Long-term Lease for Pad 39A Almost Set
Lease on Kennedy Space Center’s Pad 39 may be near, Bolden says, Florida Today
“A long-term lease of a mothballed Kennedy Space Center launch pad may still be near, NASA Administrator Charlie Bolden suggested Wednesday.
At least one company and some members of Congress have asked NASA not to award a single company exclusive use of pad 39A, saying it should be made available to multiple launchers.
But Bolden said it was the neighboring pad 39B, which NASA is overhauling to support its own exploration rocket, that the agency has always envisioned for shared use.”
Previous: Fighting Innovation at Pad 39A
Update: Space Florida has sent a letter to NASA Administrator Bolden.
Space Florida Letter to NASA Administrator Charles Bolden: Launch Complex 39A
“Chairman Wolf has long been a champion of a strong and vibrant US space program and we have no doubt his intentions are well founded. However, the nature of this letter, and particularly the subsequent explanatory correspondence provided by Representative Aderholt’s staff, seem uncharacteristically random and offer a number of implausible assertions that serve only to obstruct the ongoing KSC process. I believe the Chairman is being poorly advised to follow this course of action.
… We strongly advocate for allowing NASA to continue to transfer its underutilized infrastructure to commercial operators in a fair process with terms and conditions that support a commercially driven business approach. NASA’s planned approach on Pad 39A for partnership with private industry will accelerate the capability to deliver not only cargo, but also crew, and quickly end our dependence on other nations to transport our nation’s crew to the International Space Station.”
As I suspected, the political reality is that pad 39A will be used for commercial launches and that it will be designated for multiple use. Some of the posters here have declared it can’t be done but they don’t know what pad 39A’s final configuration or multiple configurations that are possible. The ISS is going going to go under some major docking change configurations for multiple vehicles as well. There could be mission changes for the ISS also. I freely admit that I don’t know what is mechanically possible or not, I just know the political implications. When I see ,major entreprenuers like Jeff Bezos show interest, I know the poltical bacon is sizzlin’.
Speaking of political realities, does anyone seriously believe this Congress will allow more than one commercial crew vehicle to be funded to completion and then awarded a services contract? Rearranging ISS to accommodate multiple crew vehicles will probably end up being a waste of effort.
And yet it may not be a waste of effort. Simply because current plans don’t anticipate multiple vehicles doesn’t mean it can’t happen. They are also going to attach an expandable bigelow module.
http://www.nasaspaceflight….
I have to admit that I don’t understand the talk about revising a lunch pad and/or the ISS to accommodate multiple user configurations. When you take a step back and look at the situation, that’s exactly backwards. The logical and practical approach is to require the various LVs and spacecraft to make themselves compatible with the chosen “standard” hardware, software and facilities configurations for launch facilities and the ISS ports and systems. This is a basic concept of engineering.
When you look a little further into the future, to things like international partnerships, new aerospace companies, additional in-space facilities, fuel depots, modularity, space “trains,” interfacing with industrial in-space equipment and facilities, etc., this decision becomes even more critical.
Who woulda thunk…maybe some commercial teams want a multiuse pad, just not one where one of the tenants is the SLS. So 39A goes multi, and 39B can’t find the dance partner.
You need to have both PMAs fitted with IDAs to convert from APAS to NDS/iLIDS. And, the CBM end of the PMAs need to be moved to the right CBMs on ISS due to SSRMS limitations and clearance issues with other parts of ISS.
Short answer: geometry.
Thought ilids was dropped:
http://nasawatch.com/archiv…
Multiple vehicle docking still seems practical; a separate system isn’t needed for each vehicle. One docking system for Soyuz and ATV and another for all other vehicles should not complicate the ISS any more than it was with shuttle.
Moreover, approaching the station, the RMS is available for berthing to any CBM. Until Dragon is designated as a “lifeboat” it can just berth as it does now. Why not fit the Dragon with autonomous unberthing capability? If you are escaping on a lifeboat impinging the ISS with a thruster plume is the last of your worries.
This seems related. Spacex’s intentions.
http://www.spacenews.com/ar…