This is not a NASA Website. You might learn something. It's YOUR space agency. Get involved. Take it back. Make it work - for YOU.
Commercialization

Is Florida's Launch Dominance Fading?

By Keith Cowing
NASA Watch
January 12, 2014
Filed under , , , ,

SpaceX may pick Texas over controversial Merritt Island launch site, Orlando Sentinel
“Though Florida officials admit that the state is an underdog in the fight, they contend that Spaceport Shiloh, named for an abandoned citrus town in the Cape Canaveral area, is worth fighting for — and not just for SpaceX. “We are going ahead with Shiloh with or without SpaceX,” said Frank DiBello, president of Space Florida, a booster group for the aerospace industry. As an alternate, Space Florida has looked at the Washington-based company Blue Origin, which has expressed an interest in launching its vehicles from Florida. “We remain keenly interested in Shiloh, as well as potential commercial launch sites in Florida and other locations,” said Robert Meyerson, president of Blue Origin, in a statement.”
Why Does Space Florida Need Its Own Spaceport?, earlier post
Kennedy: Launch presages economic benefits for state, Times DIspath
“Virginia’s $150 million Mid-Atlantic Regional Spaceport (MARS) asset awaits Richmond decision-making on whether it is to be a part of the future of human spaceflight. A leap to include commercial spaceflight passenger service to the commercial cargo launch manifest from the Eastern Shore requires public-private partnership investment and long-term planning.”
Proposed SpaceX site near Brownsville sits on 87 acres near Boca Chica, The Monitor
“The proposed site of a facility for Elon Musk’s Space Exploration Technologies Corp., where the world’s first commercial rocket-launching complex would be located, consists of 87 acres in four tracts along state Highway 4 at Boca Chica Boulevard. The California-based space exploration firm has leased slightly more than half the land, according to the Federal Aviation Administration’s Draft Environmental Impact Statement, or EIS, and additionally owns about a quarter of the tracts on the site, as shown in public deed records providing information about property ownership in the area.”

NASA Watch founder, Explorers Club Fellow, ex-NASA, Away Teams, Journalist, Space & Astrobiology, Lapsed climber.

46 responses to “Is Florida's Launch Dominance Fading?”

  1. Geoffrey Landis says:
    0
    0

    Eastward launch from Texas takes you over southern Florida, while eastward launches from Florida take you over pretty much nothing but ocean, so it seems like a tough choice simply from the regulatory perspective. Unless, possibly, they launch from Texas with the idea that they can land the stage in Florida– that would be cool.

    • Rocky J says:
      0
      0

      Yes – landing the Falcon 1st stage. I’ve mentioned before that it must be costly to back track the first stage to the point of origin. But it could well be that sending the Falcon core to FL would also be costly (too far). Either from TX or FL or CA, I think landing the Falcon cores on a ship platform at sea would be cheaper and eliminate the risk to people on land. Maybe a floating platform anchored permanently out at sea, optimal location, with crane to hand-off each core to a waiting vessel.

      • BeanCounterFromDownUnder says:
        0
        0

        Rocky, you’re ignoring all the statements that Elon has made concerning reuse. He’s adament that he will return spent stages to the launch area and we’re likely to see that happen some time this year.
        Cheers.

        • Rocky J says:
          0
          0

          Bean, you made me reconsider. So he said he would return to launch site. SpaceX has now extended the length of their core to accommodate more fuel. One would hope that the added fuel for the cores is sufficient to back up Elon’s statement, i.e. return to launch site. The alternative is that there is an exaggeration of the claim by Elon. The floating platform was a cool idea but Ok, I’ll take it at face value. Adding the extra fuel to turn around – all the way back, may be more cost effective than the maintaining of a team returning cores from a sea platform; this certainly had crossed my mind.

          • Vladislaw says:
            0
            0

            Did Jeff Bezos file a patent on the landing on a barge?

            http://appft.uspto.gov/neta

            “SEA LANDING OF SPACE LAUNCH VEHICLES AND ASSOCIATED SYSTEMS AND
            METHODS

            Abstract

            Launch vehicle systems and methods for landing and recovering a booster stage
            and/or other portions thereof on a platform at sea or on another body of water
            are disclosed. In one embodiment, a reusable space launch vehicle is launched
            from a coastal launch site in a trajectory over water. After booster engine
            cutoff and upper stage separation, the booster stage reenters the earth’s
            atmosphere in a tail-first orientation. The booster engines are then restarted
            and the booster stage performs a vertical powered landing on the deck of a
            pre-positioned sea-going platform. In one embodiment, bidirectional aerodynamic
            control surfaces control the trajectory of the booster stage as it glides
            through the earth’s atmosphere toward the sea-going platform. The sea-going
            platform can broadcast its real-time position to the booster stage so that the
            booster stage can compensate for errors in the position of the sea-going
            platform due to current drift and/or other factors. After landing, the sea-going
            platform can be towed by, e.g., a tug, or it can use its own propulsion system,
            to transport the booster stage back to the coastal launch site or other site for
            reconditioning and reuse. In another embodiment, the booster stage can be
            transferred to another vessel for transport. In still further embodiments, the
            booster can be refurbished while in transit from a sea-based or other landing
            site.

          • Rocky J says:
            0
            0

            Good find. So he patented the idea. Could he charge royalties for any company using the approach?

          • Vladislaw says:
            0
            0

            I don’t think so because there is all kinds of papers going back decades talking about landing on a sea based platform.

          • hikingmike says:
            0
            0

            Obvious patent idea is obvious!

          • DTARS says:
            0
            0

            Rocky how many customers in the future will want the full falcon performance whatever it is.

            Each boaster dumped in the sea for 30 thousand dollars of kerosene cost the customer 33 million dollars (price Spacex said a booster cost) Seems to me if Elon wants to give his customer what he wants he will need a platform for SOME launches.

            How much would a platform cost

            Make the plateform 100 by 100

            That’s 8 barges 50 long by 25 wide with a steel Struss system tying them together, with a 12″ structural concrete floor with double mat rebar.

            Easy to build for 33 million!

            Put fuel tanks on the platform and anchor where you need it.

            Spacex should just hop the booster to their normal landing pad to be reused like the rest of the fleet.

            How many full time employees do you need to man a plate form 5? 10?

          • Rocky J says:
            0
            0

            The logistics of a sea-based landing platform could be expensive – more than just adding the extra fuel to the cores for full return to launch site. A whole maintenance team would be required.

            I like the platform idea but the cost/savings are not clear. Ok, here we go… They seem to have added 75 metric tons of fuel to the extended 1st stage. (http://www.spacelaunchrepor… That’s LOX & RP-1 at roughly 3:2 by volume. That’s roughly 25,000 gallons of LOX/RP-1 added to the extended tanks. I cannot find present day prices for LOX & RP-1 on the net but lets just say $4/gallon average for both. So the cost of the added fuel to return the 1st stage core back to Earth is about $100,000. Even if I am off by a factor of 10, not likely, it is not a big cost compared to the savings of reusing the cores. A platform probably doesn’t make sense so long as you don’t overburden your cores with needed fuel to return to Earth; which obviously they have not.

            Did you notice that the new extended cores of Falcon 9 don’t hop off the launch pad anymore. They mosey off now due to the extra fuel weight.

          • DTARS says:
            0
            0

            The question remains how many customers will want that added fuel like the last two customers did. It will be interesting to see if future customers opt to dump first stage boosters for that little added kick or want to pay for a falcon heavy.

          • Rocky J says:
            0
            0

            I don’t think customers pay for it directly. They actually benefit from the extra fuel, once the 1st stages start soft landings, by reuse – a lot. Right now, SpaceX is likely not adding the extra fuel to the price of launches.

            The cost of the present Falcon’s w/o reuse is about $2000/lb of payload. Reuse of the 1st stage should reduce the cost to about $1000/lb and once the 2nd stages are returned to soft landings, that will make the dream price of $500/lb. It will take probably 5 years, probably more, before they start returning 2nd stages.

          • dogstar29 says:
            0
            0

            $4 is pretty accurate for RP-1 but Propellant LOX is less than $1 per gallon.

          • Rocky J says:
            0
            0

            CORRECTION. The amount of additional fuel added to the new 1st stage Falcon Core is 145 mTon. RP-1, LOX densities ~.8g/cm3, 1.14 g/cm3. The combustion ratio is about 2.5:1. Using volumes & ratio. Extra 9 m length x 3.66 m dia. => 10,000 extra gallons of RP-1 and 25,000 gallons of LOX. Total cost of fuel to return to Earth softly, ~$65,000.

            Here’s a $65,000 question. Why couldn’t NASA come up with a reusable conventional rocket first? All those years fiddling with exotic designs and now they want to build SLS at 4x the cost of commercial alternatives.

          • Steve Whitfield says:
            0
            0

            Just an off-the-wall possibility, but if the extra fuel is there, how about:

            1. Launch mission 1 from TX.
            2. Land mission 1 stage 1 in FL.
            3. Launch mission 2 using the same stage 1 from FL.
            4. Land mission 2 stage 1 in TX after completing an Earth orbit.
            5. Repeat the above, always going east, launching each mission from wherever is closest / cheapest.

            Note: I haven’t done the math to see if the altitude / coast time will actually make this work. And from a regulatory POV, it’s full of holes.

          • Rocky J says:
            0
            0

            I just responded to DTARS with an estimate which might make any platform at sea not practical.

            It’s going to be a few years before they have reusable 2nd stages. I do not think that the first stage of a Falcon core travels downrange very far. The gulf of Mexico is 1000 miles wide. It may not be practical to carry on to FL rather than just return to launch site in TX; taking my estimate of the added fuel cost.

      • DTARS says:
        0
        0

        When I read someone on another site say that spacex was thinking of testing a soft water landing on this last flight but didn’t have fuel enough for a fly back. The obvious question is where’s the barge. As a kid that lived in a seaport I recall barges stored side by side. Seems cheap enough to build a good size platform to me compared to not doing booster return because the customer wants the full performance from your rocket.

        How many million they dump in the ocean these last two flights???

        Lol where’s the sea platform Spacex????

        • Mader Levap says:
          0
          0

          Why you do not ask yourself how many milions sea platform cost?
          Forget it, they want to return to launch site. On land, of course.

        • Geoffrey Landis says:
          0
          0

          They seem to be doing step by step development. First step was to test the re-light of the engines (done); next step will be to demonstrate that they can do the soft landing on water. They’ve stated that their ultimate goal is *not* to do ocean landings of the stage, though (nobody wants to dunk their engines in salt water), so if they follow their current plan the soft landing in the ocean is just a step, not the final operating plan.

        • Rocky J says:
          0
          0

          Bean is right (see below). Let’s just wait and see. But I agree that a barge is about all they would need except one to handle rough seas.

    • John Thomas says:
      0
      0

      I don’t see them flying over Florida. What happens for a first or second stage failure that causes debris to land in a populated area?

    • Saturn1300 says:
      0
      0

      SpaceX said they will aim for Fl. straits. 90 miles between Fl. and Cuba. The small roads going to the Texas launch site might be a problem. Ought to have a lot of overhead wires. I don’t see a lot of cost to flyback. Probably truck it back to MacGreger. I guess Space Florida thinks if they build it, they will come. With flyback they have to come to a stop, then accelerate back to the launch site. They are suppose to try it Feb. 22 on the next CRS flight.

    • Aero313 says:
      0
      0

      Has anyone actually seen any trajectories and IIP traces for a Texas launch to various inclinations? You MIGHT be able to get to GTO without overflight. You definitely CANNOT get to ISS from Texas without overflight of most of the Southeastern US. Does it really make financial sense to have TWO launch sites for easterly launches?

    • Brian Thorn says:
      0
      0

      No, due east launches from Boca Chica will not pass over Florida. And Florida is too far from Boca Chica to try and land the first stage even if they did change the launch azimuth to overfly Florida.

  2. swing_a_deadcat says:
    0
    0

    With the Pad A deal with SpaceX on KSC property, can’t see them needing Shiloh to launch from Florida. So don’t see a lack of SpaceX in the Shiloh deal with Space Florida as meaning they are picking Texas. And if Blue Origin really has a vehicle to launch, I’m sure KSC would wlecome them as a user of a multi-use Pad B – if they can get past their unhappiness with NASA’s selection of SpaceX for Pad A. Shiloh is many millions, perhaps billions, of development costs to make viable. Will be very challenging for Space Florida to make this happen. Seems more practical to focus on opening KSC assets to commercial interests.

    • Steve Whitfield says:
      0
      0

      Unless it’s all just another gov-subsidized jobs program being worked out in the halls of Congress.

  3. dogstar29 says:
    0
    0

    SpaceX needs Shiloh to be outside the DOD area of control. They seem to be on the verge of dropping it due to the opposition of local environmental activists. I understand their concerns but some of the published statements are pure fantasy, that dozens of crashing rockets and massive toxic spills would kill the manatees and other wildlife. They also object that the public would lose access to the wildlife refuge and Playalinda beach on launch days. Even the latter would be less of a problem than under Shuttle, with its frequent launch slips. It is frustrating because no one seems to want to hear that the environmental impact of a Falcon launch site would actually be minimal, far less than with the Shuttle and its massive SRBs.

    Taxpayer funding is stagnant. Virtually all future growth is in launches that the government doesn’t pay for. The majority of commercial launch traffic is to GTO and if that business goes to Texas, Florida will lose big. The DOD will not give up control of the range; that’s why Shiloh is needed. The environmental movement will not take an unbiased look at the ability of wildlife and rocket launch to coexist, as they have since the Sixties. None of the local politicians even seem to be taking this issue seriously. What a waste.

    • Saturn1300 says:
      0
      0

      USAF a few months ago asked for comments on turning the Range over to private interests. They may be stopped, but they sound like they want to. I don’t know if the Station would be turned over. It would save a lot of money. I thought that Space Florida already has a launch pad there that no one is using. The people that like the secret launches will probably stop it.

      • dogstar29 says:
        0
        0

        Space Florida has a lease on an unused pad on CCAFS but has not gotten any interest in it. Is it the Eastern Test Range itself that USAF wants to privatize or just the launch facilities? If the ETR were turned over to FAA jurisdiction for range safety and launch approval the CCAFS pads might be a lot more valuable.

        LC-39 attracted a bit more interest than the CCAFS pad (two bidders vs zero), maybe because it is on KSC property and it would be easier to persuade NASA to launch astronauts there.

  4. Dallas Schwartz says:
    0
    0

    While a launch from Texas does leave open a possible issue of “what would happen if first stage fails”? One thing I’ve yet see anyone comment on is: Maybe SpaceX plans a launch trajectory that provides for a maximum altitude trajectory straight off the pad vs. a traditional launch trajectory to gain altitude right away removing the issue of a staging event over FLA. When they resumed shuttle flights after Challenger that was the flight profile they took with the new TDRS onboard that flight. I remember Gene Cernan mentioning this prior to liftoff during comments he made with Peter Jennings as they were the ABC crew at the cape. He talked about how NASA programmed in a very aggressive launch profile to get up out of the atmosphere quicker than a normal launch profile. Just a thought…

    • Vladislaw says:
      0
      0

      IF bigeow aerospace puts a facility in a different orbit than the ISS would texas be okay to launch to that station?

  5. HyperJ says:
    0
    0

    Why in the world would they be surprised that SpaceX is not so interested in Shiloh?
    – They have an operational pad near by, SLC-40
    – They are about to negotiate a lease of LC-39A, just a few miles south of Shiloh.
    So why in the world would they want to upen up a 3rd launch site, right next to their other two?

    Shiloh’s only hope to attract SpaceX was that SpaceX would be denied use of LC-39A.

  6. John Gardi says:
    0
    0

    Folks:

    “Is Florida’s Launch Dominance Fading?”

    Yes!

    tinker

    • DTARS says:
      0
      0

      Lolololol 🙂

    • Geoffrey Landis says:
      0
      0

      Betteridge’s law of headlines: “Any headline which ends in a question mark can be answered by the word no.”

      Betteridge explained the concept in a February 2009 article: “The reason why journalists use that style of headline is that they know the story is probably [profanity deleted], and don’t actually have the sources and facts to back it up, but still want to run it.”

      https://en.wikipedia.org/wi

      • kcowing says:
        0
        0

        So now you are accusing me of not having facts? If you do not like NASAWatch then stop reading it.

        • Geoffrey Landis says:
          0
          0

          No, you’re just passing on the story from the Orlando Sentinel. Had I been accusing anybody of not having facts, it would be the Orlando Sentinel.
          But, in fact, I was only intending to quote Betteridge, who is perhaps a little bit too sarcastic about the news. The Orlando story seems to be accurate enough, although it uses a common newspaper tactic of hyping up the fears of its local audience that a business opportunity might flee to a location out of state.

          • kcowing says:
            0
            0

            You accused someone of not having the facts – either me or Marc – yet you do not seem to be able to explain why you make this claim. You are a rather confused person. – Oh yes- no more profanity postings – no second warning.

          • NonPublius says:
            0
            0

            The rest of us understand…thx

          • John Gardi says:
            0
            0

            Geoffrey:

            How about solutions, not rhetoric (and poor rhetoric at that).

            (For some examples of solution based posting, read mine! )

            tinker

  7. John Gardi says:
    0
    0

    Folks:

    Let’s stay on track here.

    First… Space Florida. These folks aren’t interested in jobs, they are interested in control! By trying to ‘acquire’ the Shiloh site, they are trying to mimic NASA’s lease program for 39A and the VAB facilities. This would give them a revenue stream to justify their existence, nothing more. Luckily, everyone sees through them and they’re getting nowhere.

    Second… There is a solution for the ‘Space coast’!

    I’ve said it before, I’ll say it again: There already is a ‘ready made’ space launch facility that is available and an existing business model that could make a commercial space port in Florida a reality.

    The facility is the mostly abandoned Air Force base just south of Pads 39A and 39B. Right now, only Falcon 9, Atlas V and Delta IV launch from there, but most of the pads to the south of them have been unused for decades. There is room to expand without the need of a ‘new’ launch site.

    The business plan is simple. Put the Air Force base in private hands and use the decades old business model that airport authorities use. Airport authorities provide services like fuel, deicing, maintenance facilities and air traffic control. No reason a spaceport authority couldn’t adopt these tried and trued methods to creats a sustainable business model.

    To do this, a spaceport authority would have run an efficient operation and charge prices that will attract customers, not scare them away (like Space Florida is doing).

    In this ‘new space’ era, the only way to get ‘job numbers’ up to where they used to be on the Space Coast is to have every one of those abandoned launch pads occupied by commercial clients and a spaceport authority who’s motto isn’t “Take the marks for every penny we can squeeze out of them!” (like Space Florida).

    tinker

    • John Gardi says:
      0
      0

      Folks:

      Case in point:

      “SpaceX Drives Sharp Increase in Projected Launches at Cape”

      http://www.spacenews.com/ar

      Even the Air Force sees the writing on the wall! No reason the 45th couldn’t be ‘privatized’ into a civilian authority. Maybe a public/private arrangement like COTS could turn the base into the leading edge spaceport.

      It’s there, it’s under-used, do it!

      The most useful, immediate step would be the defunding and disbanding of Space Florida!

      tinker

      • Byeman says:
        0
        0

        A clueless post. The COTS paradigm is not even applicable here, it is for hardware development. And defunding and disbanding of Space Florida is quite the opposite solution. They would be the likely org to run a privatized Cape. The reason for the Shiloh is control but not by Space Florida but to avoid NASA and USAF control. It would be a true commercial site that only has to respond to FAA and OSHA requirements.

    • dogstar29 says:
      0
      0

      I do not agree. Space Florida is not the problem. Space Florida has actually negotiated the leases that allow ULA and SpaceX to launch from Cx-37,40, and 41, however all the Florida launch sites remain under DOD range authority, a system that was set up when only DOD actually launched rockets and remains problematic for a competitive industry. The abandoned pads could possibly be utilized if a more efficient and less expensive regulatory environment were available.