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

[yg1968]

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.

It does seem that way. If SpaceX intends to use pad 39A for the FH and the crewed Falcon 9, they are the most logical choice. Is there other pads nearby that Blue Origin could use? Ideally, all commercial companies should have their own pads.

This quote from the article is interesting:

Bolden said NASA had talked to United Launch Alliance about launching crews from pad 39B instead of modifying its existing Atlas V launch pad at the Cape for human spaceflight. He wasn’t sure if a final decision had been made, but said no company has committed to using 39B. “We would like to have multiple vehicles (there),” he said. “Interestingly, no one yet has expressed a desire to take us up on that offer.”

[rcoppola]

Interesting development:

Over at Florida Today, they discuss how the U.S. Air Force Eastern Range is being re-thought to better align with commercial needs. Not a lot of detail but an interesting development just the same. Possibly OT for this thread but didn't want to start another just for this.

Anybody heard anything about what NASA and the Air Force are thinking about doing here?

[mr. mark]

Have to agree with the article. Looks like SpaceX has 39A pretty much in the bag. Can't wait to see Falcon Heavy launching from there. A nice look at 39A for those who may not have seen it up close.

[rcoppola]

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.

It does seem that way. If SpaceX intends to use pad 39A for the FH and the crewed Falcon 9, they are the most logical choice. Is there other pads nearby that Blue Origin could use? Ideally, all commercial companies should have their own pads.

This quote from the article is interesting:

Bolden said NASA had talked to United Launch Alliance about launching crews from pad 39B instead of modifying its existing Atlas V launch pad at the Cape for human spaceflight. He wasn’t sure if a final decision had been made, but said no company has committed to using 39B. “We would like to have multiple vehicles (there),” he said. “Interestingly, no one yet has expressed a desire to take us up on that offer.”

I imagine Bolden saying, "Pad 39A is going to SpaceX as they have the greatest need. If that's an issue for anyone, then by all means, please set up shop at 39B which has always been designated for muli-use.  Uncertain and/or unwilling to commit to 39B? Then shut the hell up, I'm trying to run a Spaceport here."

[rcoppola]

Have to agree with the article. Looks like SpaceX has 39A pretty much in the bag. Can't wait to see Falcon Heavy launching from there. A nice look at 39A for those who may not have seen it up close.

So a few questions because I agree 39A is going to SpaceX.

1. Will they consolidate pads and fly everything from 39A? i.e., F9-CRS, F9 & FH Comm-Sats, Gov't-Sats and Commercial Crew?

2. Could they then use their current pad for Core Stage and Propulsive Dragon Return when ready?

3. The heights are off but could they efficiently alter some of the current shuttle infrastructure for F9-Dragon Crew Access for Commercial Crew?

Perhaps that's the plan they shared with NASA. Is using some of the current structures reasonable for their commercial crew offerings? That would certainly be a gold mine for them if the answer is yes. Or would they need to essentially start from scratch anyway?

[yg1968]

In a prior article, it was mentioned that SpaceX was looking at it for commercial crew and for a planned heavy-lift rocket.

NASA was close to an agreement on a 15-year lease of Kennedy Space Center’s pad 39A to SpaceX, which could use it in the next few years for launches of astronauts to the International Space Station and for a planned heavy-lift Falcon rocket.

A SpaceX spokeswoman said the company would continue to pursue a privately operated pad at the Shiloh site or in other states regardless of what happens with pad 39A, to support its growing number of commercial launches.

http://www.floridatoday.com/article/20130719/SPACE/307190014/Who-will-launch-from-Kennedy-Space-Center-s-pad-39A-

Shotwell added that use of Launch Complex 39A would be integral to launching crewed spacecraft to the International Space Station, should SpaceX be chosen to do so.

http://www.floridatoday.com/article/20130726/SPACE/307260023/NASA-told-slow-pad-leasing-KSC

[mr. mark]

Have to agree with the article. Looks like SpaceX has 39A pretty much in the bag. Can't wait to see Falcon Heavy launching from there. A nice look at 39A for those who may not have seen it up close.

So a few questions because I agree 39A is going to SpaceX.

1. Will they consolidate pads and fly everything from 39A? i.e., F9-CRS, F9 & FH Comm-Sats, Gov't-Sats and Commercial Crew?

2. Could they then use their current pad for Core Stage and Propulsive Dragon Return when ready?

3. The heights are off but could they efficiently alter some of the current shuttle infrastructure for F9-Dragon Crew Access for Commercial Crew?

Perhaps that's the plan they shared with NASA. Is using some of the current structures reasonable for their commercial crew offerings? That would certainly be a gold mine for them if the answer is yes. Or would they need to essentially start from scratch anyway?

1.If you mean just Florida launches, Most likely yes things will get consolidated.
2. Highly doubtful the airforce would let them land with other pads and complexes so close.
3.Possible....this is more of a Jim question lol.

[rcoppola]

Have to agree with the article. Looks like SpaceX has 39A pretty much in the bag. Can't wait to see Falcon Heavy launching from there. A nice look at 39A for those who may not have seen it up close.

So a few questions because I agree 39A is going to SpaceX.

1. Will they consolidate pads and fly everything from 39A? i.e., F9-CRS, F9 & FH Comm-Sats, Gov't-Sats and Commercial Crew?

2. Could they then use their current pad for Core Stage and Propulsive Dragon Return when ready?

3. The heights are off but could they efficiently alter some of the current shuttle infrastructure for F9-Dragon Crew Access for Commercial Crew?

Perhaps that's the plan they shared with NASA. Is using some of the current structures reasonable for their commercial crew offerings? That would certainly be a gold mine for them if the answer is yes. Or would they need to essentially start from scratch anyway?

1. Most likely yes things will get consolidated.
2. Highly doubtful the airforce would let them land with other pads and complexes so close.
3.Possible....this is more of a Jim question lol.

Calling Padrat or Jim...What about Question 3?

[Lurker Steve]

I imagine Bolden saying, "Pad 39A is going to SpaceX as they have the greatest need. If that's an issue for anyone, then by all means, please set up shop at 39B which has always been designated for muli-use.  Uncertain and/or unwilling to commit to 39B? Then shut the hell up, I'm trying to run a Spaceport here."

When are they supposed to be completed with the Pad 39 B work ??
What's wrong with telling SpaceX to go out and purchase a MLP, and share the multi-user pad that's already set up ?

Then when the volume of launches at 39B increases past some tipping point, they can restore 39A to a clean pad.

Unfortunately, its not unlike Bolden to ignore the congressional oversight committees. Bolden isn't trying to run a spaceport. He's trying to shut it down.

[Robotbeat]

The multi-user pad concept isn't really invented to make things better for the launch providers, but to make things better for Kennedy. It really doesn't make much sense for the launch providers at all.

[mr. mark]

I imagine Bolden saying, "Pad 39A is going to SpaceX as they have the greatest need. If that's an issue for anyone, then by all means, please set up shop at 39B which has always been designated for muli-use.  Uncertain and/or unwilling to commit to 39B? Then shut the hell up, I'm trying to run a Spaceport here."

When are they supposed to be completed with the Pad 39 B work ??
What's wrong with telling SpaceX to go out and purchase a MLP, and share the multi-user pad that's already set up ?

Then when the volume of launches at 39B increases past some tipping point, they can restore 39A to a clean pad.

Unfortunately, its not unlike Bolden to ignore the congressional oversight committees. Bolden isn't trying to run a spaceport. He's trying to shut it down.

I disagree wth this approach and who's to say that Bolden is trying to shut down the cape? Bolden has though bought into the argument along with Garver that private or joint partnerships is the future.

[Lars_J]

1.If you mean just Florida launches, Most likely yes things will get consolidated.

Do you have anything to back that ...idea.. up? Because that seems unlikely. Why would SpaceX abandon a working pad?

No, if anything - as suggested by others - 39A would be for FH and crew launches. 40 would remain as a commercial/ISS cargo pad.

The interesting question is how this (if true) will affect Brownsville, TX. Presumably this would put that on hold.

[mr. mark]

1.If you mean just Florida launches, Most likely yes things will get consolidated.

Do you have anything to back that ...idea.. up? Because that seems unlikely. Why would SpaceX abandon a working pad?

No, if anything - as suggested by others - 39A would be for FH and crew launches.

True and good argument it's just an opinion that using one pad for operation would most likely make a better business case.

[Jim]

Do you have anything to back that ...idea.. up? Because that seems unlikely. Why would SpaceX abandon a working pad?

They have abandoned two already and sort of a third.  (a lot of F9 GSE is not useable for V1.1)

[rcoppola]

Do you have anything to back that ...idea.. up? Because that seems unlikely. Why would SpaceX abandon a working pad?

They have abandoned two already and sort of a third.  (a lot of F9 GSE is not useable for V1.1)

So Jim, any thoughts on whether SpaceX can manipulate current structures at 39A for Commercial Crew access to F9-Dragon?

[Lars_J]

Do you have anything to back that ...idea.. up? Because that seems unlikely. Why would SpaceX abandon a working pad?

They have abandoned two already and sort of a third.  (a lot of F9 GSE is not useable for V1.1)

Yes, but those were F1 pads - not much infrastructure. And according to padrat, SL40 is already being converted to launch v1.1.

[Jim]

So Jim, any thoughts on whether SpaceX can manipulate current structures at 39A for Commercial Crew access to F9-Dragon?

They will do like they did for SLC-40 and SLC-4.  Raze every structure and just use the flame duct.

[Jim]

And according to padrat, SL40 is already being converted to launch v1.1.

a lot of F9 GSE is not useable for V1.1, hence the word converted.

[Lars_J]

And according to padrat, SL40 is already being converted to launch v1.1.

a lot of F9 GSE is not useable for V1.1, hence the word converted.

So are you just nitpicking for fun, or do you have a point you disagree with?

[newpylong]

I imagine Bolden saying, "Pad 39A is going to SpaceX as they have the greatest need. If that's an issue for anyone, then by all means, please set up shop at 39B which has always been designated for muli-use.  Uncertain and/or unwilling to commit to 39B? Then shut the hell up, I'm trying to run a Spaceport here."

When are they supposed to be completed with the Pad 39 B work ??
What's wrong with telling SpaceX to go out and purchase a MLP, and share the multi-user pad that's already set up ?

Then when the volume of launches at 39B increases past some tipping point, they can restore 39A to a clean pad.

Unfortunately, its not unlike Bolden to ignore the congressional oversight committees. Bolden isn't trying to run a spaceport. He's trying to shut it down.

Shut it down? It's shut down right now, and it's going to be leveled after 10/1 if they don't find a tenant. SpaceX has already stated they are not interested in a shared facility. It should be given to someone who is going to use it, not hope to use it (like Blue Origin).

Where does one go out and buy an MLP and why would they need one? NASA has two which to offer if they were going to share 39B and could be used for A if they didn't want to use an erector.