the fact that a series of wedge-shaped propellant tanks,
each sitting atop an engine, are linked in a circular fashion to form
a single propulsion stage with an “aerospike” engine arrangement.
An aerospike is a type of rocket engine with an altitude-
compensating nozzle that maintains effi ciency across a wide range
of altitudes.