KSC Now To Be Private and Public Facility

[mr_mark]

After the Shuttles are retired, Private space providers will be welcome to use Pad 39 at the Kennedy Spaceflight Center for construction and launches. This is a huge and welcome shift to return this facility to profitability and being a money making site instead of being a financial drain on taxpayers and the US budget. Here is an article about coming events at KSC. http://www.spaceflightnow.com/news/n1002/02cabana/

 

[jmiller31]

When I read this all I saw was another sad example of why this decision is completely illogical. Should KSC and the range be upgraded? Of course it should that part makes sense, the part that doesn't make sense is that no private company is going to use it so we'll just spend money for nothing unless NASA uses it. The article itself even said that SpaceX would continue to use Pad 40 (which they should). The Pad 39 complex is built for very specific functions for a very specific program. Launch pads aren't like airport runways, you don't just launch different rockets from the same pad on different days. If ULA or SpaceX or somebody else says "we want to launch on 39A" don't you think they're going to have to physically reconfigure the entire pad? Of course they are, and as soon as they do they're competitor won't be able to use it.

This is all silly, it's just pushing money around for the sake of doing so. If this is all such a great idea then I suggest we privatize the military. There are some things government just has to do and this is one of them. It doesn't mean that at some point in the next 20-50-100 years it won't make more sense to let private interests do this but right now it makes no sense.

 

[BrianBoru]

When I read this all I saw was another sad example of why this decision is completely illogical. Should KSC and the range be upgraded? Of course it should that part makes sense, the part that doesn't make sense is that no private company is going to use it so we'll just spend money for nothing unless NASA uses it. The article itself even said that SpaceX would continue to use Pad 40 (which they should). The Pad 39 complex is built for very specific functions for a very specific program. Launch pads aren't like airport runways, you don't just launch different rockets from the same pad on different days. If ULA or SpaceX or somebody else says "we want to launch on 39A" don't you think they're going to have to physically reconfigure the entire pad? Of course they are, and as soon as they do they're competitor won't be able to use it.

This is all silly, it's just pushing money around for the sake of doing so. If this is all such a great idea then I suggest we privatize the military. There are some things government just has to do and this is one of them. It doesn't mean that at some point in the next 20-50-100 years it won't make more sense to let private interests do this but right now it makes no sense.

Excellent retort. Though, there are some who believe for all practical purposes, that the military is already in the hands of corporations.

 

[docm]

SpaceX seems very serious about Falcon 9 Heavy/Heavy H and whatever that RS-84 tech's going into, yet AFAIK LC40 doesn't have a triple-wide flame trench. If not wouldn't a nearby facility make the most sense for them to use?

 

[EarthlingX]

SpaceX seems very serious about Falcon 9 Heavy/Heavy H and whatever that RS-84 tech's going into, yet AFAIK LC40 doesn't have a triple-wide flame trench. If not wouldn't a nearby facility make the most sense for them to use?

Excuse me, if i missed it .. which one ? Not in KSC ? Might be a bit of trouble, if they will work for NASA .. ?

 

[mr_mark]

update.... Bolden, let's bring private space to KSC. http://www.spaceflightnow.com/news/n1002/07boldenksc/