From Atlas V to Falcon XX - Commercial suitors wanted for Pad 39A

[R7]

Perhaps its all part of the plan to ... stifle the competition

No! Never! ULA just happens to support BO because they passionately share Besoz's vision of enabling human access to space at dramatically lower cost and increased reliability. It must be purely coincidental that this move might throw a wrench of some size into SpaceX's plans, mustn't it??

[A_M_Swallow]

{snip}
So who could provide a multi-user pad?

{snip}

You could try someone like FGP TopCo Limited who own several of London's airports.

[FutureSpaceTourist]

Interesting discussion of the choice NASA faces: http://innerspace.net/2013/07/24/showdown-at-39a/

[majormajor42]

Won't the challenges of sharing the VAB be more complex than sharing 39A?

[yg1968]

Here is the letter from Chairman Wolf and Rep. Aderholt to Administrator Bolden:
http://www.spaceref.com/news/viewsr.html?utm_content=api&pid=44412&utm_source=t.co&utm_campaign=&utm_medium=srs.gs-twitter

[Lurker Steve]

Here is the letter from Chairman Wolf and Rep. Aderholt to Administrator Bolden:
http://www.spaceref.com/news/viewsr.html?utm_content=api&pid=44412&utm_source=t.co&utm_campaign=&utm_medium=srs.gs-twitter

Is it really true that NASA originally attempt to lease out the pad without a public solicitation ?

Even if the pad costs 20 mil/year for maintenance, that's pocket change for NASA, right ? They probably spend that much on "unfunded" SAA agreements.

[JBF]

Here is the letter from Chairman Wolf and Rep. Aderholt to Administrator Bolden:
http://www.spaceref.com/news/viewsr.html?utm_content=api&pid=44412&utm_source=t.co&utm_campaign=&utm_medium=srs.gs-twitter

Is it really true that NASA originally attempt to lease out the pad without a public solicitation ?

Even if the pad costs 20 mil/year for maintenance, that's pocket change for NASA, right ? They probably spend that much on "unfunded" SAA agreements.

My understanding is that the underlying issue is not the yearly maintenance but the fact if the pad falls out of use NASA is required to restore it and then maintain it in that restored condition.

[rcoppola]

Let's keep this simple.

Whoever bids the highest for the lease wins. The bid would be valued with regards to both what the base lease price offer is, as well as the value of guaranteed actual launch activity, ie. infrastructure investments, added personnel etc..

I agree that NASA should have a sound understanding of what their costs in maintaining 39A are, in order to properly evaluate any proposal.

Keep it based firmly in commercial market best practices.

As for the rest of the apparent intrigue...Would I be out of line thinking that the "concern" is that if SpaceX were to get sole possession of 39A, it would give them an advantage with regards to preparing for Crew Services selection? And maybe their near-term FH offerings?

I hate to even put it those terms but...there you have it.

In the end. I just assume defer to NASA's judgement on this one. They know what they're doing, what pieces they are trying to put in place.

[Lurker Steve]

Let's keep this simple.

Whoever bids the highest for the lease wins. The bid would be valued with regards to both what the base lease price offer is, as well as the value of guaranteed actual launch activity, ie. infrastructure investments, added personnel etc..

I agree that NASA should have a sound understanding of what their costs in maintaining 39A is in order to properly evaluate any proposal.

Keep it based firmly in commercial market best practices.

As for the rest of the apparent intrigue...Would I be out of line thinking that the "concern" is that if SpaceX were to get sole possession of 39A, it would give them an advantage with regards to preparing for Crew Services selection? And maybe their near-term FH offerings?

I hate to even put it those terms but...there you have it.

In the end. I just assume defer to NASA's judgement on this one. They know what they're doing, what pieces they are trying to put in place.

The folks who privatized the parking meters and the Skyway in Chicago thought they knew what they were doing also.

If SpaceX were to get a long term lease for LC-39A, I assume they would build an integration build near the pad instead of using the VAB, and re-work the frame trench so that no MLP was required. I would assume that all traces of Apollo and Shuttle history would be wiped clean, since they would be counter-productive to their mode of operation.

[rcoppola]

Let's keep this simple.

Whoever bids the highest for the lease wins. The bid would be valued with regards to both what the base lease price offer is, as well as the value of guaranteed actual launch activity, ie. infrastructure investments, added personnel etc..

I agree that NASA should have a sound understanding of what their costs in maintaining 39A is in order to properly evaluate any proposal.

Keep it based firmly in commercial market best practices.

As for the rest of the apparent intrigue...Would I be out of line thinking that the "concern" is that if SpaceX were to get sole possession of 39A, it would give them an advantage with regards to preparing for Crew Services selection? And maybe their near-term FH offerings?

I hate to even put it those terms but...there you have it.

In the end. I just assume defer to NASA's judgement on this one. They know what they're doing, what pieces they are trying to put in place.

The folks who privatized the parking meters and the Skyway in Chicago thought they knew what they were doing also.

If SpaceX were to get a long term lease for LC-39A, I assume they would build an integration build near the pad instead of using the VAB, and re-work the frame trench so that no MLP was required. I would assume that all traces of Apollo and Shuttle history would be wiped clean, since they would be counter-productive to their mode of operation.

Parking meters? Did you seriously just make a comparison between privatizing parking meters and KSC launch facilities? Are you saying that any and every Gov't agency is incompetent to determine how to transition their resources to commercial use?

Are you also saying you oppose any private lease because of wanting to preserve "Traces of Apollo and Shuttle history"? We have artifacts all over the country, visited by million of people every year. Launch facilities should be used for launching.

[Jim]

Perhaps its all part of the plan to maintain old space production lines and stifle the competition...  Orion on delta anyone for ISS?

And you also believe in other conspiracy theories such as no moon landings?

[Lurker Steve]

Parking meters? Did you seriously just make a comparison between privatizing parking meters and KSC launch facilities? Are you saying that any and every Gov't agency is incompetent to determine how to transition their resources to commercial use?

Are you also saying you oppose any private lease because of wanting to preserve "Traces of Apollo and Shuttle history"? We have artifacts all over the country, visited by million of people every year. Launch facilities should be used for launching.

Considering the same Chicago politicians that made those decisions are now running the entire country, yes, I made that comparison.

They have "privatized" several public facilities that it took Billions of our tax dollars to build, just in the interest of a up-front payment that helped them narrow a budget deficit. Now that money is gone, and they still have budget issues.  I see this lease deal in the same light. It's short term thinking that has long term ramifications.

SpaceX already has 2 launch facilities on federal land that they aren't using for launching. Why do they need more ?

[Jim]

SpaceX already has 2 launch facilities on federal land that they aren't using for launching. Why do they need more ?

Huh?  Humor us, which ones?  I guarantee you would be wrong.

[Lurker Steve]

SpaceX already has 2 launch facilities on federal land that they aren't using for launching. Why do they need more ?

Huh?  Humor us, which ones?  I guarantee you would be wrong.

When was the last time you saw SpaceX launch from VAFB ??

Right now, they might be on a pace for 2 launches per year from CCAFS. 3 would be a new record for them.

VAFB and CCAFS are still Air Force / US Government property, correct ?

[Jim]

SpaceX already has 2 launch facilities on federal land that they aren't using for launching. Why do they need more ?

Huh?  Humor us, which ones?  I guarantee you would be wrong.

When was the last time you saw SpaceX launch from VAFB ??

Right now, they might be on a pace for 2 launches per year from CCAFS. 3 would be a new record for them.

VAFB and CCAFS are still Air Force / US Government property, correct ?

Number of actual launches is meaningless, the fact that they are using them for launches is what matters.  Spacex has used SLC-40 for launches.  Spacex has flight hardware at SLC-4 for an eventual launch.

Nobody else is using LC-39B, so why not let someone who might launch and at least will pay for using it.

FH and SLC-40 may not be compatible and so that is why they would need more.

[Helodriver]

During the time period around the cessation of Shuttle flights and the cancellation of Constellation there was some information/specualtion posted about a potential evolved shuttle like vehicle to fly from LC39.  Clearly that idea didn't pan out, but I never heard exactly what that vehicle was planned to be. Was that a stalking horse for commercial contract operated Shuttle? It wasn't Liberty and I don't think it was SRB based Athena III. Anyone have any knowledge about what could have been?

[Lars_J]

During the time period around the cessation of Shuttle flights and the cancellation of Constellation there was some information/specualtion posted about a potential evolved shuttle like vehicle to fly from LC39.  Clearly that idea didn't pan out, but I never heard exactly what that vehicle was planned to be. Was that a stalking horse for commercial contract operated Shuttle? It wasn't Liberty and I don't think it was SRB based Athena III. Anyone have any knowledge about what could have been?

I would like to know as well... There were a couple of relatively high profile posters here who at the time seemed very sure it was going to happen. My guess would be that it was a commercial STS, but I'm speculating wildly.

[yg1968]

During the time period around the cessation of Shuttle flights and the cancellation of Constellation there was some information/specualtion posted about a potential evolved shuttle like vehicle to fly from LC39.  Clearly that idea didn't pan out, but I never heard exactly what that vehicle was planned to be. Was that a stalking horse for commercial contract operated Shuttle? It wasn't Liberty and I don't think it was SRB based Athena III. Anyone have any knowledge about what could have been?

See this article:
http://www.nasaspaceflight.com/2011/12/next-gen-shuttle-vehicle-secret-effort-save-orbiters-ends/

[Helodriver]

During the time period around the cessation of Shuttle flights and the cancellation of Constellation there was some information/specualtion posted about a potential evolved shuttle like vehicle to fly from LC39.  Clearly that idea didn't pan out, but I never heard exactly what that vehicle was planned to be. Was that a stalking horse for commercial contract operated Shuttle? It wasn't Liberty and I don't think it was SRB based Athena III. Anyone have any knowledge about what could have been?

See this article:
http://www.nasaspaceflight.com/2011/12/next-gen-shuttle-vehicle-secret-effort-save-orbiters-ends/

That's the article, thanks.

The article money quote for me is:

 “This space interested investment group has now switched its focus to a next generation Space transportation vehicle with Shuttle capabilities,” added Mr. Holleran. “The group hopes to make announcements as to its intentions end of the first quarter of 2012.”

I wonder what they were planning to fly from LC39? It seems that since they aren't one of the bidders for the pads now, it is a failed project. Too bad, it would have been intriguing to see a Shuttle 2.0.

[newpylong]

http://www.floridatoday.com/article/20130731/SPACE/130731009/Bolden-says-long-term-lease-KSC-pad-may-near

From the language used it would appear a lease to SpaceX is imminent.