Quote from: Comga on 10/21/2017 10:29 pmPS I am really looking forward to this thread returning to news about construction at Boca Chica. It's been a while. Me too. Maybe it's time for an updates only thread.
PS I am really looking forward to this thread returning to news about construction at Boca Chica. It's been a while.
Quote from: mto on 10/21/2017 11:21 pmQuote from: Comga on 10/21/2017 10:29 pmPS I am really looking forward to this thread returning to news about construction at Boca Chica. It's been a while. Me too. Maybe it's time for an updates only thread.I'll Fourth that!or a separate off-shore only tread
Quote from: mto on 10/21/2017 11:21 pmQuote from: Comga on 10/21/2017 10:29 pmPS I am really looking forward to this thread returning to news about construction at Boca Chica. It's been a while. Me too. Maybe it's time for an updates only thread.Yep, and with construction likely starting soon, we'll need 2 different threads to not drown out info with discussions
I skimmed through about 100 posts and didn't notice if anybody had made this case: The launch pad at Boca Chica can be built as a BFR pad from day one with the ability to launch F9 and FH as well.
Quote from: BadgerLegs on 10/22/2017 03:37 pmI skimmed through about 100 posts and didn't notice if anybody had made this case: The launch pad at Boca Chica can be built as a BFR pad from day one with the ability to launch F9 and FH as well.BFR will probably be way over the legal sound limit for Boca Chica Village. This has been mentioned in many posts.
IMO there's already a BFR ASDS thread offshore could fit into.
They can at least do BFS launches.
They are well below FH thrust, sure low enough that they don't exceed the noise level like FH. So probably easy to get permission...
Why would extension of permits for a vehicle that is well within approved thrust range, require a new EIS?
Within the 12 launch operations per year, SpaceX may elect to have permitted launches of smaller reusable suborbital launch vehicles from this proposed site.
The Falcon 9 and Falcon Heavy launch vehicles are described below... Regarding other reusable suborbital launch vehicles... such vehicles would be smaller than the Falcon 9 and may consist of the first stage of a Falcon 9.
Within the 12 launch operations per year, the Proposed Action also includes permitted launches of reusable suborbital launch vehicles. A reusable suborbital launch vehicle could consist of a Falcon 9 Stage 1 tank with a maximum propellant (LOX and RP-1) load of approximately 6,900 gal.
The cheapest solution to SpaceX for 'grasshopper phase' is buy everyone out within 2 miles of the launch mount (or come to some agreement with each in writing) and get on with it...Keep it simple... keep it on land... keep it on their land... low headcount... low expenses... do the test program.
In USEast CostLow as latitude as possibleLow population, attached is pop density map.
Quote from: John Alan on 10/22/2017 06:20 pmThe cheapest solution to SpaceX for 'grasshopper phase' is buy everyone out within 2 miles of the launch mount (or come to some agreement with each in writing) and get on with it...Keep it simple... keep it on land... keep it on their land... low headcount... low expenses... do the test program.Yes, this is also a very real possibility, but there are issues:1) Why only 2 miles? I think BFR noise levels will be way over the legal limit for all the houses in Boca Chica Village. 2) What if they don't want to sell? In Texas, it's illegal to use eminent domain to benefit a private company.3) Assuming they did want to sell, it would cost SpaceX $millions to buy all the houses and vacant lots in the area.4) The current EIS only allows 12 launches a year. Yes, they can amend the EIS to raise this, but not to infinity. They have to leave the beach open to the public most of the time. There's also a Texas state law that doesn't allow SpaceX to launch on weekends or holidays over the summer. Long-term, this will really limit SpaceX. Remember that each Mars mission requires 6 BFR launches, and the Mars window only opens for a short time every 2 years. So if they want to send 6 BFS spaceships to Mars, that's 36 launches crammed into short period of time, which probably would't be allowed.5) Previously in this thread, we've discussed issues with soil stability at the current launch site. It seems it's more shifty than they originally thought. Some people have suggested they may need pilings up to 1000 feet deep to reach stable earth. Not cheap.6) To launch BFR or BFS from Boca Chica Beach, they'll need a way to get it there. As I've mentioned before, they could build a new road from the Port of Brownsville seaport to the launch site, but again, not cheap.
John appears to be talking about suborbital test launches and landings of the upper stage only.
Quote from: nacnud on 10/22/2017 06:27 pmIn USEast CostLow as latitude as possibleLow population, attached is pop density map.And don't forget:
If we are discussing off shore platforms, why not just put it in the bay to the north of kopernick shores. Sheltered from the ocean somewhat, very shallow and can be placed close enough to shore to facilitate piping but far enough from population centers on all sides (2+ miles away from everybody?). It could be south and east of the shipping channel.Or even on land along the land west of Del Mar beach. Say 2 miles north of current launch site.