LC 39A - RFP for Commercial use

[russianhalo117]

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

It is a Joint DARPA/USAF vehicle:
https://www.fbo.gov/?s=opportunity&mode=form&id=e7d8a9c51975fe67ad90a5cdd05c6262&tab=core&_cview=1

it could also be this: SWORDS nanosat launch vehicle

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

[JBF]

GAO's decision is due by 12/12 has anyone heard any rumors?

[edkyle99]

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

It is a Joint DARPA/USAF vehicle:
https://www.fbo.gov/?s=opportunity&mode=form&id=e7d8a9c51975fe67ad90a5cdd05c6262&tab=core&_cview=1

it could also be this: SWORDS nanosat launch vehicle

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

RSLV-S looks to be a substantially enlarged version of what is planned for SWORDS.  This is the first I've heard of this bigger rocket.  I wonder what "S" stands for.  If it is "small", then yikes!

 - Ed Kyle

[a_langwich]

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

It is a Joint DARPA/USAF vehicle:
https://www.fbo.gov/?s=opportunity&mode=form&id=e7d8a9c51975fe67ad90a5cdd05c6262&tab=core&_cview=1

it could also be this: SWORDS nanosat launch vehicle

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

RSLV-S looks to be a substantially enlarged version of what is planned for SWORDS.  This is the first I've heard of this bigger rocket.  I wonder what "S" stands for.  If it is "small", then yikes!

 - Ed Kyle

Is a T/W of 2.05 at launch unusual?  What are Minuteman and Peacekeeper T/Ws?  If I'm reading your pages right, it looks like the Minotaurs 3/4 are in that range?

And is that 10x 100k lb thrust annular plug nozzle engines?  Very interesting.  Also pressure-fed? 

[edkyle99]

Is a T/W of 2.05 at launch unusual?  What are Minuteman and Peacekeeper T/Ws?  If I'm reading your pages right, it looks like the Minotaurs 3/4 are in that range?

And is that 10x 100k lb thrust annular plug nozzle engines?  Very interesting.  Also pressure-fed? 

That thrust to weight ratio would not be unusual for a launch vehicle with a relatively low first stage specific impulse, like solid rockets or, I suspect, these KT Engineering engines.  The goal is to get out of the atmosphere as quickly as possible to gain improved ISP operation in vacuum and to reduce gravity losses.

 - Ed Kyle

[Proponent]

And is that 10x 100k lb thrust annular plug nozzle engines?  Very interesting.  Also pressure-fed?

My guess is that each stage has multiple conventional nozzles, drastically under-expanded, feeding a common plug-nozzle.

The Marshall Star piece definitely says pressure-fed, so I wonder what cool, low-speed gas would be injected to form the "aero" portion of the aerospike.  It seems to me that turbine exhaust is usually used for that purpose, but here there's no turbine.

And stainless-steel construction!  Arthur Schnitt and Bob Truax must be smiling in that great design bureau in the sky.  Even Wernher von Braun might be pleased, since his designs in the 1950s were to be made of steel.

Any idea of the likely payload?  100 tons?  50?

[JBF]

And is that 10x 100k lb thrust annular plug nozzle engines?  Very interesting.  Also pressure-fed?

My guess is that each stage has multiple conventional nozzles, drastically under-expanded, feeding a common plug-nozzle.

The Marshall Star piece definitely says pressure-fed, so I wonder what cool, low-speed gas would be injected to form the "aero" portion of the aerospike.  It seems to me that turbine exhaust is usually used for that purpose, but here there's no turbine.

And stainless-steel construction!  Arthur Schnitt and Bob Truax must be smiling in that great design bureau in the sky.  Even Wernher von Braun might be pleased, since his designs in the 1950s were to be made of steel.

Any idea of the likely payload?  100 tons?  50?

This is getting pretty off topic. Why don't you start a specific thread?

[edkyle99]

This is getting pretty off topic. Why don't you start a specific thread?

We have a SWORDS thread, which upon review included a brief mention of RSLV.  Perhaps these last few messages could be merged into that thread and the thread renamed SWORDS/RSLV?
http://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=30533.msg987847#msg987847

 - Ed Kyle

[Zond]

Protest denied.
http://www.gao.gov//press/statement_blue_origin_bid_protest.html
Now we can wait for NASA to announce who won.

[Lars_J]

Protest denied.
http://www.gao.gov//press/statement_blue_origin_bid_protest.html
Now we can wait for NASA to announce who won.

And given that the link specifies that they are "in the process of evaluating proposals submitted by Blue Origin and Space exploration Technologies Corporation" - that does make the outcome seem rather obvious.

But who knows...

[ngilmore]

Cited in the decision at http://www.gao.gov/assets/660/659674.pdf as part of NASA response:

The Agency might also have a future requirement for flux
capacitors and warp drives. But future requirements, whether ethereal
or concrete, real or imagined, are not current bona fide
needs.

Agency Legal Memorandum, Oct. 21, 2013, at 8 (emphasis in original).

heh.

[BrightLight]

Protest denied.
http://www.gao.gov//press/statement_blue_origin_bid_protest.html
Now we can wait for NASA to announce who won.

And given that the link specifies that they are "in the process of evaluating proposals submitted by Blue Origin and Space exploration Technologies Corporation" - that does make the outcome seem rather obvious.

But who knows...

I see two possible outcomes - 1. that SpaceX gets to use the facility or 2. the SpaceX proposal is declined and for the present, no users for LC-39A

[newpylong]

Well, #2 isn't going to happen. Every day it is vacant costs money.

[JBF]

I have a hard time seeing how Blue Origin can even justify wanting 39A over one of the other unused pads. Nothing that they have publicly talked about needs that large of a pad.

[arachnitect]

I have a hard time seeing how Blue Origin can even justify wanting 39A over one of the other unused pads. Nothing that they have publicly talked about needs that large of a pad.

Jeff probably wants it for sentimental reasons

[Occupymars]

I lol too when I saw the flux capacitors and warp drives statement as did other poster's   

Interestingly Blue origin brought up a point that to a lot of people unaware of Nasa's full policy and purpose seems valid.

Notably absent from the agency’s position, however, is any explanation for why, if
NASA truly has no further use for LC 39A, it simply does not sell it outright

But the GAO had the answer.

We conclude that the transaction here falls into both of these categories. First, as
noted by the terms of the AFP itself, the contemplated lease transaction will:
 
[F]urther support NASA in fulfilling its mandate to, “seek and
encourage, to the maximum extent possible, the fullest commercial
use of space.”

[meekGee]

Are they going to disclose who else submitted a bid?

[friendly3]

[JBF]

Are they going to disclose who else submitted a bid?

They did in the GAO report.  Only BO and SpaceX.

[joek]

I have a hard time seeing how Blue Origin can even justify wanting 39A over one of the other unused pads. Nothing that they have publicly talked about needs that large of a pad.

It is not necessarily what only Blue Origin might want to use the pad for.  As the operator of a multi-user launch site, the question is: What other customers (launch providers) can they bring to the table?  While I doubt BO has sufficient and credible commitments from other users to make a difference, that's part of the evaluation, so we'll have to wait and see.