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

[Go4TLI]

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).

Outside of the belief that SpaceX can do everything, what is the difference between SpaceX and Blue Origin?  Where is the proof/data/launch tempo, etc to show conclusively they will use it and will need it for their sole use?

[newpylong]

http://www.spacex.com/missions

compared to:

http://www.blueorigin.com/research/


There is no proof, there is only speculation. Can you guess which has the better chance of using it?

BTW I think anyone here who has debated with me can say I am not a SpaceX Fan Boy - I am looking at reality here.

[R7]

what is the difference between SpaceX and Blue Origin?

One has built and flown actual LVs and S/Cs, the other is like a loaded version of IOS.

[mmeijeri]

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

Omelek must be #1, but which one is #2?

[Silmfeanor]

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

Omelek must be #1, but which one is #2?

the F1 pad at vandenberg?

[Go4TLI]

There is no proof, there is only speculation.

Agreed, and because of that there was no basis for the original comment that SpaceX will truly use it and therefore no real basis that they should absolutely be given sole access to it. 

[JBF]

There is no proof, there is only speculation.

Agreed, and because of that there was no basis for the original comment that SpaceX will truly use it and therefore no real basis that they should absolutely be given sole access to it. 

If they want to pay to maintain it and not use it good for them.  Any contract will have cut-out points for NASA where they can terminate the lease under a variety of conditions.  i.e. NASA develops a need and SpaceX is not presently using the pad.

[newpylong]

The history and passion for spaceflight in this country was started with NASA. They are the keepers of that legacy. It is important to preserve that legacy when practical. In my opinion there is no better preservation of one of our original launch complexes than to let a company use it that is clearly going somewhere vs one that hopes to go somewhere.

When the lease runs out they can make a change if necessary.

That is my opinion.

[Go4TLI]

In my opinion there is no better preservation of one of our original launch complexes than to let a company use it that is clearly going somewhere vs one that hopes to go somewhere.

I understand this is your opinion, but that's the rub.  Why does everyone assume they are going somewhere and such the apex of everything?

Their launch dates have consistently slipped, and they don't even advertise dates anymore, just years. 

Falcon 9 has only flown three times, each for NASA, and not perfectly either. 

If their dates were slipping due to operational issues and the log-jam was within ground operations, I could see the rational for all these sites.  However, history has not proven that to be the case so far and therefore one could logically ask why the need for all these sites and be granted as the sole user of 39A....and for 20 years.

[sublimemarsupial]

Falcon 9 has only flown three times, each for NASA, and not perfectly either. 

Falcon 9 has flown 5 times, and has successfully completed its primary mission every time. Better success record than Ariane 5 in its first 5 launches, and same record as Delta IV....

[yg1968]

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, can you confirm that SpaceX is looking at Pad-39A for FH?

Shotwell confirmed that they are looking at Pad-39A for commercial crew but she didn't say anything about FH. Although given that FH is designed to carry humans, it's not hard to guess that the pad will be used for both F9 and FH.

[Go4TLI]

Falcon 9 has only flown three times, each for NASA, and not perfectly either. 

Falcon 9 has flown 5 times, and has successfully completed its primary mission every time. Better success record than Ariane 5 in its first 5 launches, and same record as Delta IV....

You're right on number of launches, that was my bad.  However that has been over essentially a three year period and to date, they have not launched anything else from their manifest.  And while it made orbit, as I said there were issues.  And their manifest has continued to slip.  You can't deny any of that.

[Go4TLI]

Jim, can you confirm that SpaceX is looking at Pad-39A for FH?

Shotwell confirmed that they are looking at Pad-39A for commercial crew but she didn't say anything about FH. Although given that FH is designed to carry humans, it's not hard to guess that the pad will be used for both F9 and FH.

I can and this has been discussed long before it was the space community public mind. 

[sublimemarsupial]

Falcon 9 has only flown three times, each for NASA, and not perfectly either. 

Falcon 9 has flown 5 times, and has successfully completed its primary mission every time. Better success record than Ariane 5 in its first 5 launches, and same record as Delta IV....

You're right on number of launches, that was my bad.  However that has been over essentially a three year period and to date, they have not launched anything else from their manifest.  And while it made orbit, as I said there were issues.  And their manifest has continued to slip.  You can't deny any of that.

The issues were no worse than Ariane or Delta from a payload's persepctive, both of which are now considered extremely reliable LVs. I agree the manifest slip is very disappointing, hopefully they can catch back up with F9v1.1. Anyways, this is getting OT for this thread

[rcoppola]

In my opinion there is no better preservation of one of our original launch complexes than to let a company use it that is clearly going somewhere vs one that hopes to go somewhere.

I understand this is your opinion, but that's the rub.  Why does everyone assume they are going somewhere and such the apex of everything?

Their launch dates have consistently slipped, and they don't even advertise dates anymore, just years. 

Falcon 9 has only flown three times, each for NASA, and not perfectly either. 

If their dates were slipping due to operational issues and the log-jam was within ground operations, I could see the rational for all these sites.  However, history has not proven that to be the case so far and therefore one could logically ask why the need for all these sites and be granted as the sole user of 39A....and for 20 years.

I'm not sure about the "Apex of everything" but they are obviously going somewhere. To deny that is unreasonable. The infrastructure, the large and growing manifest, the maturing systems and manufacturing processes. If you step back and objectively look at what they have and are on the cusp of achieving, I wouldn't bet against them. Besides, why would anyone want to bet against them? Unless those that do, profit from the current status quo, and if so, then shame on them.

[cro-magnon gramps]

From what Musk and Shotwell have said since about April 2011, they are aiming for 400 Merlin D engines and enough cores to do 10 F9 and 10 FH flights per year... now, there has been slippage, of about 1 year, but they are still on track for those production targets... when they have the launches ready, will they need Pad 39A as well as the others they are looking at to make their manifest? That seems to be the question that needs answering. If it is Yes, then what happens if they lose out to exclusive use of Pad 39A? What are their alternatives?

edit grammar ;(

[Lurker Steve]

From what Musk and Shotwell have said since about April 2011, they are aiming for 400 Merlin D engines and enough cores to do 10 F9 and 10 FH flights per year... now, there has been slippage, of about 1 year, but they are still on track for those production targets... when they have the launches ready, will they need Pad 39A as well as the others they are looking at to make their manifest? That seems to be the question that needs answering. If it is Yes, then what happens if they lose out to exclusive use of Pad 39A? What are their alternatives?

edit grammar ;(

The launch pads are not the bottle neck.

They spend too much time getting completed stages to Texas, and too much time in the HIF getting the stages ready to fly after they have already been qualified on the test stand.

Besides, other than the 1 qualification flight they received from the Air Force / DOD, there aren't really any FH flights on the manifest. They may never get to the 3 flights necessary to qualify FH on the NLS contract.

[Elvis in Space]

From what Musk and Shotwell have said since about April 2011, they are aiming for 400 Merlin D engines and enough cores to do 10 F9 and 10 FH flights per year... now, there has been slippage, of about 1 year, but they are still on track for those production targets... when they have the launches ready, will they need Pad 39A as well as the others they are looking at to make their manifest? That seems to be the question that needs answering. If it is Yes, then what happens if they lose out to exclusive use of Pad 39A? What are their alternatives?

edit grammar ;(

The launch pads are not the bottle neck.

They spend too much time getting completed stages to Texas, and too much time in the HIF getting the stages ready to fly after they have already been qualified on the test stand.

Besides, other than the 1 qualification flight they received from the Air Force / DOD, there aren't really any FH flights on the manifest. They may never get to the 3 flights necessary to qualify FH on the NLS contract.

What about the Intelsat flight booked for FH in 2015?

[Occupymars]

In my opinion there is no better preservation of one of our original launch complexes than to let a company use it that is clearly going somewhere vs one that hopes to go somewhere.

Their launch dates have consistently slipped, and they don't even advertise dates anymore, just years. 

Spacex has been mostly optimistic about their dates. Would you rather them be hugely pessimistic so that they can claim to be always ahead of schedule? Spacex's dates are usually best case scenarios. Spacex would tell you they can launch crew by 2015 and yet NASA has stated they think that Spacex is being optimistic about that date.

[Vultur]

In my opinion there is no better preservation of one of our original launch complexes than to let a company use it that is clearly going somewhere vs one that hopes to go somewhere.

Their launch dates have consistently slipped, and they don't even advertise dates anymore, just years. 

Spacex has been mostly optimistic about their dates. Would you rather them be hugely pessimistic so that they can claim to be always ahead of schedule?

I would rather they be more realistic.

I mean, I like SpaceX and think they're the best hope for an American future in space, but I don't see what they get from over-optimistic claims...