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

LC-39A: GAO Denies Blue Origin Protest; NASA Selects SpaceX To Use It

By Keith Cowing
NASA Watch
December 13, 2013
Filed under , , ,

GAO Decision on Blue Origin Protest Over LC -39A
“Blue Origin, LLC, of Kent, Washington, protests the actions of the National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA) in connection with its issuance of announcement for proposals (AFP) No. AFP-KSC-LC39A, for the lease of Launch Complex 39A (LC 39A) at the Kennedy Space Center (KSC). Blue Origin maintains that the agency intends to misapply the terms of the AFP in evaluating proposals and selecting a prospective lessee for the facility. We deny the protest.”
NASA Selects SpaceX to Begin Negotiations for Use of Launch Complex 39A
“NASA made the selection decision Thursday after the U.S. Government Accountability Office (GAO) denied a protest filed against the Agency by Blue Origin LLC on Sept. 13. In its protest, Blue Origin raised concerns about the competitive process NASA was using to try to secure a potential commercial partner or partners to lease and use LC-39A. Blue Origin had argued the language in the Announcement for Proposals (AFP) favored one proposed use of LC-39A over others. The GAO disagreed.”
Congress Voices Support for NASA LC 39-A Leasing, earlier post
SpaceX Statement on Shared Use of LC-39A (Update), earlier post
New Uses For Launch Pad 39A: Threatening The Status Quo, earlier post

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

26 responses to “LC-39A: GAO Denies Blue Origin Protest; NASA Selects SpaceX To Use It”

  1. Vladislaw says:
    0
    0

    I just do not forsee Blue Origin presenting a credible plan. Especially at the speed they seem to work at. SpaceX has already did two launch sites?

    • hikingmike says:
      0
      0

      I’m actually surprised they even were interested. They are obviously content to do things their own way which is great so I wonder what their reasons were for going for this.

      • Vladislaw says:
        0
        0

        I believe it probably had more to do with the usual suspects. Blue Origin is planning on utilizing the Atlas V before their launch vehicle is ready. Lockmart probably offered a launch deal if Blue tossed a wrench in the mix, anything to slow down SpaceX who wants to launch the falcon heavy there.

  2. Robert van de Walle says:
    0
    0

    I enjoy that part of the GAO’s justification includes that they’ve made decisions about haircuts.

    • dogstar29 says:
      0
      0

      Good point! The entire GAO decision has almost nothing to do with common sense:

      “For example, we have found that a benefit was conferred
      to the government through a concession for haircuts for new Air Force recruits (paid for by the recruits), because “the concession agreement is a contract for services under which the [agency] will satisfy its need to obtain initial haircuts for its recruits which the agency insists is an important aspect of the training experience.”

  3. dogstar29 says:
    0
    0

    Use it or lose it! I’m curious what SpaceX will actually use. My guess is only the FSS for crew access and escape.

    • Ben Russell-Gough says:
      0
      0

      As I understand it, SpaceX wants to move all NASA-contracted launches to LC-39A, leaving SLC-40 for commercial and other USG satellite launch only. I, too, would like to see how they plan to utilise the pad. The obvious start is to use the FSS as a crew access unit but possibly also use the wide flame trench for Falcon Heavy.

  4. John Thomas says:
    0
    0

    How long is SpaceX allowed sole use of the pad? Is there any requirement that they actually use it say within 10 years?

  5. Gary Warburton says:
    0
    0

    Yes, the obvious thing is for crew access but I don`t know if it is tall enough. The new Falcon 9 is pretty tall over 200 ft. They will probably have to do some modifications. They will have to have some modifications to accomodate their launcher erector either tracks over from their old site or from ofher buildings. They will need the large flame trench for the Falcon heavy which will mean still more modifications.

    • dogstar29 says:
      0
      0

      The top level of the FSS is 260 feet above the pad surface so it should be high enough though I agree some mods would be needed. The vast majority of the flame trench (the north side) was for the SRB exhaust and is larger than what even the Falcon Heavy would need. In fact Musk could build a new launch mount lower than the old pad, (in what now is the flame trench), so that the level of the Dragon capsule would match the old crew access arm.

      • Skinny_Lu says:
        0
        0

        Yes! Even if they have to dig down to the pad surface to build your launch mount, to match the height of the F9 in it’s crewed configuration. Keep the elevators for crew access, white room, etc. Even the escape system where the crew “ziplines” out of a pad emergency. If it was certified for the Shuttle, it must be good enough for F9. I love it.

        • dogstar29 says:
          0
          0

          Exactly. Of course the Shuttle hardware is archane and SpaceX could easily build a simpler egress system, but getting it approved by NASA could easily cost more than (and take longer than) building it. Musk is well aware that his biggest financial risk is uncontrolled NASA paperwork. That’s why he wants heritage equipment that can be grandfathered. That and the possibility that the FAA may get regulatory jurisdiction over launches from KSC.

  6. Vladislaw says:
    0
    0

    NASA picked the company most likely to use the historic apollo pad for a luna return.

    • savuporo says:
      0
      0

      SpaceX people have never even once mentioned moon as an interesting place to go to.
      Strangely, all the Google Lunar X-prize competitors pinning their hopes on cheap SpaceX launches have not been able to officially manifest a launch with them. Probably because they pulled Falcon 1 off market.

      • DTARS says:
        0
        0

        Musk said when he introduced falcon heavy that two falcon H flights could do a manned moon mission. I would guess Spacex hopes to sell many moon mission launches to help pay for his mars plans.

      • Mader Levap says:
        0
        0

        “SpaceX people have never even once mentioned moon as an interesting place to go to.”
        So what? They will do it if someone pays them.

  7. Steve Whitfield says:
    0
    0

    I’m not trying to be silly, but given how long certain other aerospace companies had pretty much sole access to the LC-39A buildings and area, I wonder how much recording and monitoring AV equipment has accidentally been left behind and operational, and accessible by RF remote control. Industrial espionage? No, no; just overlooked, I’m sure; and idle curiosity on my part. Still, even sillier than that might be not having a good look around, just to be sure, you understand.

    Given that this is a lease, and NASA still owns the facility, I wonder what rights of access NASA personnel and NASA-hired contractors from other companies have. I’m thinking of inspections, maintenance, etc., that SpaceX is not responsible for, if any. I’m not trying to turn this into a bad TV show, but space is big business with lots of money to be made. I’d hate to see things get ugly because people assumed that things like that don’t happen in the real world. Who knows, maybe the possibility of industrial espionage was one the factors in the GAO’s decision to deny more than one user.

    Just a thought.

  8. Skinny_Lu says:
    0
    0

    Falcon 9 is 224 ft tall. The crew access arm and white room on Pad A is on the 195 ft Level, so it seems workable to me. I am very curious and interested in what SpaceX decides to do with this Pad.

    • Steve Pemberton says:
      0
      0

      The 39A orbiter access arm and white room are already gone, they were removed by NASA earlier this year for eventual display somewhere although I don’t think it has been decided yet where they will go..

      In the Announcement for Proposals for the lease of pad 39A, NASA specifically mentioned three items as being historic artifacts – the OAA, the Gaseous Oxygen Vent Arm, and the Emergency Egress Bunker Rubber Room and Blast Room.

      The AFP further stated:

      “NASA will require access to these artifacts with proper coordination, and they cannot be damaged or modified during the term of any agreement”

      As a side note the pad 39B OAA and white room went to JSC. When I saw them last year they were sitting outside in the rocket park adjacent to the Saturn V building. Supposedly JSC is planning a permanent indoor exhibit.

      • Skinny_Lu says:
        0
        0

        Great info. Thanks! I guess SpaceX can reproduce the while room and OOA, surely with their own “personality”. I’m sure SX will keep their current vehicle transporter. Forget the NASA Crawler. Build a vehicle erector mechanism, much like they did in SLC-4 in California. The erector pivot-point height relationship with the pad surface will determine if they need to build up a launch mount or break down into the flame deflector trench. I could not envision a better arrangement for PadA. But of course, I see things while wearing my SpaceX goggles… Ha!