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

SpaceX Now Has Two Starship Factories

By Keith Cowing
NASA Watch
May 15, 2019
Filed under

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

33 responses to “SpaceX Now Has Two Starship Factories”

  1. Chris says:
    0
    0

    Getting S.R. Hadden vibes all of a sudden. Which is great.

  2. ThomasLMatula says:
    0
    0

    Great news, especially as it will be far easier to get a launch license for orbital flights from the Cape then from Boca Chica. BTW the Brownsville Herald is reporting that the Starhopper tests will resume May 28-30. Go SpaceX!

    I am looking forward to the June 20 update that Elon Musk is promising.

    https://www.teslarati.com/s

    SpaceX stacks orbital Starship sections as Elon Musk teases June 20th event
    By Eric Ralph
    Posted on May 10, 2019

    SpaceX CEO Elon Musk says he will provide a public update on the development status of Starship and Super Heavy in an official presentation later this summer, possibly as soon as June 20th.

    • Dewey Vanderhoff says:
      0
      0

      Please explain your assertion it is easier to get an orbital license from a private launch site in a sparsely populated area of south Texas open to the Gulf, than the quasi-military federally owned launc complex on Florida’s heavily populated Space Coast ?

      • ThomasLMatula says:
        0
        0

        ?? I think you read it backwards. I clearly stated it would be easier to get it for the Cape.

        • Dewey Vanderhoff says:
          0
          0

          Yes, I worded that arse-forwards. But still, your assertion that it will be easier for approval for Cape Canaveral than Boca Chica doesn’t seem right to me. How do you figure that ?

          • fcrary says:
            0
            0

            The latest news out of Boca Chica is that the county will be closing some roads for the next SpaceX test. They also did that for previous tests. If and when they ever get to regular flights, even monthly ones, the locals will start getting annoyed. And having their windows rattled hard enough to break would also be annoying. (I believe some live close enough for that, since a SuperHeavy would have about twice the thrust of a Saturn V.) At Canaveral, the government owns all the roads and property that close the the launch sites. In practice, SpaceX may have to buy out the locals if they want to use Boca Chica for regular flights.

          • ThomasLMatula says:
            0
            0

            Yes, the Starhopper was already shaking windows with just 1 Raptor engine. Imagine when it flies with three? Or Starship with 9 Raptors, or the SuperHeavy with 31 Raptors? The latter will probably start blowing over the mobile homes that are within 2-3 miles of the launch site. And if the Super Heavy should blow up it will probably shatter windows in the condos/hotels at South Padre Island. And lets not forget the sonic boom from the returning Super Heavy. I just don’t see how the FAA would approve it.

            BTW here is the original (2014) final EIS for Boca Chica when SpaceX was just looking at launching the tiny, by comparison,Falcon 9 rocket.

            Volume I

            https://www.faa.gov/about/o

            and Volume II

            https://www.faa.gov/about/o

          • fcrary says:
            0
            0

            At the same time, the land around Boca Chica isn’t very heavily populated, and I believe the real estate prices are quite reasonable. It might make sense for SpaceX to simply buy up everything within five miles. On the other hand, it looks like a fair amount of land within five miles is either in a state park or a wildlife refuge. Those inhabitants wouldn’t file complaints in court, but someone might do it for them.

            The fact that part of that area is in Mexico doesn’t worry me. Property owners in any country are usually willing to cooperate for the right price. And, unfortunately, local officials in Mexico have also been known to cooperate for the right price.

            The condos and hotels on South Padre would probably be an insurance issue. But I admit I have very limited sympathy for anyone who develops land on a barrier island subject to hurricanes.

          • ThomasLMatula says:
            0
            0

            The problem with Mexico is not the land ownership, it’s that there is no provision yet for such a cross border safety zone, so it requires the two governments to get together and arrange something. Not impossible, but not something that will happen overnight. The Border Patrol check point could also be moved.

            SpaceX has been buying up land, but many of the folks there moved there to be at “the end of the world” and escape the high tech world. They aren’t the type to go quietly. Then there are the endangered sea turtles that nest there. The turtles like it quiet and have their supporters along with their lawyers. 🙂

            The bigger problem is the only launch corridor is basically straight east. If you go NE you overfly the condos, southeast Mexico. Again, a problem the two governments will have to sort out.

            When I was looking at Spaceport locations in the early 200o’s the proposed South Texas Spaceport was just south of Port Mansfield for those reasons. A better site would be Matagorda Island where the first commercial space launch took place in 1982. There is an old abandoned SAC base on the north end of the island just begging to be made into a spaceport. It’s all state land now.

          • ThomasLMatula says:
            0
            0

            BTW here is the classic Apollo 4 launch video that shows what happens when you put a trailer too close to a Saturn V 🙂

            https://www.youtube.com/wat

          • Brian Thorn says:
            0
            0

            I think you linked the wrong video. This one is Apollo 8, not the famous ‘ceiling tiles falling on Cronkite’ with Apollo 4.

          • Michael Spencer says:
            0
            0

            I wonder what sort of penalty there is to fly east and then rotate to the desirable trajectory? Isn’t that what happens when heading for ISS from the Cape?

          • fcrary says:
            0
            0

            That’s very dependent on the launch vehicle. The higher the initial, horizontal acceleration, the worse it would be. But that’s highly variable from vehicle to vehicle, and to some extend from launch to launch. (E.g. how and if a Falcon 9’s first stage is recovered makes a difference.)

          • Brian Thorn says:
            0
            0

            “Isn’t that what happens when heading for ISS from the Cape?”

            No, the vehicle rotates just after liftoff and ascends into the ISS orbital plane without turning in-flight. STS-36 Atlantis is rumored to have done a small plane-change (dog-leg) during ascent to launch a spysat in 1990. I think a few Delta IIs did some plane-changing during ascent out of the Cape for the Globalstar launches in the 1990s.

          • Michael Spencer says:
            0
            0

            Thanks, Brian, and Dr. Crary; but isn’t that a really fine distinction? Isn’t ‘the vehicle rotates just after liftoff…without turning in-flight’ actually turning in flight? But at an earlier instant?

          • Brian Thorn says:
            0
            0

            “Isn’t ‘the vehicle rotates just after liftoff…without turning in-flight’ actually turning in flight?”

            No, the rotation (“roll program”) happens immediately after tower-clear while the vehicle is still near vertical. A plane-change is much later in the ascent and is usually to avoid some obstacle which prohibits simply launching in that azimuth in the first place. The STS-36 example was speculated to be to avoid overflying Cape Hatteras during powered flight, so it went out to sea along the usual northerly limit for Cape launches and then made a small turn to the northeast to increase orbital inclination a little. Roll program doesn’t really cost anything and is a guidance and navigation necessity (all launches don’t fly into the same orbit, so unless the pad rotates on the ground, the vehicle has to roll at least a little.) Turning later in the ascent is more costly in propellant and payload.

          • Terry Stetler says:
            0
            0

            “Or Starship with 9 Raptors, or the SuperHeavy with 31 Raptors?”

            Starship has up to 7 Raptor engines, not 9, and according to Musk an evolved Super Heavy could fly with up to 42 Raptors. 42 is likely after a propulsion bay diameter increase to 10 meters, shown in some #NewMoon graphics. SH may initially test with only the 7 engine center cluster, AIUI the only gimbaled engines.

          • ThomasLMatula says:
            0
            0

            The maps of the respective sites tell the story.

            The full launch version of the Starship/Super Heavy has around 12.5 million pounds of thrust at launch, far more than the Saturn V 7.5 millions pounds of thrust. You are going to need a safety zone of at least 4 to 5 miles for a vehicle that large. At Boca Chica that zone would not only include within it residential areas but would also extend 2-3 miles into Mexico. I don’t see how the FAA would be able to approve that unless SpaceX launches from an offshore platform, 6-8 miles out in the Gulf.

            By contrast that is very doable from Pad 39a which was orginially sized for the Nova Launcher. Yes, you would have to fit it into the flow, but its more doable at the Cape than Boca Chica.

          • Brian Thorn says:
            0
            0

            “By contrast that is very doable from Pad 39a which was orginially sized for the Nova Launcher.”

            Except that SpaceX is now boxed-in by the placement of the horizontal integration facility (which cut off the southward flame-duct) and by the need to not interfere (much) with Manned Falcon 9 and Falcon Heavy launch operations, which they badly need in order to bring in revenue.

          • Skinny_Lu says:
            0
            0

            SLC 40 then?

          • Brian Thorn says:
            0
            0

            Far too small.

  3. Patrick Underwood says:
    0
    0

    Given the engineering and time (i.e. cost) to construct a Nova-class launch site on land, I wonder if SpaceX is considering a modified oil platform to be stationed at least several miles off the coast. The problem of course is getting the vehicle, fuel and payload to the platform… but oil rigs can be moved, and they are serviced in harbors all over the world. Would dredging and constructing a small harbor cost less than building a land launch site? Or is there perhaps an existing such harbor near Boca Chica? Just shooting in the dark here, I know nothing.

    • Michael Spencer says:
      0
      0

      Getting a permit to disturb the ocean to that degree would be very expensive and not likely to happen. Nor should it.

      • fcrary says:
        0
        0

        Except in the South China Sea? Seriously, artificial islands and harbors are pretty common, and many coastal cities are built on fill land. In the region in question, on the map Brownsville looks like about as artificial a harbor as you can get, and the only way Corpus Christi gets any oceangoing traffic is from dredging the harbor. I don’t think the environmental impact of an off shore launch platform would be large in comparison.

        • ThomasLMatula says:
          0
          0

          Yes, Unlike Florida, there are oil rigs or their support equipment everywhere. And when they needed to get support ships from Port Mansfield into the Gulf they didn’t give a second thought to cutting a new channel through South Padre Island. Indeed, the fishing industry loves them because they are fish magnets. It would be much of an issue for SpaceX to get a platform for the Starship/Super Heavy as should in the movie of point to point flights.

      • Patrick Underwood says:
        0
        0

        The Gulf is already full of oil rigs, the Texas coast is dotted with support facilities of all kinds, and dredging along the coastal waterways is an ongoing, massive operation. Any such work by SpaceX would be a drop in the bucket.

        • Michael Spencer says:
          0
          0

          Sigh. A rocket launch over open water brings an entirely new kind of pollution, one increasingly well-understood as harmful, particularly to both echo-locating animals, and others who spend on various sounds for communication: noise. Huge amounts of noise as well as super-heated water.

          Not gonna fly.

          In so many cases regulation is in place because some nitwit thinks “I can make a pile! and who is it gonna hurt?” This is the guy chopping off mountain tops and polluting streams in the name of ‘lifestyle’; or the boats over-fishing; or dozens of industries formerly dumping into the atmosphere (remember acid rain?).

          • Patrick Underwood says:
            0
            0

            Ha ha. Okay, you win. Sigh, indeed.

          • fcrary says:
            0
            0

            Ok. Now I see what you mean. But it isn’t clear how much better it is to launch from land, and from within a mile of a wildlife refuge.

          • Daniel Woodard says:
            0
            0

            A semisubmersible oil rig is much more expensive to operate than a land-based launch pad. Even an aggressive launch schedule like that of SpaceX doesn’t generate the income of a platform drilling oil wells. That said, you might wish to see the actual coastline of Cape Canaveral. Thanks to the Space Center and Air Force Station, it is the largest patch of undisturbed seacoast on the eastern side of Florida. We have nesting giant sea turtles, gopher tortise, eagles, bobcats, indigo snakes, scrub jays, pelicans, otters, and too many alligators to shake a stick at. As opposed to the condos that unfortunately line the rest of Florida, the most significant threat to wildlife.

          • ThomasLMatula says:
            0
            0

            Most of the cost is associated with the equipment needed for oil and gas drilling along with supporting a crew aboard 24/7. Sea Launch uses an floating rig and the economics generally worked even though it was a ELV.

          • ThomasLMatula says:
            0
            0

            The Shuttles and SLS are far worst, dumping toxins into the water to kill fish, same as the commercial crew version of the Atlas V will. Not sure what you mean about the super heated water and noise as the platform will be well elevated and a properly designed flame trench should be able to deflect it away to avoid creating those issues. It’s not going to be like a Trident launch. Were there issue like that reported from of the Sea Launch activities?

            But land is cheaper and easier. That is why I hope SpaceX starts looking at the old SAC base on Matagorda Island. It’s ideal. Spaceport America will also work when they have the data to get comfortable with overland flight. Being a VTVL would give them numerous abort modes flying out of Spaceport America.

    • ThomasLMatula says:
      0
      0

      Boca Chica is near the Port of Brownsville, a major export port for LNG, ship breaking operations and supporting oil rigs. It would be no problem for SpaceX to service the offshore platforms from there.

      https://www.portofbrownsvil