LC 39A - RFP for Commercial use

[yg1968]

Reading between the lines SpaceX wants it primarily for manned and FH use.  That way they don't have to worry about upgrading the LC-40.

They want it for MCT. I thought this was common knowledge.

It was also reported by Chris. He didn't use the acronym MCT but he said that SpaceX wanted it for Falcon X and XX. But SpaceX also said to the press that they want it for FH and commercial crew. 

http://www.nasaspaceflight.com/2013/05/from-atlas-v-falcon-xx-commercial-suitors-wanted-pad-39a/

See also this article:

SpaceX spokeswoman Christina Ra told NBC News that 39A wouldn't take the place of a future commercial launch facility. "SpaceX would focus on our commercial satellite customers with 39A but could launch any mission from our East Coast manifest. We could also use it for launching crew and Falcon Heavy,” Ra said in an email.

http://www.nbcnews.com/science/bezos-blue-origin-joins-billionaire-battle-nasa-shuttle-launch-pad-6C10709570

See above.

[billh]

This is the People's Spaceflight Complex...

Ah, yes, the People's Republic of NASA. 

[yg1968]

Some additional information in this article:

Rob Meyerson, Blue Origin's president and program manager, said in an emailed statement that he hoped NASA "will preserve options to make this national asset available for multiple commercial users."

SpaceX spokeswoman Hannah Post said via email that her company was "pleased to have been selected by NASA to enter into final negotiations for the use and operation" of Pad 39A. "As previously stated, SpaceX will gladly accommodate other commercial providers interested in using Launch Complex 39A for NASA human-rated orbital spaceflight," Post said.

http://www.nbcnews.com/science/spacex-wins-nasas-nod-take-over-historic-launch-pad-39a-2D11741834

[ChrisWilson68]

Some additional information in this article:

Rob Meyerson, Blue Origin's president and program manager, said in an emailed statement that he hoped NASA "will preserve options to make this national asset available for multiple commercial users."

SpaceX spokeswoman Hannah Post said via email that her company was "pleased to have been selected by NASA to enter into final negotiations for the use and operation" of Pad 39A. "As previously stated, SpaceX will gladly accommodate other commercial providers interested in using Launch Complex 39A for NASA human-rated orbital spaceflight," Post said.

http://www.nbcnews.com/science/spacex-wins-nasas-nod-take-over-historic-launch-pad-39a-2D11741834

And the magic words are "NASA human-rated orbital spaceflight".  Nothing sub-orbital.  Nothing without a crew.  And, setting the highest bar of all, nothing that isn't for NASA.  So only CCtCap awardees get to use 39A.

Who here thinks when NASA makes the CCtCap decision less than a year from now that Blue Origin has any chance of winning it?

[wkann]

Since SpaceX has said that they, "will gladly accommodate other commercial providers interested in using Launch Complex 39A for NASA human-rated orbital spaceflight," wouldn't that hint at the idea of using one of the existing MLP's to make the pad Multi user friendly? I'm assuming that if they chose to not use an MLP (which seems possible), that would require some major renovation that would modify the pad to meet the needs of F9/ F9H only, not other launch providers as stated.

Also, i know SpaceX runs a "lean and mean" operation, but would the VAB and LCC play a role in this deal?

[ChrisWilson68]

Since SpaceX has said that they, "will gladly accommodate other commercial providers interested in using Launch Complex 39A for NASA human-rated orbital spaceflight," wouldn't that hint at the idea of using one of the existing MLP's to make the pad Multi user friendly?

I think that's highly unlikely.  The MLPs are part of what made STS so expensive.

The only other company doing "NASA human-rated orbital spaceflight" will be the second winner of a CCtCap award, if there is even a second winner.  There's a lot of pressure to down-select to just one company, and if that happens, SpaceX will be the only company doing "NASA human-rated orbital spaceflight".  If there is a second awardee, it's extremely likely to be one of the other two CCiCap awardees, namely CST-100 and Dream Chaser.

Interestingly, both CST-100 and Dream Chaser have left the door open to switching from Atlas V to Falcon 9 as their launch vehicle.  So LC 39A might be set up to support only Falcon 9 and Falcon Heavy but still support CST-100 or Dream Chaser.

Anyway, it's up to SpaceX to decide what "accommodate" means.  I wouldn't be surprised if SpaceX takes the position that it means the other company has to reimburse SpaceX for any additional costs to SpaceX for them being there.  That means that if the ground infrastructure has to be redesigned to support another vehicle in addition to Falcon 9/Falcon Heavy, the other company bears the cost delta between what SpaceX would have done and what the dual-vehicle infrastructure looks like.  That cost could be prohibitive.

I'm assuming that if they chose to not use an MLP (which seems possible), that would require some major renovation that would modify the pad to meet the needs of F9/ F9H only, not other launch providers as stated.

Yes, I think you're right that SpaceX will be doing some pretty major renovations to the pad.

Also, i know SpaceX runs a "lean and mean" operation, but would the VAB and LCC play a role in this deal?

I think you've answered your own question -- "lean and mean" doesn't fit with VAB and LCC.

[sdsds]

would the VAB and LCC play a role in this deal?

Also, by what means can large elements of flight hardware be delivered to 39A other than off-loading them at the turning basin and then hauling them up the crawlerway? Is the waterway marked "Pintail Creek" -- which appears to come quite close to the pad -- navigable by barge?

[Hauerg]

Every launch contractor should have equal access to LC-39A or none of them should ... it should be as contractor agnostic a launch site as possible.  One company shouldn't get this pad ... ever.

And they should only be allowed to use LC-39A to launch missions for NASA anyway.  No private launches from LC-39A should be allowed.  This is the People's Spaceflight Complex not private industry's.

It seems to me that "the people" do not have a use for Spaceflight Complexes anymore.
(Except for the once-a-year-or-less SLS "program")

[ChrisWilson68]

would the VAB and LCC play a role in this deal?

Also, by what means can large elements of flight hardware be delivered to 39A other than off-loading them at the turning basin and then hauling them up the crawlerway? Is the waterway marked "Pintail Creek" -- which appears to come quite close to the pad -- navigable by barge?

Are you talking about in the distant future, when there's a Falcon X/Falcon XX/MCT or whatever you want to call it?  I think in the near-to-medium future SpaceX is going to be using 39A for Falcon 9 and Falcon Heavy launches, and all components of those vehicles come in by truck.

[ChrisWilson68]

Every launch contractor should have equal access to LC-39A or none of them should ... it should be as contractor agnostic a launch site as possible.  One company shouldn't get this pad ... ever.

And they should only be allowed to use LC-39A to launch missions for NASA anyway.  No private launches from LC-39A should be allowed.  This is the People's Spaceflight Complex not private industry's.

It seems to me that "the people" do not have a use for Spaceflight Complexes anymore.
(Except for the once-a-year-or-less SLS "program")

Which is why NASA is hanging on to 39B, for part-time SLS uses.  They've decided they have no use at all for 39A, which is why they're interested in finding someone who can use it -- particularly someone who can use it to help NASA, by sending astronauts and cargo to the ISS.

[sdsds]

Also, by what means can large elements of flight hardware be delivered to 39A other than off-loading them at the turning basin and then hauling them up the crawlerway? Is the waterway marked "Pintail Creek" -- which appears to come quite close to the pad -- navigable by barge?

Are you talking about in the distant future, when there's a Falcon X/Falcon XX/MCT or whatever you want to call it?  I think in the near-to-medium future SpaceX is going to be using 39A for Falcon 9 and Falcon Heavy launches, and all components of those vehicles come in by truck.

I'm really asking two related questions. Regarding F9 and FH, is there roadway access to the pad for those trucks other than the crawlerway? (I had assumed there was.) And then as regards a larger core vehicle, hypothetically one built near Brownsville, could a barge transport it to the pad without SpaceX needing to obtain usage rights to the crawlerway? The common theme is whether SpaceX can negotiate for use of the pad and not negotiate for use of the infrastructure by which NASA has transported vehicles to the pad?

[ChrisWilson68]

Also, by what means can large elements of flight hardware be delivered to 39A other than off-loading them at the turning basin and then hauling them up the crawlerway? Is the waterway marked "Pintail Creek" -- which appears to come quite close to the pad -- navigable by barge?

Are you talking about in the distant future, when there's a Falcon X/Falcon XX/MCT or whatever you want to call it?  I think in the near-to-medium future SpaceX is going to be using 39A for Falcon 9 and Falcon Heavy launches, and all components of those vehicles come in by truck.

I'm really asking two related questions. Regarding F9 and FH, is there roadway access to the pad for those trucks other than the crawlerway? (I had assumed there was.)

Yes, there's an ordinary paved road running right next to the crawlerway.  Lots of people have always needed to drive up to the pad.

And then as regards a larger core vehicle, hypothetically one built near Brownsville, could a barge transport it to the pad without SpaceX needing to obtain usage rights to the crawlerway? The common theme is whether SpaceX can negotiate for use of the pad and not negotiate for use of the infrastructure by which NASA has transported vehicles to the pad?

I don't know the answer to that.

[GClark]

What other unused pads?

And I'll answer my own question...

37A is currently unused.  I'm not sure if ULA/Boeing has a prior claim and I'm fairly certain there are some issues due to its' proximity to 37B.

I've always thought that one of the attractions of the flat or clean pad approach (a la 39B) is that - within the limits of the pad plumbing - it is vehicle agnostic.  As long as the MLP/vehicle combination fits the infrastructure (VAB, CT, etc.), what's on top of the MLP really doesn't matter.

SpaceX could go with a clean pad for 39A.  Then BO (or whomever) would just have to build their own MLP and pay for facility use (VAB space, CT services, etc.) as necessary.

[ChrisWilson68]

What other unused pads?

And I'll answer my own question...

37A is currently unused.  I'm not sure if ULA/Boeing has a prior claim and I'm fairly certain there are some issues due to its' proximity to 37B.

I've always thought that one of the attractions of the flat or clean pad approach (a la 39B) is that - within the limits of the pad plumbing - it is vehicle agnostic.  As long as the MLP/vehicle combination fits the infrastructure (VAB, CT, etc.), what's on top of the MLP really doesn't matter.

SpaceX could go with a clean pad for 39A.  Then BO (or whomever) would just have to build their own MLP and pay for facility use (VAB space, CT services, etc.) as necessary.

Yeah, they could do that.  But what if it's cheaper for SpaceX to just outfit the pad with dedicated hardware geared for their own vehicle?  That's what most pads have.

[rcoppola]

I suspect SpaceX already has architectural drawings of what the modifications will look like at 39A. They have most likely shared those with Nasa and will be negotiating those modifications along with lease price and length etc.

They will most likely  set up hangars for stage integrations, storage and payload processing right near the pad as they have done with their other pads. They will not need the crawler way unless and until they introduce a FHX type vehicle, so I doubt they will pay for crawler way use and/or upkeep  with this initial lease.

I also believe they will modify the current tower structures for their commercial crew efforts and for possible vertical payload integration as opposed to tearing it down. I would love to see the drawings they must have for 39A mods.

OT, but I think it would be great showmanship to have a PR event at Pad 39A to show some drawings of what the new pad will look like and reveal the Crewed Dragon for the first time. (which I thought they were going to do at the end of this year.)

[DecoLV]

SpaceX might indeed only have interest/funds to modify the pad for its own needs. But it would help them to show good citizenship by making it a clean pad. And maybe more. If everybody kicked in some funds, then Spx might still have first claim, but maybe it could be a landlord too (sub-landlord?)...joint pad ops, anyone?

The main thing is, you need a new MLP with sliding deck panels that allow the exhaust hole to be as big or small as you want. Configurable flame trench. Plug 'n play connections. Spring-release button hold-down posts that move to where you need them (not literally spring release, I'm making a point). Here's the big one. Sliding swing arms on the tower...move 'em up, move 'em down, move 'em in, move 'em out. Use a swing arm on nearly any level for any purpose.

TURN THE PAD AROUND FROM ONE VEHICLE TO ANOTHER WITHIN 48 HOURS!!!

[ChrisWilson68]

SpaceX might indeed only have interest/funds to modify the pad for its own needs. But it would help them to show good citizenship by making it a clean pad. And maybe more. If everybody kicked in some funds, then Spx might still have first claim, but maybe it could be a landlord too (sub-landlord?)...joint pad ops, anyone?

The main thing is, you need a new MLP with sliding deck panels that allow the exhaust hole to be as big or small as you want. Configurable flame trench. Plug 'n play connections. Spring-release button hold-down posts that move to where you need them (not literally spring release, I'm making a point). Here's the big one. Sliding swing arms on the tower...move 'em up, move 'em down, move 'em in, move 'em out. Use a swing arm on nearly any level for any purpose.

TURN THE PAD AROUND FROM ONE VEHICLE TO ANOTHER WITHIN 48 HOURS!!! :D

That sounds like a much, much more expensive option than just having different pads for different vehicles.

Come on, people, take a look at what every other launch vehicle has done.  Atlas V and Delta IV are both launched by the same company.  They've consolidated much of the headquarters operations and manufacturing of both vehicles.  Yet they still have different pads for the two vehicles at Vandenberg and two different pads for the two vehicles at Cape Canaveral.  Why do suppose that is?

[ChrisWilson68]

Also, in all this frenzy of speculation about how to make 39A a multi-vehicle pad, let's not lose sight of the fact that nobody else besides SpaceX and Blue Origin even put in a bid for the pad.  ULA wasn't interested.  Boeing wasn't interested for CST-100.  SNC wasn't interested for Dream Chaser.  So nobody else involved with the other two CCiCap programs was interested.  Only Blue Origin, who haven't even flown a sub-orbital vehicle to space yet, put in a bid.

And there's always 39B if someone else is interested in a pad like this.  NASA only plans to use it for one launch every two years for SLS, and they've indicated a desire to share 39B with others.  And SLS is going to be rolling out from the VAB on a crawler anyway, so 39B is already going to be a clean pad, with most of the SLS-specific stuff on the mobile launcher.

[Ronsmytheiii]

Does anyone know the exact geographic area that this agreement encompasses?  Would be useful to determine pad orientation ect by the exact footprint

[dglow]

Also, in all this frenzy of speculation about how to make 39A a multi-vehicle pad, let's not lose sight of the fact that nobody else besides SpaceX and Blue Origin even put in a bid for the pad.  ULA wasn't interested.  Boeing wasn't interested for CST-100.  SNC wasn't interested for Dream Chaser.  So nobody else involved with the other two CCiCap programs was interested.  Only Blue Origin, who haven't even flown a sub-orbital vehicle to space yet, put in a bid.

I couldn't help but chuckle at this footnote in the GAO's decision, on the second-to-last page:

There could well be a strong case for an exclusive use approach depending upon information relating to variables that is not currently in the record before our Office, but we need not consider that question at this time.^10
10 For example, the comparative maturity of one concern’s launch vehicle capabilities versus the maturity of another concern’s launch vehicle capabilities could positively affect the number of launches possible during the lease term.

Snap! "For example", indeed...