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

[joek]

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?

Not really much to go on from Dr. Sowers comments, especially given the qualifier "Technically it's feasible. The biggest hurdle right now is devising a business model that works."  Also:

... We still have a lot of untapped capacity in both the production and launch infrastructure.  So we can increase rate by increasing staffing.  At some point depending on where the demand was coming from, we would have to increase launch infrastructure (e.g., additional MLP or VIF for Atlas)

Commercial crew may change the equation as suggested by the figures showing crewed Atlas V at LC-39.  Without that (or other significant increases in demand) I don't see the attraction.

[Chris Bergin]

There's a lot of attraction to go to 39A if Space Florida (who seem to be rather weak from what I've heard) pull their finger out and offer big incentives.

That's what these companies (who have already expressed and interest - something a lot of you are ignoring) are waiting for.

[joek]

There's a lot of attraction to go to 39A if Space Florida (who seem to be rather weak from what I've heard) pull their finger out and offer big incentives.

That's what these companies (who have already expressed and interest - something a lot of you are ignoring) are waiting for.

Sorry, your post seems enigmatic (or maybe I'm just dense); could you clarify please?  Is Space Florida considered blocking because: (1) they aren't offering sufficient incentives; (2) they're unwilling to take on responsibility for LC-39A; (3) or some other reason?

[Lobo]

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

Ok, thanks for the correction Jim.

Although, if they have to build a brand new site, wouldn't it be easier/cheaper build vertical integration into the new site from scratch, and leave the existing site as is?  Rather than build a new horizontal pad and retrofit the existing pad?

Or does the commercial launches being outside of KSC and government launches being at KSC have better other PR and political appeal to make it worth the added expense of going that way?

Edit:  Also, as you mentioned before, I wonder why SpaceX didn't keep the Titan mobile tower at VAFB, and overhaul it for Falcon9 and FH?  That pad must be built with the intention to compete for government contracts.  What commercial customers launch from the west coast?
So why wouldn't they keep a MSS...which I assume could be refurbished and modified for cheaper than built from scratch...at least there rather than tear it down?   They could have just left it in the retracted position until they figured out if they need it or not.

[Jim]

Ok, thanks for the correction Jim.

Although, if they have to build a brand new site, wouldn't it be easier/cheaper build vertical integration into the new site from scratch, and leave the existing site as is?  Rather than build a new horizontal pad and retrofit the existing pad?

Or does the commercial launches being outside of KSC and government launches being at KSC have better other PR and political appeal to make it worth the added expense of going that way?

The whole reason for the 2nd pad which is to be commercial pad is to be away from govt ranges

[Lar]

There's a lot of attraction to go to 39A if Space Florida (who seem to be rather weak from what I've heard) pull their finger out and offer big incentives.

That's what these companies (who have already expressed and interest - something a lot of you are ignoring) are waiting for.

I am not real keen on subsidies. Especially state on state competitive subsidies. But then I don't like rent-seeking at all.

EDIT: I know, that's how the world works. But I don't have to LIKE it.

[Chris Bergin]

There's a lot of attraction to go to 39A if Space Florida (who seem to be rather weak from what I've heard) pull their finger out and offer big incentives.

That's what these companies (who have already expressed and interest - something a lot of you are ignoring) are waiting for.

Sorry, your post seems enigmatic (or maybe I'm just dense); could you clarify please?  Is Space Florida considered blocking because: (1) they aren't offering sufficient incentives; (2) they're unwilling to take on responsibility for LC-39A; (3) or some other reason?

I never said anything about Space Florida "blocking". You misread.

[Chris Bergin]

There's a lot of attraction to go to 39A if Space Florida (who seem to be rather weak from what I've heard) pull their finger out and offer big incentives.

That's what these companies (who have already expressed and interest - something a lot of you are ignoring) are waiting for.

I am not real keen on subsidies. Especially state on state competitive subsidies. But then I don't like rent-seeking at all.

EDIT: I know, that's how the world works. But I don't have to LIKE it.

Yeah, but as you say, it's business, so it's not a big shock.

[Prober]

There's a lot of attraction to go to 39A if Space Florida (who seem to be rather weak from what I've heard) pull their finger out and offer big incentives.

That's what these companies (who have already expressed and interest - something a lot of you are ignoring) are waiting for.

Jim pointed out one incentive
the real incentive is that its pad 39A the nations investment.
 
more taxpayer cash or tax rebates should not be needed if this is to work.
 
If you just want a high end pad I suggest using the Pad that launched the Saturn 1B.   Its a fine site to rebuild.
 

[Jim]

 
If you just want a high end pad I suggest using the Pad that launched the Saturn 1B.   Its a fine site to rebuild.
 

Delta IV already uses it, LC-37.  Due to proximity issues, I believe LC-34 is not available, nor is it high end, just a concrete slab.

[Halidon]

 
If you just want a high end pad I suggest using the Pad that launched the Saturn 1B.   Its a fine site to rebuild.
 

Delta IV already uses it, LC-37.  Due to proximity issues, I believe LC-34 is not available, nor is it high end, just a concrete slab.

LC-34's a Memorial, is it not?

[Prober]

 
If you just want a high end pad I suggest using the Pad that launched the Saturn 1B.   Its a fine site to rebuild.
 

Delta IV already uses it, LC-37.  Due to proximity issues, I believe LC-34 is not available, nor is it high end, just a concrete slab.

LC-34's a Memorial, is it not?

http://www.wired4space.com/launch-sites/cape-canaveral-afs/slc-34-launch-complex-34-at-cape-canaveral-afs

was a beauty of a pad design 
"but the blockhouse is still in pristine condition"  wonder

[Jim]

was a beauty of a pad design 

No, it wasn't that, that is why LC-37 was built.

[joek]

I never said anything about Space Florida "blocking". You misread.

Right, thanks (doh!).  So a significant part of the sugar in this pot is what Space Florida is willing offer in the way of incentives?

[Chris Bergin]

I never said anything about Space Florida "blocking". You misread.

Right, thanks (doh!).  So a significant part of the sugar in this pot is what Space Florida is willing offer in the way of incentives?

Absolutely!

[Prober]

Ok, thanks for the correction Jim.

Although, if they have to build a brand new site, wouldn't it be easier/cheaper build vertical integration into the new site from scratch, and leave the existing site as is?  Rather than build a new horizontal pad and retrofit the existing pad?

Or does the commercial launches being outside of KSC and government launches being at KSC have better other PR and political appeal to make it worth the added expense of going that way?

The whole reason for the 2nd pad which is to be commercial pad is to be away from govt ranges

1st no reason a second pad is needed.
If they want a pad to make money with, cough up the funds and build one north from scratch.  Stop sucking or living on the taxpayer to fund your adventures.
 
On L2 we have tons of new buildings going up for NASA.  Priorities are wrong with NASA. 1st should be to maintain the nations treasure and that's the launch pads.
 

[JBF]

Ok, thanks for the correction Jim.

Although, if they have to build a brand new site, wouldn't it be easier/cheaper build vertical integration into the new site from scratch, and leave the existing site as is?  Rather than build a new horizontal pad and retrofit the existing pad?

Or does the commercial launches being outside of KSC and government launches being at KSC have better other PR and political appeal to make it worth the added expense of going that way?

The whole reason for the 2nd pad which is to be commercial pad is to be away from govt ranges

1st no reason a second pad is needed.
If they want a pad to make money with, cough up the funds and build one north from scratch.  Stop sucking or living on the taxpayer to fund your adventures.
 
On L2 we have tons of new buildings going up for NASA.  Priorities are wrong with NASA. 1st should be to maintain the nations treasure and that's the launch pads.
 

A launch pad that is not in use is not a national treasure, it's just a drain of resources.  I'm sorry but I don't approve of maintaining non-functioning industrial facilities with public funding.

[Lar]

Why does NASA need a new HQ building at KSC if the VAB is in need of maintenance? Which is more important, the VAB or a fancy HQ?

[JBF]

Why does NASA need a new HQ building at KSC if the VAB is in need of maintenance? Which is more important, the VAB or a fancy HQ?

We are not talking about the VAB, we are talking about pad 39A.

[Prober]

Ok, thanks for the correction Jim.

Although, if they have to build a brand new site, wouldn't it be easier/cheaper build vertical integration into the new site from scratch, and leave the existing site as is?  Rather than build a new horizontal pad and retrofit the existing pad?

Or does the commercial launches being outside of KSC and government launches being at KSC have better other PR and political appeal to make it worth the added expense of going that way?

The whole reason for the 2nd pad which is to be commercial pad is to be away from govt ranges

1st no reason a second pad is needed.
If they want a pad to make money with, cough up the funds and build one north from scratch.  Stop sucking or living on the taxpayer to fund your adventures.
 
On L2 we have tons of new buildings going up for NASA.  Priorities are wrong with NASA. 1st should be to maintain the nations treasure and that's the launch pads.
 

A launch pad that is not in use is not a national treasure, it's just a drain of resources.  I'm sorry but I don't approve of maintaining non-functioning industrial facilities with public funding.

A launch pad not in use should be treated as a national treasure and not let to rot in the weather.  It should be weatherized for the area.
 
Quick thought after a quick clean, wrap and heat seal in plastic with oxygen removed, and nitrogen replaced.