Author Topic: SpaceX Cape 39A Starship launch/landing facilities  (Read 400955 times)

Offline RedLineTrain

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2458
  • Liked: 2412
  • Likes Given: 10225
Re: SpaceX Cape 39A Starship launch/landing facilities
« Reply #320 on: 12/12/2021 04:20 pm »
I don't know why shipping boosters vertically would be a big deal.  After all, SpaceX does it almost every week in ocean waters.
« Last Edit: 12/12/2021 04:22 pm by RedLineTrain »

Online DanClemmensen

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 5486
  • Earth (currently)
  • Liked: 4316
  • Likes Given: 1759
Re: SpaceX Cape 39A Starship launch/landing facilities
« Reply #321 on: 12/12/2021 11:08 pm »
I don't know why shipping boosters vertically would be a big deal.  After all, SpaceX does it almost every week in ocean waters.
The SpaceX F9 barges dock at decent deep-draft docks in commercial ports. The F9 boosters are then lowered and transported horizontally along normal roads. Horizontally, they are 3.7 m (12 ft) wide and 3.7m high: A slightly wide load. An SS or SH transported horizontally is 9m (30 ft) wide and 9 m (30 ft) high.

I am not familiar with the Boca Chica area. Just looking at Google Maps Satellite view, there is no obvious place where an ocean-going barge could dock that is reachable by a vertical SS or SH by road from Starbase. It doesn't look like the lower Rio Grande is navigable, so that leaves the Brownsville ship channel. I'm not seeing any docks that are close and accessible by road. Maybe someone familiar with the area has a better idea?

I suppose they could try coming in over the beach with a hovercraft, but somehow I can't see how they could get permission for that.

I'm fairly sure SS and SH are too heavy for a heavy-lift helicopter or a balloon lift.

Offline alugobi

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1527
  • Liked: 1590
  • Likes Given: 0
Re: SpaceX Cape 39A Starship launch/landing facilities
« Reply #322 on: 12/12/2021 11:30 pm »
Ergo, to keep it simple, they'll build them in Florida.

Offline RedLineTrain

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2458
  • Liked: 2412
  • Likes Given: 10225
Re: SpaceX Cape 39A Starship launch/landing facilities
« Reply #323 on: 12/12/2021 11:32 pm »
No need for any complicated solutions.  In the past, SpaceX (under the name Lone Star Mineral Development) negotiated for about 16 acres on the Brownsville Ship Channel.  It's right near the new Port Connector and if SpaceX wants it, it's theirs.

https://www.portofbrownsville.com/wp-content/uploads/2020/12/2020-12-16-Minutes.pdf

Offline EL_DIABLO

  • Full Member
  • *
  • Posts: 180
  • Liked: 144
  • Likes Given: 158
Re: SpaceX Cape 39A Starship launch/landing facilities
« Reply #324 on: 12/13/2021 11:49 am »
Potentially they could also dredge a channel in the South Bay.

Online darkenfast

  • Member
  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1539
  • Liked: 1829
  • Likes Given: 8740
Re: SpaceX Cape 39A Starship launch/landing facilities
« Reply #325 on: 12/13/2021 06:51 pm »
Potentially they could also dredge a channel in the South Bay.

I seriously doubt they would be allowed to dredge a channel right through a wildlife refuge and build a port facility there..
Writer of Book and Lyrics for musicals "SCAR", "Cinderella!", and "Aladdin!". Retired Naval Security Group. "I think SCAR is a winner. Great score, [and] the writing is up there with the very best!"
-- Phil Henderson, Composer of the West End musical "The Far Pavilions".

Offline EL_DIABLO

  • Full Member
  • *
  • Posts: 180
  • Liked: 144
  • Likes Given: 158
Re: SpaceX Cape 39A Starship launch/landing facilities
« Reply #326 on: 12/13/2021 06:59 pm »
Potentially they could also dredge a channel in the South Bay.

I seriously doubt they would be allowed to dredge a channel right through a wildlife refuge and build a port facility there..

The whole area isn't a wildlife refuge.

Online mmeijeri

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 7772
  • Martijn Meijering
  • NL
  • Liked: 397
  • Likes Given: 822
Re: SpaceX Cape 39A Starship launch/landing facilities
« Reply #327 on: 12/13/2021 07:07 pm »
Given that the Connector Road was prioritised for the benefit of SpaceX, why would they use any other method should they want to ship SS/SH to Florida?
Pro-tip: you don't have to be a jerk if someone doesn't agree with your theories

Offline russianhalo117

  • Global Moderator
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 8755
  • Liked: 4672
  • Likes Given: 768
Re: SpaceX Cape 39A Starship launch/landing facilities
« Reply #328 on: 12/13/2021 07:08 pm »
Potentially they could also dredge a channel in the South Bay.

I seriously doubt they would be allowed to dredge a channel right through a wildlife refuge and build a port facility there..
Why not. The Apollo era LC-39 pads (built and unbuilt) plans and documentation in the federal register defined canals at the original depth of KSC Turn basin et al. It was to support RP-1, hypergolic, and cryogenic feeder barges/motor vessels. The launch rate and Apollo cancellation and later STS never reached the demand for supply rates using feeder barges to implement the canal based feeder systems already used at MSFC and SSC for the test stands. Updated NEPA documentation my be needed but the canals and docks were already surveyed and other work started/completed. It is only a matter of finishing the abandoned canal system. As for other areas that is not the case however these areas were never built to full potential.
« Last Edit: 12/13/2021 07:10 pm by russianhalo117 »

Offline alugobi

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1527
  • Liked: 1590
  • Likes Given: 0
Re: SpaceX Cape 39A Starship launch/landing facilities
« Reply #329 on: 12/13/2021 07:37 pm »
SX are clearing an area on Roberts Road that is at least as large as the mfg area at Boca Chica.  What else would that be if not the next factory, built on lessons learned in the tents? 

The idea of shipping Starships by sea to Florida just doesn't pass the practicality test.

Online mmeijeri

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 7772
  • Martijn Meijering
  • NL
  • Liked: 397
  • Likes Given: 822
Re: SpaceX Cape 39A Starship launch/landing facilities
« Reply #330 on: 12/13/2021 07:45 pm »
They could very well ship the first couple of SS/SHs while they were still setting up their production facilities in Florida even if they do intend to manufacture them locally eventually.
Pro-tip: you don't have to be a jerk if someone doesn't agree with your theories

Offline Lars-J

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 6809
  • California
  • Liked: 8485
  • Likes Given: 5384
Re: SpaceX Cape 39A Starship launch/landing facilities
« Reply #331 on: 12/13/2021 08:18 pm »
SX are clearing an area on Roberts Road that is at least as large as the mfg area at Boca Chica.  What else would that be if not the next factory, built on lessons learned in the tents? 

The idea of shipping Starships by sea to Florida just doesn't pass the practicality test.

They will do whatever is simpler, cheaper, faster to get flying out of 39A. And sea transport is *certainly* on the table as a solution, even if only a stop-gap one.

Besides, if they eventually plan on doing point-to-point, they'll need to ship boosters. Building a factory at EVERY launch point doesn't pass the practicality test.  :)
« Last Edit: 12/13/2021 08:19 pm by Lars-J »

Offline TomH

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2938
  • Vancouver, WA
  • Liked: 1868
  • Likes Given: 909
Re: SpaceX Cape 39A Starship launch/landing facilities
« Reply #332 on: 12/13/2021 08:37 pm »
If the STS tank and the SLS S1 core can be shipped horizontally on Pegasus, why is it that SH or SS cannot?

They were designed to go sideways.  SS and SH were not. 

Could that be changed if SpaceX had a compelling reason to do so?  Almost certainly.  The biggest question is if the tanks are strong enough to keep their shape sideways if in a good cradle, or if they'd need help either in the form of removable hoops of some sort or being pressurized.  Centaur is pressurized to go horizontal; but the consequences of a SS or SH popping like a balloon in an accident are much scarier; OTOH Centaur's ultra thin skin is much more vulnerable to damage than what SpaceX is working with.

What evidence do you have to support this? The SLS core is actually not strong enough for the most of the thrust to be applied from the bottom. If all the thrust were applied from the base, the stage would collapse. It has an upper thrust beam upon which the solid boosters push from below. The result is that the thrust beam lifts the core from the top as the solids push on the thrust beam from below. If such a delicate stage can be given structural integrity via inflationary pressure and then be transported horizontally, it seems that SH could be also. I realize that the tiles and aerodynamic appendages on SS make it a little dicier.

Offline alugobi

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1527
  • Liked: 1590
  • Likes Given: 0
Re: SpaceX Cape 39A Starship launch/landing facilities
« Reply #333 on: 12/13/2021 09:16 pm »
Quote
Besides, if they eventually plan on doing point-to-point
When they get to that stage of development, they'll fly to those points.

Offline AC in NC

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2484
  • Raleigh NC
  • Liked: 3628
  • Likes Given: 1950
Re: SpaceX Cape 39A Starship launch/landing facilities
« Reply #334 on: 12/13/2021 09:23 pm »
Quote
Besides, if they eventually plan on doing point-to-point
When they get to that stage of development, they'll fly to those points.
Boosters, not Ships.

Offline Nevyn72

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 818
  • Australia
  • Liked: 1038
  • Likes Given: 120
Re: SpaceX Cape 39A Starship launch/landing facilities
« Reply #335 on: 12/14/2021 04:18 am »
Quote
Besides, if they eventually plan on doing point-to-point
When they get to that stage of development, they'll fly to those points.
Boosters, not Ships.
I thought the intent was that point to point didn't require boosters.

Online darkenfast

  • Member
  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1539
  • Liked: 1829
  • Likes Given: 8740
Re: SpaceX Cape 39A Starship launch/landing facilities
« Reply #336 on: 12/14/2021 05:54 am »
Potentially they could also dredge a channel in the South Bay.

I seriously doubt they would be allowed to dredge a channel right through a wildlife refuge and build a port facility there..

The whole area isn't a wildlife refuge.

1. The South Bay is not SpaceX property. They cannot simply go out there and start dredging a channel through tidal wetlands that they don't own.

2. The current opposition to SpaceX at Boca Chica is nothing compared to what would happen if they proposed dredging a channel through that area and building a wharf next to the current road.

3. And what for? They have a connector road nearing completion that will link the road that their facilities are on to a port facility that they ALREADY own right on the Brownsville Shipping Channel. They will have to bring in their mobile platforms eventually and there will be times when a vehicle needs to be offloaded without flying.

4. Sooner or later, SpaceX will probably need the infrastructure to be able to swap vehicles around, regardless of which shipyard builds them. I believe the purchase of the Shipping Channel property is part of that.
Writer of Book and Lyrics for musicals "SCAR", "Cinderella!", and "Aladdin!". Retired Naval Security Group. "I think SCAR is a winner. Great score, [and] the writing is up there with the very best!"
-- Phil Henderson, Composer of the West End musical "The Far Pavilions".

Offline edzieba

  • Virtual Realist
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 6104
  • United Kingdom
  • Liked: 9328
  • Likes Given: 39
Re: SpaceX Cape 39A Starship launch/landing facilities
« Reply #337 on: 12/14/2021 11:15 am »
What is less of a logistical challenge, and faster in the short term:

1) Hire one of the many firms (such as Roll-Lift, who they already contract with for moving oversized objects overland) who specialise in transport of oversized objects, to move a handful of oversized objects overland and over ocean from Boca Chica to LC-39A.

2) Build an entire new manufacturing facility at the cape, along with hiring several hundred staff to run it.

More manufacturing sites may come later, but it is certainly not in SpaceX interest to stand next to LC-39A and twiddle their thumbs saying "gee, wouldn't it be nice of some of those Starships we've already built were here?" while waiting for Roberts Road to ramp up to actual production.

Offline EL_DIABLO

  • Full Member
  • *
  • Posts: 180
  • Liked: 144
  • Likes Given: 158
Re: SpaceX Cape 39A Starship launch/landing facilities
« Reply #338 on: 12/14/2021 03:14 pm »
Potentially they could also dredge a channel in the South Bay.

I seriously doubt they would be allowed to dredge a channel right through a wildlife refuge and build a port facility there..

The whole area isn't a wildlife refuge.

1. The South Bay is not SpaceX property. They cannot simply go out there and start dredging a channel through tidal wetlands that they don't own.

2. The current opposition to SpaceX at Boca Chica is nothing compared to what would happen if they proposed dredging a channel through that area and building a wharf next to the current road.

3. And what for? They have a connector road nearing completion that will link the road that their facilities are on to a port facility that they ALREADY own right on the Brownsville Shipping Channel. They will have to bring in their mobile platforms eventually and there will be times when a vehicle needs to be offloaded without flying.

4. Sooner or later, SpaceX will probably need the infrastructure to be able to swap vehicles around, regardless of which shipyard builds them. I believe the purchase of the Shipping Channel property is part of that.

I'm not saying this is what is going to happen, I'm saying it could be a possibility should they want to. It would be a long term solution anyway, once they know the thing actually works, not something done in the short term.

1. Property can be acquired, those underwater lots are worth next to nothing. SpaceX can also lever the Cameron County Spaceport authority to use eminent domain.

2. NIMBY's will protest anything.

3. The current opposition to road closures is nothing compared to what would happen if they were to transport them to the ex-Fortune Ferrous site. It's ~15 miles away. Rigs wouldn't be moving into port to get SH/SS they would be barged out.

4. It's not a purchase of property, it's an intent to negotiate a lease from 1 year ago. We don't even know if they went ahead with it.
« Last Edit: 12/14/2021 03:30 pm by EL_DIABLO »

Online wannamoonbase

  • Elite Veteran
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 5413
  • Denver, CO
    • U.S. Metric Association
  • Liked: 3112
  • Likes Given: 3862
Re: SpaceX Cape 39A Starship launch/landing facilities
« Reply #339 on: 12/14/2021 05:35 pm »
What is less of a logistical challenge, and faster in the short term:

1) Hire one of the many firms (such as Roll-Lift, who they already contract with for moving oversized objects overland) who specialise in transport of oversized objects, to move a handful of oversized objects overland and over ocean from Boca Chica to LC-39A.

2) Build an entire new manufacturing facility at the cape, along with hiring several hundred staff to run it.

More manufacturing sites may come later, but it is certainly not in SpaceX interest to stand next to LC-39A and twiddle their thumbs saying "gee, wouldn't it be nice of some of those Starships we've already built were here?" while waiting for Roberts Road to ramp up to actual production.

Permitting digging or building in a wetland would be longer than either options.

I think there will be a FL manufacturing capability eventually, but not yet.  After they have everything sorted out on how to make these vehicles they can design and build a more efficiency facility.  Maybe everything under 1 roof and with better material handling and environmental controls to help make the process more efficient.

Maybe this is in the distant future (like 2 years, LOL) but it will be helpful for HLS.
Wildly optimistic prediction, Superheavy recovery on IFT-4 or IFT-5

 

Advertisement NovaTech
Advertisement Northrop Grumman
Advertisement
Advertisement Margaritaville Beach Resort South Padre Island
Advertisement Brady Kenniston
Advertisement NextSpaceflight
Advertisement Nathan Barker Photography
0