Pad 39-A Dispute Gets Personal
Launch Pad 39A with the space shuttle Endeavour. (Credit: NASA)
A cranky Elon Musk has lashed out at Jeff Bezos, Blue Origin and ULA for getting in the way of his plans to lease Pad 39-A at NASA’s Kennedy Space Center.
In an email to Space News, the SpaceX CEO accused Bezos of using a “phony blocking tactic” in a rival bid to control the former space shuttle launch complex.
Blue Origin, which is backed by ULA, wants to convert the pad into a multi-use complex that can accommodate multiple launch vehicles while SpaceX wants the facility for its own use but has agreed to share it if Blue Origin can come up with an actual rocket to launch from it.
From a SpaceX standpoint, we view [Blue Origin] and [United Launch Alliance’s] action as a phony blocking tactic and an obvious one at that. BO [Blue Origin] has not yet succeeded in creating a reliable suborbital spacecraft, despite spending over 10 years in development. It is therefore unlikely that they will succeed in developing an orbital vehicle that will meet NASA’s exacting standards in the next 5 years, which is the length of the lease. That said, I can’t say for sure whether [Blue Origin’s] action stems from malice. No such doubt exists about ULA’s motivation.
However, rather than fight this issue, there is an easy way to determine the truth, which is simply to call their bluff. If they do somehow show up in the next 5 years with a vehicle qualified to NASA’s human rating standards that can dock with the Space Station, which is what Pad 39A is meant to do, we will gladly accommodate their needs. Frankly, I think we are more likely to discover unicorns dancing in the flame duct.
Read the full story.
19 responses to “Pad 39-A Dispute Gets Personal”
Leave a Reply
You must be logged in to post a comment.
I like unicorns. 😉
I think Elon Musk has a point: put up or shut up.
ULA is a little more credible, but even there the parent companies of ULA aren’t really interested in letting ULA do much in that arena, especially with the CST-100 now getting up to speed. Some real politics are at stake here, and it gets real complicated. Pad 39A is designed for one very important mission: Sending people to the Moon or a whole lot of people into orbit.
If it was Orbital that was complaining here, they at least would be very credible as having something to launch.
ULA might be a little more credible, but not to the point where they saw fit to bother putting in a bid of their own.
Atlas V uses vertical stacking, so 39A is not suitable for Atlas V without very considerable investment, which ULA had not seen fit to commit to by entering a formal bid.
Blue Origin’s involvement doesn’t appear to benefit them. Seems to me they have more in common with SpaceX and more to gain by aligning with SpaceX against ULA and their ongoing legacy of corruption.
The fact that the Obama administration is attempting to limit the SLS to just one launch pad makes any two launch lunar scenarios (one for the MPCV and one for the lunar lander) a lot more difficult. But the current administration has been playing games with the development of the SLS from the start– since its a vehicle that they never wanted to develop in the first place. Plus they’ve been very hostile to any NASA return to the lunar surface.
Congress needs to step in to make sure that the SLS also has the ability to be launched at Pad 39A.
Marcel F. Williams
Marcel, to most credible people SLS and Orion aren’t even part of the space equation anymore. That’s how out of touch with reality you are.
Never been a fan of the Orion vehicle. But Boeing Aerospace heavily lobbied Congress to fund a heavy lift vehicle. And there’s no logical reason to believe that Boeing won’t be successful in building it.
Secondly, there is simply not enough manned spaceflights commissioned by NASA to economically sustain more than one private company. The future of Commericial Crew flights is not in big government programs but in space tourism for the super wealthy.
Marcel F. Williams
I suspect you will find that NASA is more hostile to SLS than even the relatively sensible politicians you refer to. Not sure how you came upon a scenario for two simultaneous SLS launches. NASA has stated quite clearly that there is no need to a backup pad for SLS. Even the most optimistic SLS advocates are limited to one launch per year (at $5Billion per launch), and most estimates put the launch rate at once every 4 years (at over $14Billion per launch). Furthermore, what “lunar lander”?. The whole farm is being spent on the SLS rocket ($11+billion) and the $1billion worth of Orion capsule ($10billion), including $2billion upgrading 39B for SLS.
NASA and SLS do not want, do not need and cannot afford 39A. Your political agenda on this issue is quite misplaced. Political blame lies with advocates of SLS and stands in opposition to the good interests of NASA, human space flight, the spirit of exploration, scientific research and the hope of all humanity to escape the evil of self-serving corruption.
Also, hostility to a return to the lunar surface as a budgetary priority is intellectually motivated. Mars is the most obvious destination of choice and in that context the Moon is an expensive distraction.
According to that last OIG report it stated that the MPCV.Orion could cost 16.5 billion for development….
The ISS make-work program for the Commercial crew companies will cost the tax payers over $21 billion over the next seven years. And if its extended for another decade, this LEO on steroids program will cost the tax payers over $50 billion over the next 17 years.
Marcel
The contract is five years. If NASA needs two pads for a dual-SLS mission before 2019, I’ll eat an SRB.
Congress needs to make sure that NASA has enough money to do all the things it’s responsible for doing. That involves fully funding commercial crew and taking a good, close look at what SLS/Orion costs and what missions it can realistically do. My guess is if Congress does that and is honest with itself, it would realize that NASA needs billions of dollars more per year to accomplish everything legislators want it to do.
Then there would have to be an honest debate: does Congress want to spend that much more money? Or would it rather have more tax cuts? And would the public support such increased spending?
The problem goes way beyond what to do with Launch Pad 39-A.
The honest debate isn’t even necessary anymore. It’s over. Not only has congress demonstrated itself to be corrupt, with the fiscal crisis and the government shutdown it had demonstrated itself to be wholly incompetent. I can guarantee you will get no honest debates there.
So please Doug, don’t waste our time with things that are not true. All is does is make you look like the industry and institutional apologist that you are. The debate here has been definitely less than honest.
Bahahaha! Musk’s vitriol amuses me xD
“Frankly, I think we are more likely to discover unicorns dancing in the flame duct.”
Cool, so there _is_ a chance we’ll find unicorns. I knew it!
Unicorns do exist: they are fat and grey and we call them Rhinos 😉
Yeah, that’s what happens to unicorns when no one believes in them.
🙁
The most upsetting thing about this, is the time this issue wastes for Elon. He could have spent it on something useful…
Burn, ULA!
The only thing “cranky” about Elon Musk is the way he is cranking out rockets.
Elon Musk: Production.
Jeff Bezos: Corruption.