SpaceX Moves Ahead With Launch Site Plans in Texas
FAA: Intent to Prepare an Environmental Impact Statement for SpaceX Launch Site in Cameron County, Texas
“The FAA is preparing an EIS to analyze the potential environmental impacts of SpaceX’s proposal to launch orbital and suborbital launch vehicles from a private site in Cameron County in southern Texas. The EIS will consider the potential environmental impacts of the Proposed Action and reasonable alternatives, including the No Action Alternative. The successful completion of the environmental review process does not guarantee that the FAA would issue launch licenses and/or experimental permits to SpaceX. The project must also meet all FAA safety, risk, and indemnification requirements.”
There are some things that make sense, but a government agency just can’t do because of politics. Putting a launch site in Texas that competes with CCAFS and KSC is one of those things.
I just don’t see how it makes any sense whatsoever. Is CCAFS/KSC somehow over-tasked? (They’ve had considerably higher launch rates in the past, even the mid-’90s was twice what it is now.) How much will it cost to build yet another launch site, complete with Range Safety and Tracking in a state that is geographically limited to only a few launch azimuths? Government doesn’t need to do it, which is why they haven’t done it. Texas was considered twice before (for Apollo and again for Shuttle) and was rejected both times on the cost issue (replicating what already exists at the Cape.) If SpaceX wants its own launch site, they are free to do so… it is their money to waste.
SpaceX already uses far fewer people than its competitors and certainly fewer than NASA. If SpaceX had the chance to build its own launch site – to its own specs – (much) closer to its test site – with arguably better weather – where land is cheap – I’d imagine they’d achieve even greater efficiencies than they already do. If CCAFS/KSC can’t compete that’s their problem.
It blows me away that people can’t see the obvious.
50 years ago people costs were dirt cheap. That got established as a practice. It’s even killed off Delta II as a LV because its too labor intensive.
So setup operations in the armpit of nowhere. All costs start up as net zero. Now, lets add what we need, as little as possible, just what is needed.
It blows me away that people can’t see the obvious.
lolololol
Doesn’t take a rocket scientistt
So shouldn’t it be pretty easy to get the word out to Joe Q Public too ?
If I can be made to see the light, Joe can too.
I recall the day after Tinkers lifter idea that Steve said let me roll this into your thinking. We don’t need a big rocket.
The proposed Texas site is in the southernmost county in the continental USA, significantly closer to the equator than the Cape. In fact, it is almost in Mexico. This will add a margin of safety on launches near the Falcons’ mass limit.
In addition, SpaceX will be relieved of much of the scheduling and bureaucratic matters associated with flying out of the Cape. The Atlantic Range is often unavailable for these reasons, and SpaceX could use more flexibility.
Also, the cost of a SpaceX launch and assembly site is low compared with the NASA equivalent, consisting (almost) of a tin shack and some railroad tracks (on the Russian model). All SpaceX really needs to do is make sure the site is hurricane-hardened, a straightforward task, and no more demanding than it was at the Cape.
Finally, in theory, SpaceX could land reusable first stages in Florida or Puerto Rico, assuming these stages materialize. For example, the Cape is approximately the correct distance down range (about 1000 miles), and would surely be a more attractive landing site than Texas, making reusability somewhat more feasible.
And don’t think Elon doesn’t know all this.
Actually, no. The proposed site is almost exactly 26 deg N, the same as Fort Lauderdale, which makes Florida’s Miami-Data and Monroe Counties farther south. That puts it about 200 miles or 2.5 degrees farther south than the Cape, a difference that is negligible. This proposed move is clearly more about setting up their own shop clear of government and military red tape, not about getting closer to the equator (if that were driver, they would have continued with their plans for Falcon 9 at Kwajalein.) I just don’t see how the red tape at the Cape can possibly be more costly than building and operating their own launch site at realistic launch rates.
The last part of this was a real ah-hah moment for me. Having a place downrange to land your first stage is huge for reusability. I’m guessing they will want to control the downrange landing site as much as the launch site, else they will face the same delays launching from Texas as they would from Florida.
Florida becomes the launch site for gov’t payloads in equatorial orbits. Vandenberg handles polar orbit insertions. The new Texas site handles everything else, such as the regular flights to Mars…
Brian:
Keith has it right. At both CCAFS and KSC Spacex must rely upon ‘on site’ personal for jobs they could handle much more efficiently themselves or drop altogether for such things as range safety (blowing up the rocket instead of just shutting down the engines). Both of their launch sites are only half vertically integrated right now (meaning they’re not under their complete control).
Sounds like Spacex might be looking at the sub-orbital tourist market too. They did say twelve orbital launches a year but what about the rest of the time? A good way to test the crewed Dragon capsule incrementally using maybe the first generation Grasshopper reusable Falcon stage.
The military and NASA will keep Spacex launch sites in Florida and California busy enough (we hope).
tinker
Do not underestimate the advantage of NOT having to deal with the AF or NASA. Elon would do well to avoid KSC and CCAFS altogether. If he can get established in southern TX and garner enough private investment, he could bail on NASA. If he’s smart, that’s what he’s doing and not making this move for 1st stage recovery.
I think he is doing exactly that. Arriving at a revenue model for Dragon that has nothing to do whatsoever with NASA, USAF, or any government client.
A perfectly commercial-only site. Complements a traditional space pad (CCAFS) and a military pad (VBG).
So each of these is refined for said purpose, with the pad flows optimized for each. Processing then can be made to fit application/regulation/specialization.
So you don’t have to contort things to suit. This can be helpful if you have everything arranged to suit, say, lofting millionaires … where you improve drastically the processes … and in a place where no one can see how you do it. You might develop a competitive advantage in HSF over NASA/others that way.
If you are trying to turn being a service provider into a business, hyper specialized pad processing might be a key element for a vertical organized company to eek out another few million per launch.
“a launch site in Texas that competes with CCAFS and KSC”
CCAFS and KSC won’t compete with a commercial launch range any more than Andrews Air Force Base competes with DCA or BWI.
CCAFS and KSC exist to serve civil and defense needs; commercial payloads occasionally fly out of CCAFS since their is currently no other suitably powerful (since ULA operates there) east coast ground-launched range in the continental United States.
The USAF isn’t going to cry unfair competition to their range because they’re not even *competing*. They’re the Air Force! Even the next round of ULA bulk buys doesn’t assume any cost-sharing due to commercial launch demand on the same industrial base.
The post that you are quoting is talking about why NASA or the Air Force wouldn’t build a launch site in Texas because the Florida congressional delegation would see it as competition. And that is absolutely correct. Politicians from Florida would fight to get every single dollar they can of spaceflight spending. It doesn’t matter whether the cape currently serves different needs — Florida politicians will want every launch they can possibly get.
The main reason NASA or the AF wouldn’t build a launch site in Texas would be duplicating existing infrastructure and all of the environmental impact studies and limited launch azimuths available (can Texas launch into a 57 deg inc orbit, or would the northern Gulf not like a first or second stage landing on them).
For that matter, I suspect that launching into a geostationary orbit from Texas would have the launch vehicle overfly Florida while still boosting. SpaceX would have to answer that contingency as well (ie more $$ on studies and reports).
Then again, SpaceX could be raising this option as a bargaining tool to try to get a better deal from the US and Florida.
SpaceX could be raising this option as a bargaining tool to try to get a better deal from the US and Florida.
KSC/CCAFS/VBG are quaking in fear … yeah, right … they could care less.
Private Industry undercuts NASA bureaucracy! Yet another reason they will succeed AND make… GASP! A profit!
This would be ideal for setting up a business to launch wealthy millionaires with Dragon.
You can highly optimize the business for high yield, low margin, low risk, high rate. And you don’t have to put up with tons of NASA/AF requirements, nor have other providers tying up the range.
Musk could reach break-even within a year of getting Falcon-9 / DragonRider operational.
So … what would happen if he did 1-2 flights a year reliably and safely … and NASA still reliant on Soyuz with no alternative in sight for 5-10 years?
How would that alter the HSF landscape?
We need to increase the man rating requirements!!! How about requiring duel launch escape LAS, LES systems. CALL the FAA we have to get a handle on this unsafe situation. Manned space flight is next to impossible you know and VERYYYYY dangerous!!!! lololol
I think they’ll try a “launch tax” to fund SLS.
Border area news site has a story….
http://www.themonitor.com/n…
NASA PAO said yesterday that Elon Musk would be at the news conference next Monday at JSC I wonder if he will have anything new.They better not launch from there.I am in the Tampa area and I am not going to be like the people of Altai and have rocket stages dropping around my house.There are oil wells all over the Gulf.They will not allow it either.They might get away with Grass Hopper flights.And how about the fishing boats?Out at the Loop Current and hear a big boom.Look up and see the first stage coming and decide it will miss.Will that be new revenue for charter boats?Play chicken?How about destruct over all those oil wells just after launch?SpaceX said that this is not the chosen location.They have not decided yet.I see the good side,but the bad has to be considered.
I’m sure they’ll take care not to hit Florida with a stray stage. There will be some tiny risk, of course, just as there is with the thousands of airplanes that fly around Florida every day. If you want to worry about something falling out of the sky on your house, a plane is far more likely to do so.
Chris:
I don’t think any launch path Spacex would use would go over Florida. ‘Station orbits’ and even equatorial satellite launches will track south of east.
tinker
Tinker,
I was thinking they would try to use Florida to land their reusable first stages. That’s just wild speculation, though. The payload trajectory wouldn’t have to actually go over Florida for the fly-back first stage to make it over to Florida under its own power. That would be a whole lot more efficient than trying to fly the thing all the way back to Texas.
That would explain why they’re so interested in moving their launches from Florida to Texas (not that there aren’t other good reasons). They’ve indicated plans to land the first stage on land under power. There’s not a whole lot of land east of Florida, but east of Texas you’ve got Florida. You’ve also got Puerto Rico and other islands east of Texas that are potential landing sites.
Chris:
Using the Falcon first stage thrust to fly cross-range to Florida for landing would take less fuel then a retrograde course back to Texas. Elon Musk did say that stage recovery for Falcon would cost forty percent of their payload margin so don’t expect reusablility too soon. If they could use the Falcon Heavy with reusable stages, their payload capacity looks pretty good.
tinker
I am aware ULA has does fabrication work and other engineering services done around that area. Does anyone know of any potential collaboration?
Folks:
Perfect!
tinker
I’m pretty confident the main reason for the location of the new complex is to enable recovery of the first stage at KSC. It’s not an ideal orbital inclination, but if the first stage has *any* crossrange capability then the distance is just right for the delta-V. In the future, after sufficiently proving “safe,” perhaps landing at Wallops will happen (that seems a better inclination for reaching the space station).
http://www.gcmap.com/mapui?…
A nice side benefit would perhaps be the addition of some new political allies- now that there’s a chance of jobs a comin’.
I don’t think Kay Baily Huchison has been Mr Musk’s biggest ally up ’til now. What did she say in committee when told that Space X was headed to the station this year… “It’s about time”. Talk about your luke warm support.So yeah- move to where the labor is cheap, launch windows favorable, old NASA and USAF out of the way- then garner support of the local pols to keep the money flowin’ for launches. Smart. Good for him. It’s just business saavy.