This is not a NASA Website. You might learn something. It's YOUR space agency. Get involved. Take it back. Make it work - for YOU.
Commercialization

Congress Voices Support for NASA LC 39-A Leasing

By Keith Cowing
NASA Watch
September 16, 2013
Filed under , , ,

Letter from Members of Congress to NASA Regarding LC 39A Leasing (pdf)
“In particular, we commend NASA for undertaking an open, competitive process regarding Launch Complex 39, Pad A, (LC-39A) at the Kennedy Space Center (KSC). As you are aware, the NASA Inspector General and the Agency have identified LC-39A as excess infrastructure and have no “future rnission-related uses for these facilities” (Report No. IG- 13-008). Consistent with the OIG’s recommendation, as well as the need to reduce overhead in the current constrained fiscal environment, we understand that NASA is currently undertaking an open competitive process to transfer LC-39A to a private entity, with formal decisions relating to lease terms and duration to be determined through proper negotiation subsequent to award. Given KSC’s expertise, it should be within their purview and judgment to determine what factors to consider and outcomes to render. We urge you to proceed with these plans.”
Letter from Sen. Nelson and Sen. Rubio to NASA Regarding LC 39A Leasing (pdf)
Letter from Rep. Wolf and Rep. Aderholt Regarding NASA’s Leasing of Pad 39A, earlier post
New Uses For Launch Pad 39A: Threatening The Status Quo, earlier post
NASA Announcement for Proposals: Commerical Operation of Launch Complex 39A, earlier post

NASA Watch founder, Explorers Club Fellow, ex-NASA, Away Teams, Journalist, Space & Astrobiology, Lapsed climber.

9 responses to “Congress Voices Support for NASA LC 39-A Leasing”

  1. dogstar29 says:
    0
    0

    The only rationale I can think of for SpaceX to use the Shuttle FSS is solely to provide crew access and ground escape. They can thus avoid interminable discussions with NASA over what is acceptable for a crew ground escape system, since it has already been found acceptable. I feel it is highly unrealistic to suggest that multiple major launch vehicles from different manufacturers could use the same launch pad, and I don’t know if or why Jeff Bezos is suggesting this. Each vehicle requires unique GSE and the cost of building a pad for each LV is much less than the cost of a pad that will accommodate all, with all the organizational and design interfaces it would require. Moreover, the range itself produces enough schedule conflicts, can you imagine the schedule problems if three or four separate launch programs, which often require weeks or even unpredicted months with a vehicle on the pad, all had to use the same pad? I have seen such a powerpoint. It frankly boggles the mind. But to politicians and some managers it has the attraction of giving them credit for a brilliant idea and control over an entire industry.

    • John Gardi says:
      0
      0

      V4:

      I agree with your premise. Unless someone strips 39A to a ‘clean pad’ that vendors would roll their individual launch platforms to, I don’t think multi-user would work.

      It could be simply that OIG gave them the data they needed and realized that Orbital’s bid would slow thing down, not make things ‘better’. Not good for Orbital to cry wolf like that. They’ll be considered less favorably in the future for this.

      tinker

      • dogstar29 says:
        0
        0

        LC-39B was pretty much stripped for SLS before the MLP access structure was added, but it can still only accommodate launch vehicles mounted on the huge MLP, so it also needs the VAB and crawler, which already makes it extremely expensive, slow to roll out and nack, and no weather (or bird) protection on the pad. If SpaceX gets an exclusive lease on Pad A, they will apparently leave the FSS (bur only use it for crew access), and may mosidy the flame trench area to accommodate their rail-mounted erector-transporter. Having multiple LVs use the same pad seems impractical for both schedule and hardware reasons.

        • Mark_Flagler says:
          0
          0

          Agreed.
          This feels a lot like a white-elephant sale.

        • Steve Pemberton says:
          0
          0

          The rails for the Saturn V flame deflectors are still there, maybe they could use those. The rails extend straight out from the pad for about 800 feet which is farther than their current SLC-40 hanger is from the pad. Only thing is they would have to design their transporter around the existing rails, which could be an added cost and it might be cheaper to just go ahead and install new rails. But at least the concrete is already in place to install up to 800 feet of track.

          In the less likely scenario that anyone wants to use an existing MLP they could build a vertical assembly building on the south side of the pad, about where the guard station is. Then it would just be a short crawler ride up the slope to the pad.

          I can’t imagine anyone other than NASA using the VAB. Eight hour crawler rides each way was okay for Apollo (and SLS), not so good for Shuttle, but would be terrible for a commercial launcher.

    • Mark_Flagler says:
      0
      0

      I concur. I really don’t see the logic corporate leasing. As for SpaceX, they have a lean launch pad approach that’s much cheaper than anything they might achieve with 39A.
      On the other hand, Musk and Bezos have both surprised me before, so we shall see.

    • Steve Whitfield says:
      0
      0

      We had this discssion a little while ago on NASA Watch and bascially the majority of us came to these same conclusions, so one would think that by now everyone else would have had a go at discussing it, too, Congress, however, seems to be significantly behind the rest of us. But I guess there’s nothing at all unusual about that (after all, quite a few of them are still fighting the cold war). I have absolute faith that by the end of this year Congress will have everything sorted out and in place to best deal with the country’s needs for 1972.

  2. Arnie T says:
    0
    0

    J Gardi — It’s not Orbital. It’s Code Blue (oops, I mean Blue Origin). Code Blue is a phrase used in hospitals when a situation is dire.
    Hmmm . . . Maybe for Bezos the phrase fits.