Using the ICBM launch sites on Cape Canaveral and LC-17 for commercial launches.

[fredinno]

Would it be more economical for a commercial entity (say SpaceX) to use the existing facilities at Cape Canaveral and use the launch pads on the ICBM row (LC-20, 19, 15, 16, 14, 13, 12, 11) and/or LC-17 (the launch site formerly used for Delta II launches) to increase their launch capacity, rather than building an entirely new launch facility?

[J.Random]

You cannot simply "use another launch site". Besides, as I understand, they're building another launch site because they want to "land-land" first stages instead of "barge-landing" them.

[magnemoe]

Why do they have 9 launchpads for ICBM? the US only have the minuteman ICBM so they should hardly need more than one pad for testing upgrades of it. Think they also have a couple of submarine missiles but they are smaller and solid fueled and should manage with one pad extra.

Problem might be that the ICBM pads need to be seriously upgraded for handling something like falcon 9. Smaller rockets might use the pads but they would need lots of changes, all satelite launcher uses liquid oxygen for one while ICBM has storable oxidizer.

[fredinno]

They're converting LC-13 at the Cape into a landing site for landing first stages. No need to built a new facility for that.

- - - Updated - - -

ICBM row launch sites were used in the early days of rocketry, when Titans and Atlases were being used as ICBMs. These older rockets needed a dedicated launch facility. Also they were used for Project Mercury and Gemini.

[jwenting]

They have 9 pads because

1) they tested a lot of different designs there

2) they originally had ICBMs on hot alert on some of the pads, this before they invented silos. So they could only launch as many rockets as they had pads before they had to recondition the pads, place rockets on them, fuel up, etc. etc..