Author Topic: LC 39A - RFP for Commercial use (Read 131288 times)

ChrisWilson68 · « **Reply #240 on:** 12/13/2013 03:57 am »

Quote from: Zond on 12/12/2013 07:58 pm

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

That's great news!

Blue Origin bidding on 39A was always bizarre. SpaceX is clearly very far ahead of Blue Origin at this point. SpaceX is already serving NASA with flights to the ISS. Blue Origin hasn't even decided what fuel to use in the first stage engine of their orbital launcher, and they're not even one of the three CCiCap awardees. In the next five years, it's easy to see SpaceX with a real need for 39A. With Blue Origin, Elon pretty much nailed it with "unicorns dancing in the flame trench".

I think BO's proposal wasn't so much because they saw any immediate need for 39A themselves as it was not liking the idea of SpaceX getting it. Blue Origin might not have intended it specifically to hurt SpaceX -- they might well believe it's better to leave 39A open for whoever wants to use it in the future. But the fact is SpaceX is more ready than anyone else and not giving them free reign there would slow them down, which hurts the country's best chance of restoring human launch capabilities.

Wetmelon · « **Reply #241 on:** 12/13/2013 06:14 am »

I mentioned this on /r/SpaceX

Quote

[NASA] will look at both proposals to see if they meet the objectives and which company best demonstrates capability to utilize and assume financial and technical responsibility.

SpaceX has contracts waiting, and a steady commercial and government income. Blue Origin doesn't have a launch vehicle. If Blue Origin's multi-user pad argument wins, NASA might set up SpaceX as the arbitrator of the pad anyway. However, I suspect SpaceX is going to win this one pretty much hands down.

GClark · « **Reply #242 on:** 12/13/2013 07:45 am »

Quote from: JBF on 12/12/2013 10:00 pm

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.

What other unused pads? To paraphrase Jim, ICBM row is a superfund site, 36 is a grassy field, and south of the Lighthouse is off-limits. AFAICT, 39A was the last unused pad at the Cape.

PS - Lest anyone bring it up, 47 is for solids only.

JBF · « **Reply #243 on:** 12/13/2013 09:42 am »

Quote from: GClark on 12/13/2013 07:45 am

What other unused pads? To paraphrase Jim, ICBM row is a superfund site, 36 is a grassy field, and south of the Lighthouse is off-limits. AFAICT, 39A was the last unused pad at the Cape.

PS - Lest anyone bring it up, 47 is for solids only.

Based on what SpaceX is going through in Texas, the approval process is the biggest headache. So 36 is a nice spot even if it's just a grassy field. Being a superfund site does not preclude use, it's just another factor to weigh.

kcrick · « **Reply #244 on:** 12/13/2013 12:00 pm »

Why can't these pads be cleaned up, so that they can be made available to commercial companies?
Also, isn't it the right thing to do considering it's polluting the environment?

That's a lot of real estate that's just sitting there.

Just a thought - I've always wondered about those pads.

guckyfan · « **Reply #245 on:** 12/13/2013 12:47 pm »

Quote from: GClark on 12/13/2013 07:45 am

ICBM row is a superfund site

Could someone explain "superfund site"?

Thanks.

RonM · « **Reply #246 on:** 12/13/2013 01:15 pm »

Quote from: guckyfan on 12/13/2013 12:47 pm

Quote from: GClark on 12/13/2013 07:45 am
ICBM row is a superfund site

Could someone explain "superfund site"?

Thanks.

That refers to an Environmental Protection Agency fund in the US. The most heavily polluted sites in the US are designated as super fund site and get federal assistance in cleaning them up.

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

Lurker Steve · « **Reply #247 on:** 12/13/2013 01:28 pm »

Quote from: guckyfan on 12/13/2013 12:47 pm

Quote from: GClark on 12/13/2013 07:45 am
ICBM row is a superfund site

Could someone explain "superfund site"?

Thanks.

I suppose it has something to do with the ground being contaminated with hazardous chemicals and possibly radioactive materials. The EPA has some cleanup funds available, but basically there is an extremely expensive process to remove and decontaminate the soil.

Unless you want your workforce exposed to carcinogens, probably not a good place to work.

su27k · « **Reply #248 on:** 12/13/2013 01:37 pm »

Quote from: kcrick on 12/13/2013 12:00 pm

Why can't these pads be cleaned up, so that they can be made available to commercial companies?

Lack of funding? It may be cheaper for everyone if commercial just build their pads elsewhere, SpaceX seems to have no trouble finding alternative sites.

PS: Someone deleted the dancing unicorns! Man, this forum is just no fun at all.

Avron · « **Reply #249 on:** 12/13/2013 01:51 pm »

Was wondering if BO and spacex could see more completion from the other players for LC39A, or is the competition closed?

mlindner · « **Reply #250 on:** 12/13/2013 04:44 pm »

Quote from: Avron on 12/13/2013 01:51 pm

Was wondering if BO and spacex could see more completion from the other players for LC39A, or is the competition closed?

The GAO report claims the deadline for such proposals was July 5, 2013.

rcoppola · « **Reply #251 on:** 12/13/2013 06:08 pm »

Well that was all very predictable.

Can't wait to see the cranes move in to begin renovations. I wonder what SpaceX has in mind for the altered Pad designs. Should deb great to watch. "And yes, I know they have not been officially awarded the pad but that's just an administrative paper push as this point. It's theirs, it was always going to be.

And this fits in nicely with the internal musings that SpaceX is far ahead of anyone else with regards to commercial crew. All the pieces are lining up nicely.

Lurker Steve · « **Reply #252 on:** 12/13/2013 06:13 pm »

Quote from: rcoppola on 12/13/2013 06:08 pm

Well that was all very predictable.

And this fits in nicely with the internal musings that SpaceX is far ahead of anyone else with regards to commercial crew. All the pieces are lining up nicely.

Internal SpaceX musings ??

Chris Bergin · « **Reply #253 on:** 12/13/2013 06:14 pm »

Just in:

NASA Selects SpaceX to Begin Negotiations for Use of Historic Launch Pad

NASA has selected Space Exploration Technologies Corporation (SpaceX) of Hawthorne, Calif., to begin negotiations on a lease to use and operate historic Launch Complex (LC) 39A at the agency's Kennedy Space Center in Florida.

--

I'll write an article.

Zaran · « **Reply #254 on:** 12/13/2013 06:19 pm »

Link to the press release:
http://www.nasa.gov/press/2013/december/nasa-selects-spacex-to-begin-negotiations-for-use-of-historic-launch-pad/

mr. mark · « **Reply #255 on:** 12/13/2013 06:20 pm »

Congrats to SpaceX and an early Christmas present. Best of luck with pad 39A.

Lars_J · « **Reply #256 on:** 12/13/2013 06:29 pm »

As expected... I'm very curious now to see how they plan to use the pad, and if use of any other infrastructure is in included in the lease.

BrightLight · « **Reply #257 on:** 12/13/2013 06:31 pm »

Wah whooo - I admit, I thought that NASA and the government would do the wrong thing and let 39A rot - I was wrong

, Go to it SpaceX - let her rumble.

yg1968 · « **Reply #258 on:** 12/13/2013 06:36 pm »

Good news!

Now that SpaceX has the right to negotiate a lease for Pad 39A, I hope that Shiloh goes to Blue Origin.

mr. mark · « **Reply #259 on:** 12/13/2013 06:40 pm »

Will be nice to see a Spacex's Falcon 9R and F9H on 39A and SLS launching on 39B next to each other. Best of both worlds. Things are shaping up nicely.