SpaceX Likes Texas
SpaceX official testifies before House committee, Brownsville Herald
“At Thursday’s committee hearing, Caryn Schenewerk, counsel and director of government affairs for SpaceX, testified that Texas is high on the list for the future site of a launch facility for the company’s rockets. “We want to be somewhere where our activity is valued.” she added. The SpaceX official testified that what SpaceX is doing is a capital-intensive endeavor and before the company chooses a site it wants to ensure that it will face no last-minute legal issues that might prevent rocket launches. “We don’t want the one-in-10,000 person who wants to stop our activities and tries to get, for example, an injunction against the noise it will create. We want to know that we come to a community and to a state that values that noise,” she said.”
Keith’s note: BTW @SpaceX refers to the Grasshopper cowboy as “Johnny”.
Cowboy Rocketship, earlier post
If the launch vehicle companies require significant government/tax payer dollars to sustain business, why does the company get to decide where to build the launch site(s)? Should not the lowest cost to the government be the criteria for selection?
muomega:
In this case, SpaceX is asking for legal protection and hasn’t asked for money yet. Not once. All the things they have asked for are to improve their chances of success like protection from noise injunctions and other legal arrangements. Texas rightly interprets this as meaning SpaceX fully intends to be a long term partner in the community. It doen’t hurt that SpaceX has it’s test facility in the same state as a living, working example of what they’re capable of.
As for Florida, aside from living in denial, there is far too much infighting going on to make SpaceX comfortable. The state is trying to acquire a small chunk of land north of the Shuttle Landing Facility so they can turn it into a ‘commercial’ launch site. NASA’s going ‘Wait a minute! What about the VAB! The crawlers! The mothballed launch pads!” Not gonna happen without a fight. Even so, do you think the Air Force will stand down and let civilians decide when they can launch off the Space Ghost (sorry, I mean Coast )? At least they will ‘mandate’ that their bombs be put on the rockets that they keep the buttons to. Cape Kennedy has it’s own problems as I mentioned above. Nobody seems to be taking them up on using their ‘new, modern launch facilities’ except the one rammed down their throats: SLS.
So, too many hooks and not enough fish for Florida, all of them jockeying for a bite on their line. They do have common purpose, sad to say. I can almost hear their mantra keening in the wind…
“Rocket launches within site of the Visitors Center!”
“Rocket launches within site of the Visitors Center!”
“Rocket launches within site of the Visitors Center!”
tinker
I basically agree. NASA wants “customers” for LC-39 to spread the cost. But in reality it is just a piece of decades-old GSE that has become very expensive to maintain. We can’t afford to be sentimental. If a commercial operator wants to use the land for a new pad, they should be allowed to lease it with minimum interference.
KSC should be jumping at the chance to get future business in there.
After SLS is cancelled, which it will be, the only customers they will have are gators looking for some of the wildlife for dinner.
Gonzo:
The point is that the state wants to take the land I mentioned from NASA… so that they can administer it. NASA wouldn’t ‘welcome’ a venture that was out of their hands. Standoff!
Nobody is ‘jumping at the chance’ to use KSC’s launch facilities. Some companies are leasing buildings because they are close to Canaveral AFB’s launch pads. It’s simply cheaper than building something new (especially with the ‘incentive packages’ thrown in;)). I mean, everybody knows that KSC is a bottomless money pit that was never meant to be economically viable… because everybody milked that cow for decades. It’s too expensive and they know it. After all, it was built that way in the first place.
tinker
Something I’ve wondered about — and I have no data at all — is the number of companies and facilities in the area around KSC that have basically been dependent on it. We hear a lot about KSC CS and contractor employees and how they’ve been affected by all the changes, but what about other support companies. I’m assuming that in the area around KSC it’s like it is around any major airport — you get support and maintenance companies setting up in the area to service KSC needs; then you get restaurants and stores for the convenience those companies; then you get more motels and hotels; then you get housing suburbs so that employees don’t have to drive in from other cities, which means schools, libraries, shopping malls, law offices, and so on until a major new suburb was built up in the area. If indeed things did happen that way around KSC, what is the state of Florida doing for all of the people, families, businesses, etc. who are being adversely affected by the KSC downsizing?
Steve:
I’m sure that a lot of jobs on the Space Coast were contract worker and small companies held at arms length and ‘let go’ without so much as a nod. I suggest elsewhere in this thread that KSC/Canaveral combine into a civilian Spaceport Authority modeled after airport authorities, providing services and commodities to multiple customers as well as steady contracts to outside companies. Don’t Go the USA route, leaving all the contract hiring to an outside authority. We’ve seen how well that worked.
To succeed, the real authority has to be local. They’re the only ones that care about the community. Also, the workforce must be a distributed model with services provided by smaller subcontractors and multiple sources should be used for commodities. This guarantees competitive prices and more flexibility for growth in the future. Just like an airport authority.
Florida has the right idea, they just haven’t thought big enough. Funny that the big idea is actually thinking small! A small authority responsible for overall success. Many small businesses responsible for daily operation. Even more small businesses that provide secondary services not directly involved with rocket launch. Best of all, small companies like SpaceX would actually be attracted to the place because they can save even more money!
Someone should convince Florida that SLS is their worst enemy. Instead of spending the money on a few expendable rockets, why not use it to build a whole spaceport instead? A permanent legacy! Run it like a business, not like a government agency, and it might have a chance of succeeding.
Sometimes to get something good, you have to let it go.
tinker
Tinker,
I agree in principle. There are some functions that I might suggest be separate from a single “authority.” However, it’s all moot since what you suggest should have been worked out years ago, before things were allowed to get into their current state. If you started planning/creating it today, even with full cooperation, it would be in place far too late to save a whole lot of jobs, companies and disrupted families. This is what happens when the “big” players make decisions based on short-term money factors, and nobody is looking at the big picture until it’s too late. Where was “Florida” when the sh*t started heading toward the fan?
Steve
Tinker is wrong on all accounts.
A. NASA can’t and isn’t forcing Spacex to use the VAB.
B. NASA is going to give the land to the state
C. And if a launch operator is not launching from federal grounds at CCAFS or KSC (the “new” state grounds), the USAF is not responsible for range safety but the FAA.
So, the just of his post is meaningless
James:
SpaceX will get no peace from Florida regardless of what deals are put before them. Florida is more interested in tourism than who or what flys from the cape, as long as someone does. KSC was tailored to a family of very large launch vehicles. Using the VAB, crawlers and launch platforms for anything less is simply not economical. Canaveral AFB was tailor built for government launches, both NASA and military. Most of the pads are mothballed and the launch rate for the near future doesn’t show any great increase (unless you consider SpaceX). If anything, Canaveral is the ideal place for any kind of commercial launch complex. All those pad locations could be refurbished if needs be by other launch companies and really take advantage of known location for rocket launches. It’s isolated from local population centers by the very nature of it’s original purpose. Why are those launch pads still abandoned?
If you set things up right, it could be made economically viable enough to attract launch companies to Canaveral instead of shunning them. For instance, the ‘Canaveral Launch Authority’ could provide tracking just like the Air Force does now. They could also provide commodities like LOX, fuels, gasses like helium and nitrogen needed to pressurize tanks, specialists with common skill sets so that each launch company only needs the employees necessary to deal with company specific launch activities.
Not much different from an airport authority really. Why not add KSC into the mix. The runway would be convenient to launch companies and the existing buildings could become the assembly and prep area for the pads to the south.
If Florida wants a sustainable launch industry that provides the jobs and tourism they so dearly want, NASA and the Air Force just have to go. Combine KSC and Canaveral, design a space complex authority like I describe and bid the contract to the lowest bidder! Economies of scale can bring launch cost down only if this authority charges fair prices.
This little postage stamp of a site Florida is proposing is all they can offer because they don’t have the power to do more. Because of that, KSC will remain half mothballed and most of Canaveral’s launch sites will remain abandoned. What a waste.
tinker
There is not going to be any launch facility to the north of the Shuttle landing strip. Go to google and look at a map of the area. No way is there going to be any launch when the VAB and Canaveral is practically down range of it. Then look north where the towns of Oak Hill and Edgewater are located. You can’t launch over them for the Russian orbit inclination. It’s *never* going to happen. Fugedaboutit. No bueno. Next.
Addendum: Well, yes it could happen. If you close KSC and the north part of Canaveral AFB and turn it into a wildlife refuge (which it already is) then you could do it. You would still have to buy out Oak Hill and Edgewater for Russian inclination launches. So, yeah you could do it.
I would say the truth is somewhere in between, but given the critical nature of the issue, if you have a reference i would love to see it. I have heard it said by managers that KSC still thinks it can convince SpaceX to commit to launching the FH from LC-39 (which would reduce the overhead on SLS). While I can understand the rationale, it seems extremely unlikely SpaceX will agree to do so. But this could be why KSC is dragging their feet on making a deal for the land in Shiloh, which may turn have motivated SpaceX to suggest they will go to Brownsville.
I just don’t think KSC has any idea how close it is to loosing its entire launch program or they would be moving ASAP to make a deal on Shiloh. If they lease rather than sell the land it is technically still under Eastern Test Range authority. I agree there is pressure from SpaceX to change this but I don’t think DOD has yet conceded. This has been covered in detail by Eddie Ellegood:http://spacereport.blogspot…
I would point out that it would be nice if the Falcon Heavy could launch Orion. If that was the case then KSC is the place.
The pad could be anywhere, even next to the current LC-39. But FH is designed for horizontal integration and LC-39 is designed for vertical integration, so it is doubtful that the VAB, MLPs, crawlers, or existing launch pads could be used for FH without a major cost hit on SpaceX. Also the FH program would have to pick up costs on modifications and maintenance of the LC-39 hardware, which would likely outweigh any benefit from using an “existing facility”.
I believe you meant for the link to go here… http://spacereport.blogspot…
In my opinion, there are still big unanswered questions about the viability of the Texas site. Meanwhile, I heard that NASA KSC believes they legally may not be tied to the Eastern Range for commercial launches from their property. Nice trick if the Air Force agrees, but it still doesn’t remove NASA oversight/insight from those commercial launch operations.
Shiloh is feasible and should be supported.
Why do you imagine that a private company WOULDN’T want to minimize costs so it can improve market share and profitability? To help satisfy ALL of its customers.
And if a company satisfies its private customers, it can stay alive longer and develop new goods and services to satisfy future PUBLIC as well as private customers.
Competitive markets work. Especially for government services.
In response to your final comment, competition in the provision of government services is not always in our best interests, either for reasons of cost or quality.
I would not want competition in police services, fire fighting, national defense, food & drug safety, etc. etc. etc. All of those would be patently against our national interest and sheer lunacy.
Additionally, competition in the provision of some service actually drives up costs, such as health care. The lowest-cost health care providers in the nation are the VA and the Indian Health Services. They are what Joe McCarthy would have called, GASP, socialized medicine.
And they provide something else common to socialized medical setups: poor service. Go talk to some veterans who depend mainly on the VA or visit a non-showplace VA hospital sometime.
Several peer-reviewed studies report high quality and lower costs at VA facilities when compared to commercial medicine. I know quite a few veterans who speak highly of the VA while I personally have seen poor quality medical care in several expensive fee-for-service hospitals, although private hospitals do have excellent advertising and fancy decor.However the launch services market permits much more effective competition than medical care as the purchasers of launch services are able to choose more freely between providers, while medical patients have no way to predict cost and are often trapped with one hospital or doctor. Consequently a competitive commercial market will generally be more effective at minimizing cost in lunch services.
…because if you receive 7% fee on the costs, your profits go down if you minimize them… 😉 shareholder may not be too happy 🙂
As Todd points out, quality and the requirements are key, because often apples and oranges comparisons are made. Will this happen in the site selection process once again?
Per service by Dcmordrid, since 80% of the government is outsourced, why is the government to blame for the poor service? Is it because they try to reduce quality while at the same time maintaining the value of the contract?
Why are so many cost overruns occurring if competitive markets work for government services? Has outsourcing 80% of the government made it more efficient? There are 1000s of examples on both sides of the coin….it depends.
How is receiving a government subsidy for decades allowing the competitive markets to work (for example oil or corn)? Is this not what each new state site is offering? And will the “low bid” stay low or will it be sole sourced based on who runs the show? What if the government simply changed the rules for reasonable charges to reduce the overhead? Oops that would require the companies to open the books to see why costs are so high (take health care, for example).
If abandoning facilities is the way to make government efficient, then why concentrate on launch pads. Would not relocating an assembly line or flight center or DC save way more $$ than relocating a launch pad? Why have all the high cost of living folks live in high cost of living locations? Take a look at locality based pay as a starter.
If one specifies 10, 100, 1000….mT to L2, moon, mars, by 2015, 2020, 2030, or 2040, does this not specify the winner of the competitive government market? Drive cost way more than relocating KSC? Because engineering high performance systems is an iterative trade of cost,schedule, performance, how do you define the requirements and get the H%^&$ out of the way? Take incremental, low cost steps and stop awarding contracts to 2024? Per Rifs, is it now easier to fire CS than contractors?
It seems much more complicated than simple stating that competitive markets work and the canned talking points. Actually, many good ideas could be implemented to greatly improve the whole aerospace industry. Sigh….
I don’t see the relevancy of the replies to Jim’s post. He was talking about launch services, as was muomega0, to whom he was replying. Comparing that to various public services I just don’t see as meaningful. They are too far apart in terms of requirements and characteristics. Apples and oranges.
My apologies for steering the topic a bit far afield. I confess I get a bit ruffled when people make broad political statements that are patently inaccurate. They beg counterexamples and I’m inclined to offer them.
Todd:
Still, it’s interesting to find commonality in other public services to find matching apples in their respective baskets. If there is a structural problem that’s common (endemic) in the public service that can be identified and fixed it would benefit everybody, including NASA.
Conversely, Is part of the solution the ‘relationship’ that NASA has with SpaceX? The cargo and crew contracts are showing results by investing in technology development on a ‘show me the goods and I’ll show you the money’ basis. Being able to ‘pull the plug’ at any time using milestones guarantees continued performance or the chance to regroup if things go south as was the case with Kistler.
To achieve this successfully, political interference must be kept at a minimum. Notice NASA’s success rate with the CCDev contracts. Also notice the political pressure to throw a monkey wrench in it.
Ah, there’s a common element right there!
tinker
No apologies necessary. I was just giving an opinion.
As far as any of the above arguments go, I wonder how often you can really generalize at all. It seems to me that it comes down to individual cases, but I guess we all have some tendency to attribute one bad apple’s performance to the whole basket.
And especially when you are firmly attached to the govt’s teet.
Well SpaceX was using a Johnny Cash song in the video clip
I’d like to see two analysis, one the rocket equations for boost to orbit and retaining anough fuel to do the soft landing, and two the dollar multiplier for the whole COTS and CCDEV programs, dollars spent versus economic impact in the communities where SpaceX, Orbital et al do business.
James,
Good questions. I had similar questions in mind and I was going to post something, but then I realized that, in both cases, if the numbers were put in front of me I wouldn’t have the necessary information and background to make any sort of informed decision about them, so I didn’t. Do you have information, or a feel, that would let us decide whether either the fuel reserves or the net “profits” actually justify a community going forward in support of SpaceX (or any space company)? I’ve simply been assuming that SpaceX has done the math and worked these things out, but it’s just an assumption on my part. Others, in the past, have bet on the final hole being filled in in time, and not all of them succeeded after people had spent a lot of money.
Note to NASA & The Kennedy Space Center:
You’re a theme park until the day you can launch rockets again. Therefore, open up the south end of KSC as close as you (safey) can to the active launch pads of Canaveral AFB and milk those launches for all it’s worth.
This seems like a good ‘fallback plan’ just in case things don’t quite work out as you expect. If you do get a launch company client then kick everyone out. If not… start commissioning space themed rides and roll with the flow (It’s not like there isn’t appropriate talent for that in the area).
NASA, you’re the one that’s supposed to be the one that thinks outside of the box. How is it that it took me only a few minutes to come up with a better business plan the anything I’ve heard for KSC so far?
tinker
The Bozos that run KSC will never get it, never. All they care about is scrounging up funding to make sure all the civil servants are covered, and it they can swing it, as many of their contractor buddies as they can. My advice to SpaceX is to get away from KSC/CCAFS as soon as possible. Build a future somewhere else, the Space Coast is played out. Bloated with people, but short on engineering talent.
KSC and Cape Canaveral AFB are one of the few facilties capable of launching Russian (ISS) orbit inclination as well as equatorial inclinations. But what the heck, it’s NASA so give ’em hell. Now give me 99 reasons why none of that matters. Grin.
It was interesting for me to read this thread of 11 comments. Wonder why it was so clear to me that when the Space Station eventually comes tumbling down the era of mega manned space flight for the USA is over… and out.
What will remain are the commercial start-ups, with less ambitious goals. They will then be all we have until the first of their launch vehicles go “poof” with people on board…I am glad I can still remember Mercury/Gemini/Apollo.
It seems “Astronauts” are no only needed for public service visits, and KSC will become a theme park.
TBM:
Actually, I think that the ‘commercial startups’ will prove that they have more ambitious goals. SpaceX has an aggressive development program if you’d only look. Did you know that SpaceX will try to ‘recover’ their first Falcon 9 v1.1 first stage booster by bringing it to a hover over the ocean? That’s this summer from Vandenberg AFB. Along with data from Grasshopper, SpaceX could be recovering booster stages by the time they plan to fly people in two years. Where was Boeing & LockMart when we needed them?
So I don’t blame you for being jaded with the way the space program has gone in the last few decades. There was a lot to be jaded about but most of it was for not utilizing what they had to the fullest, not that they didn’t do fantastic things. Sometimes it takes the single mindedness of a von Braun to stay focused, get the job done and, yes, take the responsibility for failure. I think we have that in Elon Musk.
To make my point, do people know who the CEOs are from Boeing, LockMart, Orbital Sciences even? Sometimes it takes individuals to succeed where boards, committees, split purposes, dispersed responsibility (my pet peeve with NASA) and selfish exploitation (when government gets involved (in anything)) fail.
tinker
Hey tinker !!! Good to read your many posts! The future looks bright! 🙂
By the time the ISS splashes down in 2028, there will likely be several private stations that have already superceeded its capabilities. And if a Private Firm loses a crew, they will fix the problem and get another crew, just like an airline does. They are not NASA and will not be bound by the same political limitations NASA is.
I have to think that the focus on Texas has everything to do with Grasshopper. If you launch from South Texas, Florida is downrange. It would seem to make an excellent place to land the first stage of a Grasshopper-enable Falcon with minimum use of fuel. They would need to extend the flight of the current Falcon 1.0 first stage by about 25% (300km) to make it to Canaveral Air Station from the South Texas site. The v1.1 first stage might just travel that far without assistance. What is there downrange from Georgia, Puerto Rico, or Florida that is so conveniently positioned to act as a landing pad?
Todd:
Not necessary to use Florida. SpaceX changed the ‘mix’ on the next version of Falcon. Even though the tanks are streched for the more powerful Merlin 1d engines, the first stage actually shuts down sooner than the original. This means it will be going slower at separation and the second stage will burn longer to take up the slack. Not only that but SpaceX plans to fly almost straight up so that at separation, the first stage is not nearly as far downrange from the launch pad as you might expect.
All this costs margin. Less payload because there’s more fuel in the second stage and less of a velocity boost from Earth’s rotation. But it’s not as bad as it looks at first glance. The fuel issue is self correcting in about 30 seconds as it burns away. The only dead weight is a few feet of extra tank barrel. As for the straight up course, they actually gain a tiny fraction of margin by getting out of the thick atmosphere quick! Earth’s rotational head start isn’t lost either, they just start taking advantage of it a little later is all. Yes, they do lose margin by using this flight profile but not a enough to be a show stopper. For polar launches, Earths rotation is not taken advantage of at all and that’s the orbit SpaceX is shooting for on their first flight from Vandenberg.
What this all leads to is a Falcon 9 first stage easily in the neighborhood of the launch site if not directly above.
Look at it this way: The Falcon 9 first stage is a mobile launch pad that launches the second stage from fifty miles up then pogos straight back down. Air launch just with a rocket. It’s doable.
If margin is lost, so be it. Scale the design to your needs. It’s just the price of doing business. If a launch ends up at a hundredth the cost of expendables, their clients can afford to launch more often to get a particular job done.
When Elon Musk said that launch vehicles had to be ‘rapidly reusable’, he meant it. One of his ultimate goals is to orbit two payloads in one day with the same booster. That’s the acid test he’s shooting for.
So, really, Florida isn’t needed for anything at this point, certainly not for booster stage landings. SpaceX will build themselves their own little KSC in miniature. Off the shelf hangers instead of the VAB, a repurposed airliner tug instead of the Pad 39 crawlers and three widely spaced concrete pads probably call the ‘Falcon Landing Facility’! Doesn’t sound like much but it would be every bit as much a space port as KSC. 🙂
tinker
So the cost of building this rapidly reusable set of pads should be the about the same at any of the sites.
The cost of modifying KSC pads would also be considered as an option. Don’t forget new runways, rail lines, range safety, etc…
So your point is that to use KSC, they have other facilities that required an overhead cost correct? Well, suppose this overhead charge is waived for SpaceX, yet the government chooses to keep the facilities open or in standby status, the tax payer saves no money….right?
Now the apples and oranges comparison: take a look at figure 54 of http://science.ksc.nasa.gov…
One scenario is that simple facility must evolve into something more complex. The other case is that the facilities became too complex because of the shuttle and could be simplified, or rebuilt, depending on the cost trade.
The performance hits could also be accounted for in the trade.
Bottom line: show the numbers and reflect complete reasonable costs to the government.
Tinker,
That flight profile possibility had occurred to me. What’s your source on the information? Is it publicly available?
Does it still apply to the FH? The strap-on cores might be dropped fairly close to the launch site, but what about the fully-fueled F9 core? I’m having a hard time seeing how that would not end up significantly downrange when its fuel was spent.
Todd:
The only reason a rocket flies down range is because it’s aimed there. the sooner you head east the sooner you can take advantage of the Earths spin. If you’re willing to carry less payload then the first stage can just go straight up and the second stage can do all the down range flying.
For polar orbits, Earths rotation doesn’t factor in as a gain so a straight up course wouldn’t make any difference.
The Falcon Heavy will only cross-tank six engines (three from each side booster) so that at separation the middle booster is a little over half full. The side boosters separate earlier and the core stage separates from the second stage a little later the a Falcon 9. It won’t be that much higher. Not enough to worry about not recovering it.
tinker
Folks:
Here’s another article about how Brownsville is banking on a SpaceX launch site to help get upgrades for their airport:
http://www.themonitor.com/n…
Improvements are already on the books but they’d also like to enlarge their terminal. They’re even suggesting lengthening a runway assuming SpaceX would need that for heavy cargo flights.
Looks like Brownsville is expecting far more passengers than just a few hundred SpaceX employees and their clients. If SpaceX can reliably ‘make the trains run on time’ local travel agencies could even offer ‘Rocket Launch Holiday’ packages that actually deliver ‘product’.
tinker
Tinker
Since Spacex is flying vertical till they drop their first stage and the second stage is bigger, how will that effect their chances to recover their second stage?? You said long ago that second stage recovery should be the easiest stage to recover with a heat shield??? Also didn’t you talk about a methane second stage?? What are Spacex plans for a more powerful second stage???
After you said that Elon plans to try to use a first stage more than once a day, i started thinking about different classes of recoverable rockets. I recall them saying merlins have been tested to about 25 lights, so don’t you think they may use a booster say for 10 flights for human rated flights then use the same booster for say 10 cargo flights after that, then maybe down grade to only fuel and water cargo fights after that.
If they had a plan like that they could fly them till they pop!!
Sure would be cool to get fuel water into Leo on the cheap!!!
Have you heard of any such plans???
Curious George
DTARS:
The new Falcon second stage will be longer but not a lot heavier dry, just a few extra feet of tank barrel. It’ll still be tough bringing it back but if they can, SpaceX would have another ‘form factor’ to design new spacecraft around. Imagine a Falcon with a second stage and a spacecraft that look almost identical on the outside. The volume of that spacecraft would be three times that of Dragon. It might not have that much down cargo capacity but, as I’ve said before, folks is light (but precious) cargo. Up cargo could be anything the launch vehicle could lift.
This could be the basis for my thirty passenger taxi to orbit or a reusable satellite carrier. SpaceX has always emphasized ‘rapidly reusable’ for crew launches but it could work with satellite launches too.
The most workable plan for second stage recovery is for the stage to return to launch site after one orbit. This would work fine for LEO cargo and crew but if they hope to recover the stages lifting satellites to GEO, they’ll have to do some careful planning to pull it off. So, maybe it would be possible to relaunch a booster set on the same day. That’s the kind of launch rate we need to colonize space.
tinker
Folks:
Yet another article about Space Florida swimmin’ upstream:
http://www.news-journalonli…
They have a ‘nice’ rendering of a SpaceX dual launch site plus a map of where they want this site to be. Someone even suggests using NASA’s existing infrastructure.
As long as NASA and the Air Force insist on lording it over their deteriorating legacy, they’ll be presiding over a launch pad to nowhere. If they worked together, they could create this ‘Spaceport Authority’ with the Air Force as space traffic controllers and security with NASA role relegated to safety and environmental control. The day to day running of the operation should be under private ownership without government oversight and micromanagment. Under NASA’s public service regulation and Air force security, yes, but to protect and nuture an important national resource, not treat them like interlopers.
As it is now, the turf they’re protecting is slowly rusting away.
tinker
What is the cost of adding a ramp and a building to allow horizontal integration to LC-39 vs the cost of adding a new ramp and new building to another location at KSC, either inside or outside NASA. In another state?
Then what is the cost to commercial companies for this facility inside or outside of NASA versus the government costs? Same performance?
As mentioned above, since significant funding from the government is required for this commercial private enterprise, oversight is required. However, it does takes a balance between the regulations and the cost burden. You may state, it will be financed privately….but then most of the business is still government….so the costs will be recovered (profit remember;)
You keep tinkering a concept, but you offer no numbers or rationale on why the approach is better, the complete package.
muomega:
SpaceX has spent about fifty million building their launch pad in Vandenburg AFB, probably a record in launch pad construction. The pad in Texas is estimated to cost around thirty million, including hanger. SpaceX will build the launch related hardware and contract the hanger and concrete work to local contractors.
My suggestion is to utilize the mostly abandoned launch sites in Canaveral first with the area around the VAB made an ‘industrial park’ supporting those launch pads. If, at some time in the future, the economics favor heavy launch and someone wants to tackle it, the vertical bays in the VAB, the crawlers and launch platforms will be there to service the 39 pads. But until then, those pads in Canaveral AFB are a gold mine waiting to be played. Do it my way and I guarantee Pads 39A and 39B will be in constant use in a decade or less and the infrastructure necessary to support them will already be in place.
tinker
And the costs for roads, railways, airports, and the rest of the infrastructure?
Mush says *it will be in addition to* existing launch sites at the Cape and Vandenberg.
http://blogs.orlandosentine…
“Musk has been launching Falcon 9s from Cape Canaveral Air Force Base adjacent to Kennedy Space Center because the pads are available and KSC and the area provides all the support infrastructure a space company would want.”
Also note that a backup LV seems like a given. Is it Falcon/Russia/Delta/Atlas?
The plan at one time was to use 39 for crew launch using Atlas or Delta. Has this changed?
http://www.ulalaunch.com/si…
Are the common elements for crew launch nearby a big cost savings? i.e. would NASA need crew facilities in both launch locations? commercial crew uses same?
Relying on SLS for crew launch….such a low probability….CAIB separate cargo and crew….
Folks:
Finally, the Elon Musk TED Talk has been released:
http://www.ted.com/talks/el…
The video runs automatically and there is a download link. It’s Elon’s basic lecture circuit material but there’s a few tidbits in there too.
tinker
Come to Texas. We have the least regulations, the lowest taxes, the highest rate of homeowners insurance, the worst schools, the most pollution, and the highest rate of on the job injuries. It is a great place for bid-ness but the worst place for families. And every now and then we blow up a few people and their homes, but for the vast majority of us, we are fine. There is an old saying here in Texas: Don’t get old, don’t get sick, and don’t get screwed by a corporation. You will be just fine reight hare in Texas!