Quote from: pyromatter on 05/06/2022 01:58 pmQuote from: StuffOfInterest on 05/06/2022 01:52 pmLooks like the launch mount is going to get some legs soon based on the row of tubes just above the foundation works.Also, what is that octagon shaped pad on the left of the image likely to be? Looks like a lot of rebar going in. Didn't they do something like that in Boca Chica, but it isn't visible now as everything around is is covered in concrete?Starship suborbital standIs there a source for that or is it speculation? Could it be foundations for a new water tower, instead?
Quote from: StuffOfInterest on 05/06/2022 01:52 pmLooks like the launch mount is going to get some legs soon based on the row of tubes just above the foundation works.Also, what is that octagon shaped pad on the left of the image likely to be? Looks like a lot of rebar going in. Didn't they do something like that in Boca Chica, but it isn't visible now as everything around is is covered in concrete?Starship suborbital stand
Looks like the launch mount is going to get some legs soon based on the row of tubes just above the foundation works.Also, what is that octagon shaped pad on the left of the image likely to be? Looks like a lot of rebar going in. Didn't they do something like that in Boca Chica, but it isn't visible now as everything around is is covered in concrete?
Is anyone concerned about how close this is to the current F9/H launch facility? If there was a SH/SS accident shortly after liftoff, flaming debris could rain down on the F9/H facility. In fact, I can't think of two launch pads so close to each other anywhere. Say it ain't so....much of a problem.
NASA wants Elon Musk's SpaceX to ensure its plan to launch its next-generation Starship rocket from Florida would not put at risk nearby launch infrastructure critical to the International Space Station, a senior space agency official told Reuters.<snip>SpaceX has already invested heavily in building a Starship pad some hundreds of feet from pad 39A's launch tower. It has responded by pitching NASA on a plan to outfit its other Florida pad - Launch Complex 40, five miles away on Space Force property - with the means to launch U.S. astronauts, according to a person familiar with the plans.The company is also studying ways to "harden" 39A, or make the launchpad more resilient to both an explosive Starship accident and the immense forces emitted from a successful Starship liftoff, Lueders said.
SpaceX faces NASA hurdle for Starship backup launch padQuote from: ReutersNASA wants Elon Musk's SpaceX to ensure its plan to launch its next-generation Starship rocket from Florida would not put at risk nearby launch infrastructure critical to the International Space Station, a senior space agency official told Reuters.<snip>SpaceX has already invested heavily in building a Starship pad some hundreds of feet from pad 39A's launch tower. It has responded by pitching NASA on a plan to outfit its other Florida pad - Launch Complex 40, five miles away on Space Force property - with the means to launch U.S. astronauts, according to a person familiar with the plans.The company is also studying ways to "harden" 39A, or make the launchpad more resilient to both an explosive Starship accident and the immense forces emitted from a successful Starship liftoff, Lueders said.
Quote from: su27k on 06/13/2022 01:45 pmSpaceX faces NASA hurdle for Starship backup launch padQuote from: ReutersNASA wants Elon Musk's SpaceX to ensure its plan to launch its next-generation Starship rocket from Florida would not put at risk nearby launch infrastructure critical to the International Space Station, a senior space agency official told Reuters.<snip>SpaceX has already invested heavily in building a Starship pad some hundreds of feet from pad 39A's launch tower. It has responded by pitching NASA on a plan to outfit its other Florida pad - Launch Complex 40, five miles away on Space Force property - with the means to launch U.S. astronauts, according to a person familiar with the plans.The company is also studying ways to "harden" 39A, or make the launchpad more resilient to both an explosive Starship accident and the immense forces emitted from a successful Starship liftoff, Lueders said.Honestly surprised that NASA and SpaceX hadn't sorted this out by now.
1) I think SpaceX has a long term lease for a notional Pad 49 just to the north of 39A. Has SpaceX submitted plans to build that out & has NASA approved of those plans? It seems like the best long term solution will be to build out 49 and designate that as a 100% SS/SH facility.
2) Someone mentioned over on Reddit that Vlucan Centaur is slated to be using the same launch pad/facility as the one used by Atlas V & Boeint's Starliner. I don't know if there are other pads capable of launching an Atlas V w/ crewed Starliner. But if not..... is NASA requiring ULA & Boeing to do a similar risk-avoidance exercise?
I can understand that NASA is not happy with using Launch Complex 40 for both Falcon 9 and Super Heavy. The question for me is, did they pay SpaceX to keep that redundancy? I am quite sure, they won't have Super Heavy and Facon at the pad at the same time. What legal basis does NASA have for such a request? After all, it is no cost plus contract.
Quote from: MGoDuPage on 06/13/2022 04:47 pm2) Someone mentioned over on Reddit that Vlucan Centaur is slated to be using the same launch pad/facility as the one used by Atlas V & Boeint's Starliner. I don't know if there are other pads capable of launching an Atlas V w/ crewed Starliner. But if not..... is NASA requiring ULA & Boeing to do a similar risk-avoidance exercise?Vulcan is not the size of Superheavy and its miles away.NASA is right to be concerned, I suspect that DOD also wants some assurances as some of the planned payloads need to use LC39A.A problem with a fully fueled Superheavy could be very destructive. Even LC49 north of LC39B may be a concern for that pad.
Also, are you saying the Vulcan launch infrastructure is miles away from the AtlasV/Starliner launch infrastrucutre?
Quote from: wannamoonbase on 06/13/2022 04:55 pmQuote from: MGoDuPage on 06/13/2022 04:47 pm2) Someone mentioned over on Reddit that Vlucan Centaur is slated to be using the same launch pad/facility as the one used by Atlas V & Boeint's Starliner. I don't know if there are other pads capable of launching an Atlas V w/ crewed Starliner. But if not..... is NASA requiring ULA & Boeing to do a similar risk-avoidance exercise?Vulcan is not the size of Superheavy and its miles away.NASA is right to be concerned, I suspect that DOD also wants some assurances as some of the planned payloads need to use LC39A.A problem with a fully fueled Superheavy could be very destructive. Even LC49 north of LC39B may be a concern for that pad.I'm not saying NASA doesn't have a right to be concerned--I think they DO.However, what I'm wondering whether NASA raised this issue previously? If they did & SpaceX ignored their concerns, then that's on SpaceX. But if not, then why not, and why should SpaceX have to pay for a concern that was raised after-the-fact? Also, are you saying the Vulcan launch infrastructure is miles away from the AtlasV/Starliner launch infrastrucutre? If so, then I agree there's no reason for NASA to require similar steps from ULA. But if not, then even if Vulcan won't be as big as the SH/SS stack, there'd still be a substantial risk of damaging the ability of Starliner to launch if an early Vulcan vehicle goes kablooey a few hundred feet away, no?