Jason Rhian

June 11th, 2017

Much publicity has been given to efforts to make Kennedy Space Center a Multi-User Spaceport but what does that mean exactly and how do commercial companies stand to benefit from this new policy? Photo Credit: NASA

KENNEDY SPACE CENTER, Fla. Anyone who spends time in or around Floridas Space Coast has heard one phrase repeatedly use in the past few years Multi-User Spaceport. What does that mean? To find out, SFI spoke with two NASA representatives intimately aware with the agencys efforts to expand the diverse array of organizations operating out of the center.

What does this mean for the space agency? How do private space companys stand to gain by becoming a member of this new effort? To find out, SpaceFlight Insider spoke to Kennedy Space Centers Director of the Center Planning and Development Directorate, Tom Engler andPhilip Meade, the Chief ofthe Spaceport Management Integration Division.

SFI: In terms of the SLS,we saw the X-37B coming in, weve seen race cars out there, weve seen motorcycles, the Global Flyer, and now the Air Force is using the Shuttle Landing Facility. SpaceX is using 39A, which of course is where Apollo 11 launched from, and youve got the OPFs, which Boeing had basically taken over. So theres a lot more participants, more people in the mix out at Kennedy now, but its still your property. So SpaceX has launched commercial missions off of 39A. How does that work in terms of your normal operations. I mean, are you working with SpaceX now, even though these missions really have nothing to do with NASA?

Meade: So the real answer is that theres a new normal. The normal has changed. And becoming a multi-user spaceport is not just something we woke up one day and said, Look, were a spaceport. It was an intentional strategy that the center undertook to become a multi-user spaceport. Associated with that is developing all of the processes, all of the procedures, policies, all the different operational capabilities required to be a multi-user spaceport, because doing the type of work that we do out hereyou know, its large.

It has the ability to impact other users of the spaceport very easily, so theres a strong need to have that core integration and management function of the spaceport. And so when you ask how does our new normal account for that, the new normal is really that we are the manager, operator, the integrator of the spaceport.

So we have that as a new core role for us, so rather than just being purely programs that are NASA programs that operate out herethey manage and integrate within themselveswe now have to have, in addition to that, an overarching layer of spaceport management and integration, which is my organization, to make sure that youre coordinating among all of the different users, and making sure that they get their services that they need.

SFI: One of the hardest questions Im going to have is Why? Why is NASA doing this, because again, this really has nothing to do with NASA. So what is the benefit for the agency, and I guess in the larger scheme, the American taxpayer?

Dr. Phillip T. Meade spoke at length with SpaceFlight Insider, explaining how both commercial companies and NASA were working to diversify the space agencys Kennedy Space Center. Photo Credit: Jason Rhian / SpaceFlight Insider

Meade:I think the real benefitand Tom is a great salesman of this as well, so you can probably get his take on this, toobut it really is about the American public, it is about the American taxpayer. If you look at the space policy thats been created, theres a strong encouragement for us to help and encourage and grow the ability for America to compete and to excel within the global space market. And so weve been encouraged by the federal government to make the maximum use or maximum availability of our assets for supporting commercial space.

SFI: Would you say that the concept there is that if you have a single product and no one needs that product anymore, youre in more jeopardy, but whereas if a facility like Kennedy has a diverse array of individuals both collaborating and working there, its more stable and productive and more likely to survive changes in the future?

Engler:I think theres a little bit of that in there, and I think that by utilizing some resources that we probably would demolished or let go, we do keep those around for potential future use by NASA if in the future we want to share those; or if a partner thats using them goes away and we find theyre suddenly available and we have a programmatic need for them, so there is that piece of it. But we believeand this is kind of a philosophical stancewe believe its in the nations best interests to have a healthy space capability, healthy access to space.

Thats not just NASA, but the commercial capability, so our ability to put satellites up thereour ability to continue to push the technological boundaries to do innovation and develop new technologies and new capabilities to bring high-paying jobs into the economy through these different companiesI feel like thats a very valuable thing for America, and so having a healthy space industry in the United States and being a true competitor and leader within the global space market, we believe is the best interests of the United States as a whole, and obviously the American taxpayer.

SFI: Boeing of course is benefitingfrom this. Space Florida is another winner, if you want to say that, SpaceX, of coursetheyre all benefitingfrom these really high-end facilities that you support for launch and other operations.How do you see the response to that, and is there an ROI (return on investment) on that?

Engler:So I think from our perspectiveand Phil hit the nail on the headour leadership, from the President in 2010 on down to Center Director and Deputy Center Director at the time set the vision for us, to become that multi-user spaceport. And so, by doing so, we created an environment that allowed multiple companies to be successful here.

You hit the nail on the head with a couple of them. What wed kind of like to highlight with that is, as a center, we have four companies here, doing human spaceflight activities, separate and distinct. In the context of human spaceflight, theres only been three countries that ever flew to space: the United States, China, and Russia. Now at Kennedy we have four companiesSpaceX, Blue Origin, Lockheed-Martin with Orion, and Boeing with CST-100performing human spaceflight operations and development and capability here at Kennedy Space Center.

The creation of the environment weve developed here, weve made an environment that has allowed these companies to come in here and be successful, and that makes America a better spacefaring nation than it probably ever has been before.

SFI:youve got United Launch Alliance

Engler:We do, and we supply services to them through the Spaceport Integration Services Division. The ability to support these launches and having the infrastructure here that really minimized their investment into the development of a spaceport is a win-win for everybody. So we have people that come incompanies that come in, use the capabilities, and pay for pieces of that capability as theyre using it, so it helps us from a cost perspective, and having that capability already there prevents them from having to develop a massive, expensive capability to do things like develop and deliver GN2 [gaseous nitrogen] as an example, or helium.

Having the ability to supply that to all the launch pads is a tremendous enabler for these companies. And so ULA, SpaceX, SLS, and now Blue [Origin] are all going to take advantage of all the infrastructure we have here and the talents weve developed over the last 50-plus years as an entity that launches rockets to space, so theres so many benefits to both sides to having these companies here, so its really a win-win for everybody having them here.

Its been a great benefit to the center, and Id like to thinkand the feedback Im gettingis that its been a benefit to these companies as well, so all in all its been a very positive relationship, and I think it will just continue to grow and get better as we go on.

Meade:If you look at the space industry, a basic analysis of the industry tells you that theres a huge barrier to entry to launch, and its not just because of the technology involved in the rocket, its the infrastructure. We help to shorten both the time required for that buildup of the ground infrastructure as well as the costs associated with that for these companies, so they can get to market faster and become profitable faster and also not have to sink so much in up front on developing a lot of this infrastructure.

SpaceX is just one of the organizations that has benefited from NASAs Multi-User Spaceport initiative. Photo Credit: SpaceX

SFI:The last question we have for this portion of the interview is, can you tell us a little bit about the coordination involved when youve got DoD and these commercial companies all working out of KSC? What are the differences between the Shuttle era and the Apollo era before that and now, when weve got Falcon 9s and Falcon Heavies ready to lift off from 39A?

Meade:Theres two answers to this question. The world had changedand Ill probably talk about that secondbut if you talk about the way things were done under Shuttle, and if you talk about using a traditional flight termination system with the Air Force Range, then things have not changed that significantly than how they were done with Shuttle.

We have a very tight partnership with the 45th Space Wing, we coordinate with them a lot. We participate in their meetings, were part of their scheduling process, as theyre part of our scheduling process. All of the range infrastructure capabilities are constantly coordinated between the two groups, between Kennedy Space Center and the 45th Space Wing. All of that still happens the way it always has.

The big differentiator, the big change thats occurred is a lot of these commercial companies are going to automated flight termination systems. And when you go to an AFTS, now all of a sudden, a lot of the range infrastructure, a lot of the range coordination and scheduling that was required previously you no longer have.

Theres still range assets that they use, theres still a significant role, an important role that the Air Force plays in launches from Kennedy Space Center, but the huge bottleneck that used to be therefrom only one user at a time could actually operate on the range, and youd have to block off multiple days, and there was a two-day turnaround time between when one user of the range could use it and the next user couldwere entering into a time period where you honestly could have two different companies launch a rocket on the same day from Kennedy Space Center.

I honestly believe theres nothing thats stopping us from doing that today, assuming that other resources like the pipeline and other things like that are deconflicted. So one of the things that Toms working really hard on is a small-class launcher capability here at Kennedy Space Center

SFI: 39C?

Thomas O. Engler serves as the director of the Center Planning and Development Directorate at NASAs John F. Kennedy Space Center in Florida. Photo Credit: Jason Rhian / SpaceFlight Insider

Engler:39C or 48/49, thats part of our Notice of Availabilitythat we have two launch sites available if a private investor wanted to come in and build a small rocket launch pad, 48 and 49 are perfect locations for that. And that would allow a company to come in and do their own launches from there or allow it to become a multi-user small launcher pad. It creates diversity and allows companies to be a little more flexible from a launch perspective than they would be with just 39C. It opens up a lot of possibilities with the development of an additional small-launcher pad launch site.

Meade: Theres no reason a rocket couldnt launch from 48 and on the same day, SpaceX could launch from [39]A.

SFI: You think we could see thattwo launches on a single day?

Meade: Yes.

Engler: I agree with Phil. Its just a matter of deconflicting time frames and ensuring that when one launch happens that theres enough of a separation between launches that one launch doesnt endanger people on the other launch pad during their prep work.

SFI:Have you seenhave there been any bites toward your call for 48 or 49?

Engler:Weve had several expressions of interest, yeah.

SFI:Thank you. Moving on to the OPFs. One of the OPFs is currently used for Starliner and the other two are used by Boeing for the X-37B. Can you provide our readers with some of the details about how diversification is helping NASA achieve its objectives?

Engler:So if you look at it from the perspective of the fact that we have two companies here supporting commercial crew directly. So SpaceX and Boeing are developing capabilities to fly humans to space from the United States for the first time since the end of the Shuttle program. That directly supports NASA.

Indirectly, you get the support of those companies to the overall evolution of commercial space in general, so if you ever hear Mr. Bigelow speak from Bigelow Aerospace, the thing thats limiting him right now from launching his capabilities to orbit is reliable transportation for crew at a commercial level to orbit.

So the development of commercial crew and having that capability here will be that enabler for that next evolution of commercial space, which would be to potentially privately-held space stations and probably further development that I cant even begin to imagine, or if I did, it would probably sound crazy if I tried to imagine it. Over time, theres space mining, theres all these things that are floating out there that depend on reliably, easily getting people to space.

SFI: I dont think a lot of our readers are going to think youre crazy, I think a lot of our readers are like, Why arent we already doing this?

Engler: Well, its a great question, and were doing a lot of work to make that happen here at Kennedy. And, again, having created that environment here, having created the partnerships, having four separate companies doing human spaceflight here ought to excite your readers to the point where theyI mean it excites us to no end, the sea change thats occurred here. Weve all said thatits going to sound immodestbut we have become the epicenter of human spaceflight in the world here at Kennedy Space Center.

By having these companies be here, creating that environment for them and allowing them to work and do the things they need to do here to develop those capabilitiesit really speaks a lot to how far Kennedy has come since 2010 and the inception of the multi-user spaceport concept.

Boeings CST-100 Starliner spacecraft is being developed and produced at Orbiter Processing Facility 3, something made possible by KSCs Multi-User Spaceport initiative. Image Credit: Boeing

Meade: As early as the Vision for Space Exploration, when it came out, the plan from a NASA and U.S. Government perspective was [to] turn over low-Earth orbit to commercial industry so that NASA can then go and focus on putting footprints on other worlds.

SFI: Moon, Mars, and Beyond.

Meade:Exactly. So thats a big part of what were leveraging and dependent on from the Boeings and the SpaceXes, is to be able to, through the commercial crew program, take our astronauts up to the International Space Station, be able to make access to low-Earth orbit a little more routine, and free us up to then focus on trips to Mars and developing the SLS and that architecture. It is definitely helping us achieve our goals.

SFI: NASAs giving up all these assets, so theyre not theirs anymore. Thats technically correct, but what kind of access does NASA have to 39A, to the OPFs, now that theyre not technically their property anymore? Whats that like?

Meade: So Im going to correct you just a little bit

SFI: Please do!

Meade:Technically it is our property, so we havent given over any title to land or property at Kennedy Space Center. What weve done is Toms group has developed leases and these other mechanisms that we have at our disposal to basically rent out or lease property. Now its long-term leases in most cases because we need to help to be able to help these companies close a business case.

Its long-term leases, but its still NASA property. And so with that, we still retain ownership, long-term, and the secondarily it also means that we retain some of the responsibilities from a protection of life safety standpoint and from an overall spaceport management integration perspective. We do have the ability to enter these facilities. We would not do so just willy-nilly.

You know, its like youre a landlord, you dont just walk into someones house

SFI: Youd contact them first

Meade:We have good coordination with them, and we have individuals in my organization that are assigned to directly work with each partner that we have, and they have a good relationship. They help them get what they need, and theyre the ones that are the boots on the ground, typically, if we have to gain entry in or go in and do something. On Pad A for example, we still have a lot of facilities and systems that are required by Pad B, and so theres an awful lot of interchange between NASA and SpaceX in terms of going in and working on those systems, but we coordinate with them and schedule around them because we dont want to interfere with their ops schedule and what theyre doing.

If there were a fire, for example, our fire [department] would still have the ability to go into their facility and put out the fire. EMS, same thing: if theres some sort of medical emergency, and so we do have that ability, and we still retain that. A bit part of our goal, and a lot of what Tom and I have been working on over the past few years is trying to create this environment that Tom was talking about where its very much conducive to commercial entities wanting to come here and work and do business.

Which means that we treat them with the appropriate amount of respect and respect their operations, respect their schedules, respect their business cases, and actually partner with them in achieving their goals rather thanwere not trying to be this government overlord thats trying to mandate or have a heavy thumb on stuff.

A lot of the processes that I talked about earlierwe radically changed the safety requirements and came up with three different categories of safety requirements depending on what type of facility youre in to try and minimize the amount of oversight that we would have; minimize our need to intrude on their operation or be involved in it; and minimize their requirement to actually have to come to us and ask permission for much. We try to give them the maximum autonomy possible.

SFI: I think that answers the first of my general questions, which was how have these agreements changed from when it was McDonnell-Douglas out here, Lockheed, Rockwell, and so on?

Engler:At the time, those were more contracts than agreements, so the big change for us is having these companies on center as partners, us providing services to them, and sometimes them providing services to us. Having these companies out here has created an environment where were able to utilize our on-site contractors and civil service staff to help support them when they need it, and when they dont, were off doing other things, so its a different environment from that standpoint because weve gone from a contracting relationship to a partnership relationship, which is where we are with these companies.

Engler and Meade noted the close working relationship that the agency has with all of the partners operating out of KSC. Photo Credit: NASA

Meade: In some cases, its literally flipped. Whereas McDonnell-Douglas, for example, if you go back that far, they worked for us. So we were the customer and they worked for us. Nownot so much with the partnership agreements, per se, but through the services agreementswe work for the commercial entities. So we actually act as a subcontractor to them in many cases. SpaceX, for example, may choose to buy propellants from us for a launch. We become a service provider to them and we subcontract to them for those propellants for that launch.

SFI: So I imagine that actually could be used to offset NASAs expenses here at Kennedy.

Engler: Well, really what it does is it allows them to buy into a service that we already have here, it doesnt necessarily offset costs. They pay for what they use and it doesnt necessarily save us any monies, per se, but it does allow them to work and have ready access to those propellants.

We have Air Liquide outside the gate here providing GN2 is big enabler for these guys because they dont have to create that capability on their own, so weve got that in partnership with Air Liquide. Under that contractual relationship, they supply the propellants, and so they pay for what they use, which is a nice thing. We dont underwrite them, and when theyre using electricity from FP&L [Florida Power & Light], they paying the bills for that, and water from Cocoa Water, and all that kind of stuff, so its just the capabilities we provide, Phils group manages that interaction with them to ensure we give them services at the time that they need it.

SFI: How might NASA use the SLF [Shuttle Landing Facility] in the future?

Meade:Theres plans to use SLF. Its built into the agreement with Space Florida that we still have the ability to land our NASA aircraft out there. Weve got a Guppy coming in next week, weve got a NASA Guppy thats coming in, bringing in something for the Orion service module.

Its still an asset we have at our disposal, to be able to bring things in. You know, once we start launching our astronauts, Im sure theyll be using that runway to land their T-38s. Its still a capability that we have. None of our current vehicles plan on reentering from space and landing there, its more of an aircraft capability for us at this point.

SFI: Can you give our readers a little more about the future, to bring more companies in and the diversification that we might see out here? Some sneak peeks, if you will.

Engler: So what Id point to is a Notice of Availability that we have that has opened up a number of different development categories for companies, so anywhere from clean energy to research and technology and research and development to launch and landing to payload processing and vehicle processing. So those sites are all available, theyre all on the master plan, you can go to the KSC Master Plan website. Itll show you the development map that we have, and so basically every development category thats on that master plan site is available for development.

The Notice of Availability is open, its almost done with its first year, and weve had a number of responses to that already. Its open for two years, total, and well have another one that follows that. It allows companies to come in and propose to building at KSC, so when you look at the ability to foster development between what we have and then what Space Florida has at the SLF, theres a lot of development that still can occur here to continue to diversify Kennedy Space Center to enhance the multi-user spaceport that weve created.

To see us do more and more activities hereits really exciting to look at what might be here a year from now that isnt here now. And then see that keeping on growing and moving forward and continuing to do the basics of getting Americans to space and getting the world to space through Kennedy Space Center, its a really exciting time to be here. And its only going to get better!

Meade:Yeah, if you look at our long-term vision, its really about what we call creating an ecosystem. We want to have a healthy ecosystem out here for all the different pieces, parts, components to doing spaceflight. We want to have manufacturing out here, we want to have lab services out here right on hand, we want to have people actually launching the rockets, we want to have people developing payloads.

Really, its about the whole supply chain. And so when you ask, What are we thinking about in the future? if you look at the economics for how that ecosystem has to develop, it has to start with [?] launcher. Weve got those, were starting to launch. Were now starting to push down that supply chain, so Toms out there beating the bushes trying to push further down that supply chain to get those people to come down here and create those R&D capabilities and other further-down parts of that supply chain.

SFI: That brings up a very good question. Youve got all these components, but now youve got right outside your gate Exploration Park. OneWebtheyre building satellites out here. Were you guys involved with that, or was that just something that happened because of the assets that you havewould you say thats an outgrowth of the multi-user spaceport concept?

Meade: Id say thats certainly part of it. And obviously having that here at Kennedy is a nice addition to the Kennedy Space Center, its another manufacturing capability. Not on a scale like Blue [Origin], but from a satellite perspective, its as big. Blues development site is in Exploration Park as well, and its part of what were trying to do here at Kennedy.

Again, weve made that land available to Space Florida as part of the Exploration Park ecosystem out there, and obviously its now borne fruit between Blue and Space Florida and OneLab. Building on that over time, we fully expect to see more of those kinds of capabilities being built here by private companies that want to take advantage of the environment that we have developed here at Kennedy as a multi-user spaceport.

Tagged: Kennedy Space Center Lead Stories Multi-User Spaceport NASA Phil Meade Tom Engler

Jason Rhian spent several years honing his skills with internships at NASA, the National Space Society and other organizations. He has provided content for outlets such as: Aviation Week & Space Technology, Space.com, The Mars Society and Universe Today.

Visit link:

Insider Q & A: From concept to reality KSC as a Multi-User Spaceport - SpaceFlight Insider