Want To Buy a Used Spaceport? 99
Hugh Pickens writes writes "Want to buy a 15,000-foot landing strip? How about a place to assemble rocket ships or a parachute-packing plant? Have we got a deal for you. The Orlando Sentinel reports that with the cleanup and wind-down of the shuttle program, NASA is quietly holding a going-out-of-business sale for the its space-shuttle facilities including Launch Pad 39A, where shuttles were launched; space in the Vehicle Assembly Building, the iconic 526-foot-tall structure first used to assemble Saturn V-Apollo rockets; the Orbiter Processing Facilities, essentially huge garages where the shuttles were maintained; Hangar N and its high-tech test equipment; the launch-control center; and various other buildings and chunks of undeveloped property. 'The facilities out here can't be in an abandoned state for long before they become unusable,' says Joyce Riquelme, NASA's director of KSC planning and development. 'So we're in a big push over the next few months to either have agreements for these facilities or not.' The process is mostly secret, because NASA has agreed to let bidders declare their proposals proprietary, keeping them out of the view of competitors and the public. Frank DiBello, thinks the most attractive facilities are those that can support launches that don't use the existing pads at KSC and adjacent Cape Canaveral Air Force Station. 'Anything that still has cleaning capabilities or satellite-processing capabilities, the parachute facility, the tile facility, the OPF, all three of them, they have real value to the next generation of space activity,' says Frank DiBello, President of Space Florida, an Independent Special District of the State of Florida, created to foster the growth and development of a sustainable and world-leading space industry in Florida. 'If the infrastructure helps you reach market, then it has value. If it doesn't, then it's just a building, it's just a launchpad, and nobody wants it.'"
Nice trick NASA (Score:4, Interesting)
Re:Nice trick NASA (Score:5, Interesting)
That's no joke. The superfund law (i.e. The Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act of 1980) makes current owners or leaseholders responsible for cleanups even though a prior tenant did the pollution.
My company almost got nailed by this on a property owned by New York State but was used by the federal governement for rocket research in 1947. We even found a V2 rocket wreck hidden in the bushes. Spilled rocket fuel was the contaminant. In the end, EPA had mercy on us because we were truly innocent and too poor to pay anyhow, but they could have nailed us.
Now the site has been taken over by a brand new billion dollar semiconductor foundry. I sure hope the owners of that have made their peace with EPA.
Any potential tenant of NASA land could have the same problem. IANAL so I don't know if NASA can grant them immunity to EPA's demands.
Re: (Score:1)
We even found a V2 rocket wreck hidden in the bushes.
DUUUUDE SO COOL 8O
Do you have pics?
Re:Nice trick NASA (Score:5, Interesting)
You don't need pics. It was donated to The Smithsonian and is on display in D.C. (I think) in one of the Air & Space museums.
Re:Nice trick NASA (Score:5, Funny)
We even found a V2 rocket wreck hidden in the bushes.
Live from Peenemünde:
"Herr von Braun, our last lauch went a little bit off course . . . we think it landed somewhere west of London . . . and England, actually."
"And Ireland, as well . . ."
I know, the first rockets we launched were made by our German scientists, and the Russians' were made by their German scientists.
Obligatory Ice Station Zebra quote (Score:2)
"The Russians put our camera made by *our* German scientists and your film made by *your* German scientists into their satellite made by *their* German scientists."
Comment removed (Score:5, Interesting)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
It's the reason GE isn't selling their Fort Wayne plant. It used to be where they made a ton of stuff. But the ground there is so toxic no one would ever buy it and GE doesn't want to clean it up. So they're just sitting on it and paying the property taxes.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
People just don't realize how truly toxic many places were before the EPA started cracking down, in those old factories they found PHB and dioxin contamination and more asbestos than you would believe
Yep, those pointy haired bosses ARE toxic! (I think you were referring to polychlorobiphenyls, or PCBs).
Re: (Score:3)
Dump it on a rube, let them clean it up. No way that's not a toxic mess.
Rube hell, they spent billions on it all and they'll sell it for tens of millions. In the end they'll practically give it away to get rid of the monkey on their back and the buyer will apply for government funds to deal with the mess. That's how the game is played. Corporations get rich off the government and the government just gets deeper in debt.
Hmm (Score:1)
I wonder if you get stuck with a toxic clean up bill as well.
Does it include shipping costs? (Score:5, Funny)
Re: (Score:2)
I'm really not sure if it would be a suitable deal without free shipping.
They could always list it on Ebay for a $1.99 with 25 billion for shipping.
SpaceX please rent? (Score:3)
Basically they want somebody like Space X to move in to the facilities. Of course most of the DoD contractors that could chop in for this are gonna underbid or wait for these to close up... There's more money in charging for "repair" to rotted facilities than to take over existing ones. Really only a year or two unoccupied will "kill" these as they include state of the art clean rooms and rocket assembly facilities. Once the doors open, those are ruined with years to clean them up again. Those DoD contractors will get to charge DOUBLE when NASA needs those again.
Ha. Ha, NASA.. Your expensive contractors got their money. "National Treasures" don't come before the bottom line.
Re:SpaceX please rent? (Score:4, Insightful)
Basically they want somebody like Space X to move in to the facilities.
It's too big. Space-X doesn't need a facility that big. Unless you intend to launch something the size of the Shuttle or the Saturn-V, nobody does. Space-X's first Falcon Heavy will be launched from Vandenberg this year, so they don't need huge new facilities.
Re: (Score:3)
It's too big. Space-X doesn't need a facility that big.
But they could easily make use of it for their smaller launchers if the price is right. Much easier to have regular launch schedules if you are renting/owning a facility.
Re: (Score:2)
They're doing heavy launches from Vandenberg on the west coast:
http://articles.latimes.com/2011/jul/12/business/la-fi-vandenberg-launchsite-20110713 [latimes.com]
Re: (Score:2)
They're doing heavy launches from Vandenberg on the west coast:
And they have to work around Vandenberg's schedule, which is my point.
Re: (Score:3)
I thought I read somewhere that they were already expecting to use 39A for Falcon Heavy launches. And they'll need a big pad like 39A/B to launch their even bigger rockets in planning like the Falcon X.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
It's too big. Space-X doesn't need a facility that big. Unless you intend to launch something the size of the Shuttle or the Saturn-V, nobody does. Space-X's first Falcon Heavy will be launched from Vandenberg this year, so they don't need huge new facilities.
You mean with falcon heavy running late this year, early next year, or the BFR (big fucking rocket) that is being quietly developed, are too small for that area? The BFR is meant to launch 150-200 tonnes into LEO. And this will likely occur before the first manned mission of the SLS.
And you think that SpaceX is too small? Really?
Re: (Score:3)
Because nothing says "dream spaceport" (Score:3)
...like hurricanes and moistly corrosive air.
Re: (Score:2)
You do know they generally build these near water on purpose, right?
Actually, they build them as close to the equator as they can on purpose. The 'near water' part is just a convenient secondary component. At 28 degrees of latitude, the cape was convenient in that respect (San Diego is 38 degrees).
Re:Because nothing says "dream spaceport" (Score:5, Informative)
Texas is far closer and far more useful. Hugs expanses of worthless zero population desert/land.
Re: (Score:1)
We call it "Houston"
Re: (Score:2, Interesting)
There was still a requirement to be near water because the Saturn V first and second stages were too large to be economically transported by any other means. Plus, launching from the east coast of Florida meant a clear path over water for the first and second stages, which had substantial safety benefits. Launching from anywhere in Texas could possibly have led to the second stage coming down somewhere in the southeastern U.S. in the event of a problem. Even if the launch had been made at the southernmos
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
There is already the Centre Spatial Guyanais [wikipedia.org] launch center located in South America in Kourou in the French Guiana, at about 5 degrees north of the equator. The center is widely used for European (and other!) commercial satellite launches.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2, Informative)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Baikonur_Cosmodrome [wikipedia.org]
Note how the first sentence ends in "world's first and largest operational space launch facility".
Water is actually of very little help if you hit at more than 100 MPH. Ask the Challenger seven.
Except for 20,000 ft having weather issues of its own, your dream spaceport would be the top of Mt. Chimborazo in Ecuador, 2 deg S of the equator and your first four miles up is free. Or as wikipedia puts it, the top is the furthest point on Earth from the pl
Re:Because nothing says "dream spaceport" (Score:5, Insightful)
If your rocket is going to be shedding stuff in flight, water might be a better place to have it land.
Who would bid on something like that? (Score:5, Funny)
The name of the top bidder is a closely guarded secret but those familiar with the process describe him as a bold, British chap with a habit of touching the corner of his mouth with his little finger.
Re:Who would bid on something like that? (Score:5, Funny)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
nah the woosh is on you.
Re: (Score:2)
Hear that? It's the sound of a "woosh" as that joke flies past you.
The woosher woosh't!
Re: (Score:2)
I believe the gentleman you are referring to is from Bruges.
Re: (Score:1)
You have now given me a vision of Richard Branson as Dr. Evil. "He may be evil, but he's fast!"
Fortunately there was nothing in my mouth at the time, so my keyboard and screen are just fine.
Re: (Score:3)
The name of the top bidder is a closely guarded secret but those familiar with the process describe him as a bold, British chap with a habit of touching the corner of his mouth with his little finger.
Given the billions they spend building it all the scary thing is his million dollar bid might be acceptable!
Re: (Score:1)
Does it come with waterfront? (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Sell it to China
Hard to tell after the journalist filter, but
and its high-tech test equipment
could mean anything from Apollo era IBM mainframe (which would be cool, but not export controlled anymore) to fairly recent NSA spy satellite stuff that is going to have all manner of strange expensive regulations.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:1)
Why?
With the state of the US national debt they already own the remaining rest anyway.
Re: (Score:2)
The US Federal Reserve created trillions of US dollars in 2008+ by loaning from "thin air". Guess how China and the rest of the USA's creditors feel about that. They're not going to make loud noises publicly about it since that would just make things worse.
China is not that stupid though - they got more tech for all that funny money. And
Re: (Score:2)
Why? With the state of the US national debt they already own the remaining rest anyway.
Not even close to true. China holds debt, but this same BS went on with Japan back in the 80's. Then Japan took it in the shorts because they had manipulated their money for several decades. In addition, they allowed large bubbles to develop. Sound familiar? The only real difference is that China will not lose 10-15 years. They will likely lose 20-30 years of stagnation. And that assume that they do not end up in a civil war when multiple bubbles pop.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
First off, there are multiple bubbles building in China. They are crashing with Chinese gov. lying throught their teeth on just about everything. Even now, they claim that the economy is doing great, yet, they are building up massive coal reserves because now where as much electricity is being used.All in all, China is in REAL trouble. [seekingalpha.com]
Now, as to the issue of cash, I find it interesting that nearly all investors are pushing the dollar. IOW, it is
SLS? (Score:4, Interesting)
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
Summary is misleading. (Score:5, Informative)
The summary makes absolutely no mention at all of the next-gen rocket, SLS (capable of well over 100mT to orbit), which is being finished up. The boosters for it have been test-fired already (as have the main engines, which are left-over Shuttle main engines, and the upper stage for now is a big version of the Delta IV upper stage), and it is on-track for CDR. SLS will use LC-39A and the VAB. NASA and Florida are just looking for others who would also like to use the facilities, since they won't be in constant use. Boeing is already using one of the Shuttle processing buildings for their CST-100, which is part of NASA's "commercial crew" program and is already very far along, having tested its parachutes, heatshield, abort thrusters, airbags, etc.
Now, I'm quite skeptical with the idea of going back to 100+mT rockets for exploration instead of multiple commercial 15-30mT rockets (which have other, current customers and so are cheaper and will be around as long as the US is a country and which may shortly be capable of reusable flight), and especially I'm skeptical of the zipcode-engineered SLS, but it IS the current plan and it has lots of Congressional support and I'll cheer it along and enjoy its launches. People deserve to know that it's actually being built and that the VAB and LC-39A are going to be used by it, not all this BS about "oh, 'Bama canceled NASA, so they're having a fire sale." NASA's budget is still about the same (which is only about half of a percent of the federal budget, by the way), and the International Space Station is doing just fine with NASA astronauts in it, being resupplied with cargo by American spacecraft (SpaceX's Dragon right now has made two successful supply runs up and safely back down, soon to be joined by Orbital Science's Cygnus), and soon Dragon will be also shuttling the astronauts up and down to Station. http://www.nasaspaceflight.com/2013/01/yir-part4-iss-new-year-successful-2012/ [nasaspaceflight.com]
Oh, another thing is that NASA is currently experimenting with a deep space habitat based on ISS modules and a Space Exploration Vehicle for going to asteroids or the moons of Mars. NASA retired Shuttle, and a dang good thing, too! Now we can really go explore beyond the confines of the Earth's gravitational influence.
Also, NASA's Orion capsule is VERY far along, has done several tests already and will do its first orbital test in the late 2014 time frame. This means by the time President Palin (or whathaveyou) is inaugurated, NASA will have essentially 3 man-rated capsules (Dragon, Orion, and Boeing's CST-100) already flight tested and a big-ass rocket built and prepping for launch (in 2017). NASA is NOT fracking canceled.
http://www.nasaspaceflight.com/2013/01/sls-cdr-engineers-work-baffling-issue/ [nasaspaceflight.com]
.
.
About the SEV: http://www.nasa.gov/exploration/technology/space_exploration_vehicle/index.html [nasa.gov]
About the Deep Space Hab using ISS heritage or possibly even just existing ISS spares: http://www.nasaspaceflight.com/2012/03/dsh-module-concepts-outlined-beo-exploration/ [nasaspaceflight.com]
Re:Summary is misleading. (Score:4, Interesting)
The summary makes absolutely no mention at all of the next-gen rocket, SLS (capable of well over 100mT to orbit), which is being finished up.
I didn't know they started using magnetic engines! ... and with a field strength of only 100 millitesla to orbit, that's perfectly alright, nice!
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
which is being finished up
I don't know what your definition of "finished up" is, but "first unmanned test launch in two years if Congress behaves" isn't mine. That assumes that the Senate doesn't change their minds about the distribution of pork, causing the Senate Launch System to be even further behind than it already is.
Good thing we've got three private commercial crew launch systems underway (you forgot Sierra Nevada's Dream Chaser), one of which is based on an already working (I won't call it "proven" without a few more succe
Re: (Score:1)
zipcode-engineered
Excuse me, could you please clarify what this means? I'm not familiar with this phrase and googling it only gets me your writing.
Re:Summary is misleading. (Score:4, Informative)
It means manufacturing based on the geographic location desired by a politician instead of where it would make the most sense from an engineering standpoint. i.e. - You can't put all the high tech space jobs in the same place as each politician wants some of the money to create jobs in their own district.
Re: (Score:3)
It's clear you can't read the writing on the wall.
If you want to get into space, you better brush up on your Chinese and Russian.
No offense, but those guys aren't doing so well either. The Chinese are going slow and steady, and have been successful to this point. But their country's leadership has its finger on the reset button. All it takes is one sufficiently public and embarrassing or lethal accident.
The Russians haven't been going anywhere for about two decades aside from creation of several commercial space launch services.
Re: (Score:2)
which is being finished up
Sure, it is. NASA has a terrible track record when it comes to "finishing" orbital launch vehicles. Last one they finished in the real sense of the word was the Space Shuttle and that was thirty years ago.
Are they selling other space stuff as well . . . ? (Score:2)
Used astronaut suits? Training centrifuges? That would make a killer amusement park ride. Miscellaneous special-purpose rocket building tools?
They must have a warehouse full of junk that would find a happy new home in a geek's mother's basement.
Re: (Score:2)
How about base jumping inside the Vehicle Assembly Building?
Sealed bids should not be allowed (Score:2)
This shit needs to be banned across the board for public contracts, auctions, and sales of all types. It prevents bidding wars and hides the selection process from public scrutiny.
Taking a page from Nokia's Book (Score:2)
Someday you'll be taking the Cape Canaveral tour with your grandkids, and as you pass the Vehicle Assembly Building, the tour guide will announce, "you see we leased this back from the country we sold it to. That way
...and robots will do their work eventually. (Score:1)
Emperor: Good. Good! Your turn from the Dork Side is almost complete. Let the bloated government flow through you, cannibalizing all resources not directly going into the hands of people who scare easily, and thus more likely to vote against me.
Hackerspace? (Score:2)
anyone else?
Proprietary Bids (Score:3)
The process is mostly secret, because NASA has agreed to let bidders declare their proposals proprietary, keeping them out of the view of competitors and the public.
And out of the view of upstarts like SpaceX. Who here will be surprised if these facilities end up in the hands of Boeing and/or Lockheed? And future launch contracts as well.
It's Here! (Score:1)
Casino? (Score:2)
40 Years of "Stellar" Leadership... (Score:2)
But some few Americans - and the OPEC nations, and the last communist nation and burgeoning superpower on planet Earth - got rich...
Re: (Score:2)
Spaceport Depreciation? (Score:2)