Author Topic: From Atlas V to Falcon XX - Commercial suitors wanted for Pad 39A (Read 84923 times)

Chris Bergin · « **on:** 05/18/2013 05:17 pm »

Giving this a standalone thread, as I only used about 10 percent of the RFP element as a reason to write this article, given we've been working certain info in L2 for a while.

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

tigerade · « **Reply #1 on:** 05/18/2013 05:48 pm »

Yep, we've known about this for a couple weeks now on L2.

It should be noted that this is the first news of a SpaceX BFR since 2010ish. I was thinking that the Falcon X and XX were just "powerpoint" rockets and just an idea that a SpaceX employee came up with. This news seems to suggest that they may one day really fly even if it is years down the road.

Hyperion5 · « **Reply #2 on:** 05/18/2013 05:58 pm »

Quote from: Chris Bergin on 05/18/2013 05:17 pm

Giving this a standalone thread, as I only used about 10 percent of the RFP element as a reason to write this article, given we've been working certain info in L2 for a while.

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

Very nice and interesting article. I'd been wondering if Spacex was sniffing around about using that pad ever since they showed the pictures of the Falcon X & XX families. Nice to hear they're interested. It'd be a shame to let such a historic site go to waste.

I can't blame Spacex for being interested in this launchpad given it was designed to handle Saturn V rockets. Chris, do we know what the thrust & size limitations are for rockets using 39A? If Spacex were to do a 7m rocket and mount two CCBs as boosters, could they even get the pad to handle something that wide?

wkann · « **Reply #3 on:** 05/18/2013 06:24 pm »

Very interesting article, it looks like 39A could host anything from an Atlas V, Liberty two, to a Falcon x/xx family of rockets.(thats a big diversity of rockets) lot of life left in that historical pad, going to be interesting to see how this unfolds.

Chris Bergin · « **Reply #4 on:** 05/18/2013 06:39 pm »

Thanks Chaps!

And hat tip to Hyperion5 on making sure I noted both Merlin 2 and Raptor. I don't want this thread to be about that, so I'll look to a fresh SHLV thread on the SpaceX section at a later date. Linked the Raptor text to Zach's Flight article, given I haven't reported anything about that engine yet.

But yes, looking to keep this one on the pad angle.

Lar · « **Reply #5 on:** 05/18/2013 08:51 pm »

This is a great synthesis, way to tie it all together, and it spurs newer members like me to go back and re-read stuff, like the ULA interview.

Well done, Chris

Jason Sole · « **Reply #6 on:** 05/18/2013 08:54 pm »

Way to get a lot of info in one article. Really interesting!

Harold KSC · « **Reply #7 on:** 05/18/2013 10:37 pm »

Very well put together Chris, thanks!

Paul Howard · « **Reply #8 on:** 05/19/2013 12:54 am »

I think the Atlas V potential for KSC is more interesting, as I doubt SpaceX will ever fly those X or XX vehicles. Launch vehicles aren't something they have a good record with. Spacecraft may be their business.

Lar · « **Reply #9 on:** 05/19/2013 02:08 am »

Quote from: Paul Howard on 05/19/2013 12:54 am

I think the Atlas V potential for KSC is more interesting, as I doubt SpaceX will ever fly those X or XX vehicles. Launch vehicles aren't something they have a good record with. Spacecraft may be their business.

Could you elaborate on that?

SpaceX have said they're a launch company ...

joek · « **Reply #10 on:** 05/19/2013 03:03 am »

Quote from: Paul Howard on 05/19/2013 12:54 am

I think the Atlas V potential for KSC is more interesting, as I doubt SpaceX will ever fly those X or XX vehicles.

Which will be ~+$340M for an additional VIF and MLP (2010 estimate, based on LC 41 siting); more if a different pad. Interesting, maybe; cost-effective, no--unless heavily subsidized.

spectre9 · « **Reply #11 on:** 05/19/2013 04:13 am »

LC-39 is expensive to use so I doubt that a non-SpaceX operator would be willing to pay the rent.

The launch market is saturated right now. If Musk wants to have BFR that's his prerogative. I just don't see where the profit will come from.

Lobo · « **Reply #12 on:** 05/19/2013 06:37 am »

Quote from: spectre9 on 05/19/2013 04:13 am

LC-39 is expensive to use so I doubt that a non-SpaceX operator would be willing to pay the rent.

The launch market is saturated right now. If Musk wants to have BFR that's his prerogative. I just don't see where the profit will come from.

I'm going to paint a little hypothetical here.

First, if things come together the way Musk is hoping to, there is the potentian (only potential, mind you) that they could almost own the entire domestic and international commercial market. And I mean, -own- it. If they can beat the Russians in price and be easier to work with, and FH can beat Araine 5 in performance and price, they really stand to corner the non-government market. I think American and international companies will be cautious about the Chinese launch options, as the Chinese have a reputation for stealing intelletual property (like expensive satellites) . And, unlike cheap mass-manufacturing, I don't know they could undercut SpaceX significantly enough to really steal away market.
I think they may need to develop vertical integration capability to really own it though, as not all payloads can be horizontally integrated I don't think. Maybe most commercial payloads can? I'm not sure. This could be part of the reason they are looking at a new site as well as for potentially more business than LC-40 can keep up with.

Additionally, in 2015, I believe the USAF will open up their contracts to open competition. Which I think pretty much just means SpaceX will be allowed to compete against ULA. I don't think there's anyone else that could compete for government contracts. They will definately need vertical integration if they want to do that (after reading several posts by Jim anyway).

I think a mobile VIF can be added to their VAFB site without too much trouble. The area where the old Titan VIF/MSS was is still there. And you don't put a pad at VAFB if you don't intend to try to get USAF/DoD contracts. I don't think there's many commercial payloads needing those orbits.

however, I don't know how hard it might be to add a VIF/MSS to LC-40. Additionally, there might be enough horizontal integrated business to keep LC-40 at capacity anyway.
So that would lead SpaceX to be interested in a 2nd launch site at the cape just for their F9 and FH business. LC-40 could be their "budget" work. Horizontal integration, relatively low cost payloads, etc.

And then they might want a site with vertical integration for their "premium" work at the Cape, as most of their business will be from there anyway.. Government payloads. Other delicate payloads that need vertical integration. NASA planetary probes maybe? (a kick stage might need to be added to FH to boost escape capacity in such cases).
Also, just overflow work that LC-40 can't handle.

Ok, so I can see, if things fall in place for Elon the way I think he hopes they will, of SpaceX having two launch complexes at the Cape (or one at the Cape and another in Texas or other alternative site), as well as one at VAFB.

Now, I don't see SpaceX replacing F9 and FH any time soon with anything like FX or MCT (although my guess is FX/FXX/MCT would all be blended together to create just one next gen LV.) But if Elon is looking down the road aways with his rose colored glasses on, he might be seeing a large potential income stream coming in from corning the commercial market in slicing into the government market, and thinking perhaps he could fund a next-gen project with that? Specifically to build a rocket and spacecraft that can go to Mars so he can go to Mars. FH can do it, but a larger platform would do it more efficiently. And that would need probably an entirely new pad. Like KSC.
Especially if the incentive was there.

And...Elon might even be having delusions of grandier, and thinking that such a larger LV flying and at a reasonable price...could cause some in Congress to ponder the expense of operating a NASA only HLV?

Other options could be another cheap F9/FH horizontal integration launch facility at that Shiloh location, for pumping out commercial cargo to ISS and other horizontally integratable commercial payloads, and then modify a MLP at KSC to launch payloads that need vertical integration in the VAB, and commercial crew launches to the ISS. And later, build a brand new ML for a FX/FXX/MCT launching from there as well.

Anyway, I think this is all pretty ambitious and might be putting the cart in front of the horse. But like I said, SpaceX really has a chance to own the national and international commercial market and slice into the US government market if they are able to keep their reliability up and their costs down as they grow (which will be hard). And Elon might be making plans to expland their capacity to meet that potential market. And if he's successful at it, he funds a new BFR just for his own desires, even though it might not have a big profit market. Unless FH is replaced by it or something.

john smith 19 · « **Reply #13 on:** 05/19/2013 10:03 am »

Quote from: Lobo on 05/19/2013 06:37 am

And...Elon might even be having delusions of grandier, and thinking that such a larger LV flying and at a reasonable price...could cause some in Congress to ponder the expense of operating a NASA only HLV?

It's a charming theory. IRL the small group of the Legislature who actually care about NASA funding are unlikely to do that until the Utah casting shop is finally closed.

Prober · « **Reply #14 on:** 05/19/2013 02:10 pm »

Quote from: spectre9 on 05/19/2013 04:13 am

LC-39 is expensive to use so I doubt that a non-SpaceX operator would be willing to pay the rent.

The launch market is saturated right now. If Musk wants to have BFR that's his prerogative. I just don't see where the profit will come from.

This is part of my concern as well. The concern being a sweetheart deal with some company for the LC-39 "national" assets without any protection or milestones in place.

If this is to take place a real launcher needs to come first before the first shovel is handed to any would be company.

We can't have the wrecking ball making another empty, or clean site with out a launcher using the "national" assets.

that was a quick thought .... $:-\$

JBF · « **Reply #15 on:** 05/19/2013 02:16 pm »

Quote from: Prober on 05/19/2013 02:10 pm

We can't have the wrecking ball making another empty, or clean site with out a launcher using the "national" assets.

that was a quick thought .... $:-\$

39A is mothballed and NASA does not have the funds to maintain it. Without an active user it will not be a "national" asset for very long.

simonbp · « **Reply #16 on:** 05/19/2013 03:06 pm »

And all of the possible active users are dubious at best. ULA and SpaceX have sufficient launch pads to cover their current vehicles, and SpaceX is probably going to move their commercial launches to Texas. If SpaceX ever builds a giant booster, it would be no sooner than SLS flies. But then, SLS is at risk at every election, and there's a good chance the next President will kill it.

This is all sounding a bit like the cart driving the horse, inventing rockets to support some trumped-up 50 year old ground support equipment...

Longhorn John · « **Reply #17 on:** 05/19/2013 04:20 pm »

Quote from: simonbp on 05/19/2013 03:06 pm

ULA and SpaceX have sufficient launch pads to cover their current vehicles

Interesting, so you know better than a ULA VP quoted in the article?

deltaV · « **Reply #18 on:** 05/19/2013 05:01 pm »

It wonder if it would be worthwhile for the commercial suitors to use a NASA launch pad even if it costs a bit more in order to encourage NASA decision-makers to think of the suitor as a member of NASA's team rather than as an enemy out to steal their turf. A cynic might call this [legal] bribery of the KSC workforce.

Even if they decide not to use 39A it's probably worth their while politically to go through the motions of officially considering it.

Jim · « **Reply #19 on:** 05/19/2013 06:52 pm »

Quote from: Lobo on 05/19/2013 06:37 am

however, I don't know how hard it might be to add a VIF/MSS to LC-40. Additionally, there might be enough horizontal integrated business to keep LC-40 at capacity anyway.
So that would lead SpaceX to be interested in a 2nd launch site at the cape just for their F9 and FH business. LC-40 could be their "budget" work. Horizontal integration, relatively low cost payloads, etc.

And then they might want a site with vertical integration for their "premium" work at the Cape, as most of their business will be from there anyway.. Government payloads. Other delicate payloads that need vertical integration. NASA planetary probes maybe? (a kick stage might need to be added to FH to boost escape capacity in such cases).
Also, just overflow work that LC-40 can't handle.

Other way around. The new site would be for commercial spacecraft & FH and use horizontal integration. It is outside of KSC for the commercial appeal. LC-40 would be for gov't missions and would need an MST