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

[yg1968]

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. 

Thanks. I also found an official statement by SpaceX in 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

[hernick]

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?

[Robotbeat]

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...

You're making the assumption that they (in the past) saw them as over-optimistic. I think they considered them ambitious but unrealistic. Of course, they ended up being pretty optimistic.

[sublimemarsupial]

According to this new SpaceNews article (link below) SpaceX wants to reuse a good amount of the existing infrastructure at 39A, not just raze it like at SLC-40. From the article: "Reisman said SpaceX wants to use Launch Complex 39A’s access tower, escape system and bunker for launching people, saving the time and cost of upgrading its existing Cape Canaveral Air Force Station launch pad"

http://www.spacenews.com/article/launch-report/36587spacex-appetite-for-us-launch-sites-grows#.UfvU7GR4YQM

[rcoppola]

According to this new SpaceNews article (link below) SpaceX wants to reuse a good amount of the existing infrastructure at 39A, not just raze it like at SLC-40. From the article: "Reisman said SpaceX wants to use Launch Complex 39A’s access tower, escape system and bunker for launching people, saving the time and cost of upgrading its existing Cape Canaveral Air Force Station launch pad"

http://www.spacenews.com/article/launch-report/36587spacex-appetite-for-us-launch-sites-grows#.UfvU7GR4YQM

Yes! Just came across the same article. I suspected as much when we were discussing yesterday. It makes total sense and puts SpaceX in a great position to offer a more cost efficient proposal for Commercial Crew selection. That's a huge win if they get it. Frankly, as I have stated before, I suspect this factors into NASA's decision in wanting to lease it to SpaceX. They just can't come right out and say that. But if NASA does lease it to them, that to me is a sign that SpaceX is a definite for selection.

[JBF]

I wonder why ULA didn't try a provisional quote with Boeing or SN.

[rcoppola]

Ok, so questions for anyone who worked at 39A:

Crew access for Falcon 9 V1.1 is considerable higher then for Shuttle. How difficult and/or time consuming will it be to alter the current Crew Tower to align it with Dragon atop F9?

And will they then need to alter the Crew escape level as well? I would think so. Very curious, so any real detailed response from first person knowledge of that Pad would be greatly appreciated.

[rcoppola]

I wonder why ULA didn't try a provisional quote with Boeing or SN.

I can think of perhaps a couple:

1. They have no real need for it outside of Boeing and/or SNC being selected for Commercial Crew services and however likely that may or may not be, there is no guarantees. Which is why they were only comfortable enough to use BO's proposal as a proxy. No risks if they do not wind up needing it.

2. Also, it's Boeing that is offering Commercial Crew services. They in turn would be contracting ULA as a launcher. BUT, they also said that if F9 is as reliable and cost effective as SpaceX claims, then they would look into using a Falcon 9 for CST as opposed to the Atlas V.

3. On top of all that, SNC has not been funded to the level of the other two and who knows when or even if they will have a contract to launch crew let alone needing the Atlas V to do it.

Too much uncertainty for any of them to commit. SpaceX has the need whether they do crew or not. Although, it would be a huge bonus if they were selected and already had a Pad 39A to use for it.

[Go4TLI]

Frankly, as I have stated before, I suspect this factors into NASA's decision in wanting to lease it to SpaceX. They just can't come right out and say that. But if NASA does lease it to them, that to me is a sign that SpaceX is a definite for selection.

By that logic you should say the same thing about Boeing since the OPF-3 deal has been known for some time as well as the intended use of MOD.

[rcoppola]

Frankly, as I have stated before, I suspect this factors into NASA's decision in wanting to lease it to SpaceX. They just can't come right out and say that. But if NASA does lease it to them, that to me is a sign that SpaceX is a definite for selection.

By that logic you should say the same thing about Boeing since the OPF-3 deal has been known for some time as well as the intended use of MOD.

Yes, that is certainly a very good point. And one I had considered.

To be fair though, I was not saying this at the exclusion of Boeing. I fully expect them to be selected for 3 of the 6 currently stated flights. However, they did not put a proposal in for the reasons I stated in a post a few up from here. And I'll add to those that even if they use Atlas V, which they probably will at first, they most likely already have a plan with ULA on how to either utilize 39B or alter their current CCAFB pad.

The main thrust is SpaceX is currently the only launch provider who has a stated immediate need beyond crew. And having 39A  sets them up nicely for providing future crew services and IMO, at least 3 of the initial 6 flight order.

((personal note: Boeing has always been one of my favorite Aerospace companies. This is not about blind fandom for me)

[mr. mark]

"Reisman said SpaceX wants to use Launch Complex 39A’s access tower, escape system and bunker for launching people, saving the time and cost of upgrading its existing Cape Canaveral Air Force Station launch pad, located just south of NASA’s spaceport, for crewed missions".

“We want to start using it real fast,” he said.


http://www.spacenews.com/article/launch-report/36587spacex-appetite-for-us-launch-sites-grows

I think this starts to answer our questions about what SpaceX would utilize on pad 39A. Clearly they don't wish to tear the whole thing down and just keep the flame trench.

[Lars_J]

With the difference in height - I wonder how much sense it makes to keep any of the existing access tower.

Here is my quick photoshop of how a F9 would look on the Shuttle pad, on top of a Shuttle image: (scale should be roughly accurate)

[Jim]

But if NASA does lease it to them, that to me is a sign that SpaceX is a definite for selection.

No, that can't be derived from that.  NASA leasing LC-39 to Spacex has no bearing on whether Spacex is selected for commercial crew.

edit. 

Just as Boeing use of OPF-3 does not mean they are selected too

[mr. mark]

With the difference in height - I wonder how much sense it makes to keep any of the existing access tower.

Here is my quick photoshop of how a F9 would look on the Shuttle pad, on top of a Shuttle image: (scale should be roughly accurate)

If as you say the scale is accurate, It's hard to see how they could utilize the existing structure without  some needed changes. We clearly don't have all the facts we need.

[JBF]

With the difference in height - I wonder how much sense it makes to keep any of the existing access tower.

Here is my quick photoshop of how a F9 would look on the Shuttle pad, on top of a Shuttle image: (scale should be roughly accurate)

You need to drop it lower, SpaceX will not be using a crawler.  But even then...

[Jim]

Ok, so questions for anyone who worked at 39A:

Crew access for Falcon 9 V1.1 is considerable higher then for Shuttle. How difficult and/or time consuming will it be to alter the current Crew Tower to align it with Dragon atop F9?

And will they then need to alter the Crew escape level as well? I would think so. Very curious, so any real detailed response from first person knowledge of that Pad would be greatly appreciated.

The Falcon/Dragon will adjust to the pad

[Jim]

With the difference in height - I wonder how much sense it makes to keep any of the existing access tower.

Here is my quick photoshop of how a F9 would look on the Shuttle pad, on top of a Shuttle image: (scale should be roughly accurate)

Eliminate the MLP and put the base of the Falcon in the flame trench.

The blast deflector can be removed and a launch stand for the Falcon can be put into place.  The Falcon can even roll to the pad from this direction

http://www.flickr.com/photos/imagined_horizons/4353621241/

[mr. mark]

Jim, I was thinking along this line as well. Just thought the idea seemed to out of the box.

[Lars_J]

With the difference in height - I wonder how much sense it makes to keep any of the existing access tower.

Here is my quick photoshop of how a F9 would look on the Shuttle pad, on top of a Shuttle image: (scale should be roughly accurate)

Eliminate the MLP and put the base of the Falcon in the flame trench.

Insides the flame trench? It seems doubtful when there is a perfectly good ramp there already.

Here is an updated version:

(And even if the rocket was placed at the very bottom of the flame trench, the crew access arm would still be too low)

[Lars_J]

The blast deflector can be removed and a launch stand for the Falcon can be put into place.  The Falcon can even roll to the pad from this direction

http://www.flickr.com/photos/imagined_horizons/4353621241/

Ok, that is an interesting idea. Here is how FH might look, if mounted in the flame trench like that: