Elon pulls out (he can build elsewhere and not have to deal with all the idiocy) and Blue Origin is stuck paying the lease without having anything profitable to fly.

“Empty launch pads, rusting and/or abandoned in place to the elements and associated plant and animal life, reflect stagnation, indifference and indecision.”

No, they reflect that the days of Apollo and the Shuttle are over, and that it’s time for people like you to understand that change does indeed happen – and sometimes not the type that you like.

The days of government space transportation are over, and the reality of it just hasn’t caught up to the dinosaurs like you that support the SLS.

“Get a deal.
Get them operational.
Get flying.”

There was a deal, but someone filed a protest. That’s OK, as it will get resolved in less than six months, and then SpaceX will likely take possession of LC-39A for a 20 year period.

And even though you didn’t know it, you will have gotten your wish…

“Space X== indeed NewSpace= has flown nobody.”

In regards to LC-39A, there is no lease requirement that says the lessor has to fly people from that facility.

As usual, you don’t even understand what the issues are…

Actually the term “flexible” dates back under the GWB WH, see here

http://www.nasa.gov/pdf/55583main_vision_space_exploration2.pdf

“Our aim is to explore in a sustainable, affordable, and flexible manner.” Sean O’Keefe Administrator

So called “flexible-path” was another attempt at the O’Keefe/Steidle Spiral Approach with more emphasis on commercial launches even though the CEV Phase 1 choice for the LVs was originally left to the contractors and they included the EELVs.

They don’t. And won’t. Bear in mind, as 2013 draws to a close, Space X== indeed NewSpace= has flown nobody. Exclusivity is a non-starter.

Among the sadder, lingering memories of KSC are 1) the demolition of the Mercury/Atlas LC-14 and its rusting gantry– front page news in the mid-1970s BTW- and 2) LC-39A & 39B empty and amidst quiet reconfiguration for shuttle ops recycling steel from Apollo LT assemblies.

The silence at KSC was deafening then. Just as it is now.

The Kennedy Space Center is not the Hoboken ferry docks. Empty launch pads, rusting and/or abandoned in place to the elements and associated plant and animal life, reflect stagnation, indifference and indecision.

Get a deal.
Get them operational.
Get flying.

Yes indeed. Blue Origin was founded in 2000, SpaceX in 2002.
Six years after SpaceX reached orbit, ten years after SpaceX docked with the ISS.
Thirteen years after its creation Blue Origin managed to crash a suborbital rocket that flew as high as 14 km.
Sorry, these two companies are not at all alike. But please keep going on you SpaceX bashers, as you said this is great fun.

The other poster made a claim about “flexible path” missions. That term and those missions originate in the Augustine report. That makes the report relevant to the poster’s discussion.

“makes NO mention of specific missions and time frames.”

Sure it does. Each of the options has a 2010-2030 schedule laying out what missions would happen when. See p. 84, 86, 91, etc.

“leasing to companies for non-exclusive use would give NASA the ability to use 39A if multiple SLS launches are needed in the future”

The SLS launch rate will meet production rate over the long-term, and the production rate requirement for SLS is one stack every other year. At that rate, the chance that SLS will need an extra pad is nil. Its own pad will go unused for two years at a time.