Starbase, Texas

[DanClemmensen]

Gigabay on the way

As the Starship launch cadence ramps up we are in need of multiple high rise facilities to support new vehicle builds and reflight refurbishment across various sites.

Design elements of multidisciplinary, multistory projects for new construction and modifications to existing structures.

Perform building level structural analysis and design for large steel and reinforced concrete buildings, including shallow and deep foundations.

Design experience with steel and/or concrete high rise design projects including design and analysis of primary gravity and lateral force resisting systems

Will the V3 boosters (80.2 m) fit inside the current Megabays (~100 m tall), or will they need to be modified?

MB1/MB2 would have to be raised to allow for the V3 stretch and their permanently/semi-permanently hot stage ring. The height of the work stands, door and bridge cranes are the limiting factors. V2 boosters will fit. It is expected with increasing ship production demand MB1 will be refurbished and converted for solely ship production or refurbishment. The MB's can support production of V3 ships and maybe follow on versions.

Presumably, Ships will outnumber Boosters in a ratio of better than 50:1 starting fairly soon after V3 Boosters start being reused. At that point they will only need one Megabay that can handle V3. Before that point, they will also only need one such Megabay because they will get Booster catch operational before they need a high Booster production rate.

Something similar happened with F9 at Hawthorne. They sized the production line for better than 30 F9 boosters a year, but never needed that because the got booster reuse going.

[catdlr]

Gigabay on the way

As the Starship launch cadence ramps up we are in need of multiple high rise facilities to support new vehicle builds and reflight refurbishment across various sites.

Design elements of multidisciplinary, multistory projects for new construction and modifications to existing structures.

Perform building level structural analysis and design for large steel and reinforced concrete buildings, including shallow and deep foundations.

Design experience with steel and/or concrete high rise design projects including design and analysis of primary gravity and lateral force resisting systems

Will the V3 boosters (80.2 m) fit inside the current Megabays (~100 m tall), or will they need to be modified?

I believe that: 
1) The current two Mega-Bays will be exclusively for ships. Mega-Bay 2 is already equipped for this, and Mega-Bay 1 will also be in the future. 
2) A new building(s) will be constructed to meet the specifications for V3. 
3) Once enough boosters are assembled, parts of these new Super Mega-Bays could be used to refurbish ships and boosters and, if necessary, continue ship construction.

Schedule (suggested):
A) Once the outfitting for the Tower-B Ship QD, Carriages, Piping, and OLM-B are completed, that area at Sanchez will again become the staging area for assembling the new Super Mega-Bay(s) sections.
B) After Super Mega-Bay(s) are completed, that assembly area could become the parking lot for all the Ships and boosters that will be built (think of a New Car sales lot).

I have consistently articulated my thoughts on the matter and envisioned a scenario where all Assembly Bays would be strategically positioned adjacent to the main factory. This arrangement would facilitate the direct transfer of barrel and nose cone sections from the factory into the Bays, thereby eliminating the need for transport across the "old Ring Yard." Such a configuration would significantly mitigate dust contamination, as the doors would only be opened upon completing Ships and Boosters. However, I anticipate that the Ring Watcher and many team members would oppose this suggestion.

Based on the job description, modifying the two existing Mega-Bays to increase their height presents considerable challenges. The upper floors, currently weighted down with cement, cannot be quickly elevated without an extended downtime for reconfiguration. However, given the innovative nature of SpaceX, it is understood that structures are often subject to significant changes. Ample locations are available for constructing additional Mega-Bays close to the existing structures, alleviating any concerns regarding land availability. It is anticipated that the High Bay and the Stargate building may soon be decommissioned. Furthermore, preliminary work has commenced on driving piles adjacent to the new employee parking lot.

I'm always open to opposing views but excited about any expansion. I like to sit on fences and admire construction work, especially those that Telsa and SpaceX undertake.

Tony

[danneely]

Based on the job description, modifying the two existing Mega-Bays to increase their height presents considerable challenges. The upper floors, currently weighted down with cement, cannot be quickly elevated without an extended downtime for reconfiguration. However, given the innovative nature of SpaceX, it is understood that structures are often subject to significant changes. Ample locations are available for constructing additional Mega-Bays close to the existing structures, alleviating any concerns regarding land availability. It is anticipated that the High Bay and the Stargate building may soon be decommissioned. Furthermore, preliminary work has commenced on driving piles adjacent to the new employee parking lot.

Stargate is owned by the University of Texas.  IRC SpaceX is leasing the building and it's land because it was bureaucratically impractical for the university system to sell the property even though it was of little use to them at the time.  Would those same asset preservation policies preclude letting the existing office building be torn down too?

[catdlr]

Based on the job description, modifying the two existing Mega-Bays to increase their height presents considerable challenges. The upper floors, currently weighted down with cement, cannot be quickly elevated without an extended downtime for reconfiguration. However, given the innovative nature of SpaceX, it is understood that structures are often subject to significant changes. Ample locations are available for constructing additional Mega-Bays close to the existing structures, alleviating any concerns regarding land availability. It is anticipated that the High Bay and the Stargate building may soon be decommissioned. Furthermore, preliminary work has commenced on driving piles adjacent to the new employee parking lot.

Stargate is owned by the University of Texas.  IRC SpaceX is leasing the building and it's land because it was bureaucratically impractical for the university system to sell the property even though it was of little use to them at the time.  Would those same asset preservation policies preclude letting the existing office building be torn down too?

I can't answer that question directly. The majority of participants within this forum operate under the assumption that there will be a land exchange or a transfer of personnel to the new administrative building, with SpaceX potentially tearing down the existing structure(s) and vacating the property to facilitate the construction of new structures(ie, Mege Bay(s)). However, we do not possess any confidential information; we can only observe developments as they unfold, allowing Jack and Mary, along with the NSF members keeping track of the property track ownership,  to clue us in.

[StraumliBlight]

At 1:32:00 from last month's RGV's flyover, there was a lot of discussion of how the High Bay, Gateway building and carpark might be replaced.

[EL_DIABLO]

At 1:32:00 from last month's RGV's flyover, there was a lot of discussion of how the High Bay, Gateway building and carpark might be replaced.

Car park isn't getting replaced, it just got built.

[catdlr]

https://youtube.com/watch?v=CPXTec7bJS0

At 1:32:00 from last month's RGV's flyover, there was a lot of discussion of how the High Bay, Gateway building and carpark might be replaced.

Car park isn't getting replaced, it just got built.

You don't know SpaceX. Remember the "Gateway to Mars" Wall? That's no more.

The Employee Break Building will have to be torn down and moved from the pad. (It suffered extensive window damage from the last fight and is directly in the path of the flame trench for Pad-B.)  As I mentioned in my posts, the general contractor for Starbase must have a bald head because of all the plan changes.  The constant build/tear-down changes we've seen are almost now comical and perhaps predictable.

[dchenevert]

You don't know SpaceX. Remember the "Gateway to Mars" Wall? That's no more.

The Employee Break Building will have to be torn down and moved from the pad. (It suffered extensive window damage from the last fight and is directly in the path of the flame trench for Pad-B.)  As I mentioned in my posts, the general contractor for Starbase must have a bald head because of all the plan changes.  The constant build/tear-down changes we've seen are almost now comical and perhaps predictable.

Like a cost-plus endeavor, without the cost-plus

[steveleach]

You don't know SpaceX. Remember the "Gateway to Mars" Wall? That's no more.

The Employee Break Building will have to be torn down and moved from the pad. (It suffered extensive window damage from the last fight and is directly in the path of the flame trench for Pad-B.)  As I mentioned in my posts, the general contractor for Starbase must have a bald head because of all the plan changes.  The constant build/tear-down changes we've seen are almost now comical and perhaps predictable.

Like a cost-plus endeavor, without the cost-plus

Elon probably has a severe allergic reaction to the sunk cost fallacy

[meekGee]

You don't know SpaceX. Remember the "Gateway to Mars" Wall? That's no more.

The Employee Break Building will have to be torn down and moved from the pad. (It suffered extensive window damage from the last fight and is directly in the path of the flame trench for Pad-B.)  As I mentioned in my posts, the general contractor for Starbase must have a bald head because of all the plan changes.  The constant build/tear-down changes we've seen are almost now comical and perhaps predictable.

Like a cost-plus endeavor, without the cost-plus

Elon probably has a severe allergic reaction to the sunk cost fallacy

"Cut once, then measure to see how far off you are and cut again."

It's not commonly advocated, but is actually not a bad way to go.

[niwax]

You don't know SpaceX. Remember the "Gateway to Mars" Wall? That's no more.

The Employee Break Building will have to be torn down and moved from the pad. (It suffered extensive window damage from the last fight and is directly in the path of the flame trench for Pad-B.)  As I mentioned in my posts, the general contractor for Starbase must have a bald head because of all the plan changes.  The constant build/tear-down changes we've seen are almost now comical and perhaps predictable.

Like a cost-plus endeavor, without the cost-plus

Elon probably has a severe allergic reaction to the sunk cost fallacy

"Cut once, then measure to see how far off you are and cut again."

It's not commonly advocated, but is actually not a bad way to go.

"Build enough so you can cut twice without ruining it"

[EL_DIABLO]

https://youtube.com/watch?v=CPXTec7bJS0

At 1:32:00 from last month's RGV's flyover, there was a lot of discussion of how the High Bay, Gateway building and carpark might be replaced.

Car park isn't getting replaced, it just got built.

You don't know SpaceX. Remember the "Gateway to Mars" Wall? That's no more.

The Employee Break Building will have to be torn down and moved from the pad. (It suffered extensive window damage from the last fight and is directly in the path of the flame trench for Pad-B.)  As I mentioned in my posts, the general contractor for Starbase must have a bald head because of all the plan changes.  The constant build/tear-down changes we've seen are almost now comical and perhaps predictable.

I'm aware but I don't think the comparison holds in this case, the car park is far more expensive (probably eight figures) and not spur of the moment given the required planning for it, plus the need to store completed vehicles would've been known at the time the decision to build it was made.

[catdlr]

https://youtube.com/watch?v=CPXTec7bJS0

At 1:32:00 from last month's RGV's flyover, there was a lot of discussion of how the High Bay, Gateway building and carpark might be replaced.

Car park isn't getting replaced, it just got built.

You don't know SpaceX. Remember the "Gateway to Mars" Wall? That's no more.

The Employee Break Building will have to be torn down and moved from the pad. (It suffered extensive window damage from the last fight and is directly in the path of the flame trench for Pad-B.)  As I mentioned in my posts, the general contractor for Starbase must have a bald head because of all the plan changes.  The constant build/tear-down changes we've seen are almost now comical and perhaps predictable.

I'm aware but I don't think the comparison holds in this case, the car park is far more expensive (probably eight figures) and not spur of the moment given the required planning for it, plus the need to store completed vehicles would've been known at the time the decision to build it was made.

The evolution of the parking structure serves as an illustrative example of the changes it has undergone:

1. Initially, the structure was completed, with the first two levels occupied by vehicles. 
2. Subsequently, a decision was made to paint the exterior black. 
3. Following this, the entire building was outfitted with supports and a mural was affixed, leading to the question of the rationale behind painting it black only to obscure it later. 
4. Furthermore, in accordance with certain government regulations and EPA standards, most parking structures are required to facilitate adequate airflow to mitigate nitrogen dioxide (NO₂) and other pollutants. By obstructing the openings of the structure, SpaceX may potentially incur fines.

I concur with your observation. However, it is important to examine the Administration building. If the original plan had been to integrate the StarFactory with it, the construction would likely have proceeded without the current permit attachment. This approach has led to some challenges with roofing and rainwater management in that area.

Numerous potential changes warrant consideration. I maintain the perspective that the parking structure will ultimately remain; however, I acknowledge the possibility of being proven incorrect in the future. Nevertheless, should the need for space arise to facilitate the construction of the GiGA-Bay, contractors will inevitably take the necessary measures to accommodate that requirement.

Tony

[SpaceLizard]

The evolution of the parking structure serves as an illustrative example of the changes it has undergone:

1. Initially, the structure was completed, with the first two levels occupied by vehicles. 
2. Subsequently, a decision was made to paint the exterior black. 
3. Following this, the entire building was outfitted with supports and a mural was affixed, leading to the question of the rationale behind painting it black only to obscure it later. 
4. Furthermore, in accordance with certain government regulations and EPA standards, most parking structures are required to facilitate adequate airflow to mitigate nitrogen dioxide (NO₂) and other pollutants. By obstructing the openings of the structure, SpaceX may potentially incur fines.

Regarding the mysterious cladding on the three un-muraled sides. Recent video/pictures seem to show a black mesh-like or grating-like cladding has been applied. I speculate that this may be an attempt to reduce the parking garage's contribution to the area's light pollution without seriously impeding airflow and matching the Star Factory's aesthetic as a calculated bonus.

[Eka]

You don't know SpaceX. Remember the "Gateway to Mars" Wall? That's no more.

The Employee Break Building will have to be torn down and moved from the pad. (It suffered extensive window damage from the last fight and is directly in the path of the flame trench for Pad-B.)  As I mentioned in my posts, the general contractor for Starbase must have a bald head because of all the plan changes.  The constant build/tear-down changes we've seen are almost now comical and perhaps predictable.

Like a cost-plus endeavor, without the cost-plus

Elon probably has a severe allergic reaction to the sunk cost fallacy

Musk has very often walked away from sunk costs when a better way forward has been found. It is part of why his companies have done so well.

[catdlr]

You don't know SpaceX. Remember the "Gateway to Mars" Wall? That's no more.

The Employee Break Building will have to be torn down and moved from the pad. (It suffered extensive window damage from the last fight and is directly in the path of the flame trench for Pad-B.)  As I mentioned in my posts, the general contractor for Starbase must have a bald head because of all the plan changes.  The constant build/tear-down changes we've seen are almost now comical and perhaps predictable.

Like a cost-plus endeavor, without the cost-plus

Elon probably has a severe allergic reaction to the sunk cost fallacy

Musk has very often walked away from sunk costs when a better way forward has been found. It is part of why his companies have done so well.

Here is another example of walking away from sunk cost when a better way is found.  (This example is at 39a)

https://twitter.com/NASASpaceflight/status/1865465291251097644

[StraumliBlight]

SpaceX is buying the Stargate Technology Center from University of Texas.

Agenda [Dec 11]

Description: Sale of the Spacecraft Tracking and Astronomical Research into Giga-hertz Astrophysical Transient Emission (STARGATE) Technology Center and related infrastructure, consisting of approximately 2.32 acres of land and improvements, including an approximately 15,076 square foot STARGATE office and research facility, located in the BEDC STARGATE Subdivision along State Highway 4 near Boca Chica Beach, Cameron County, Texas, and including an interest in a solar array and a telecommunications conduit with fiber and easement rights. The STARGATE Technology Center is embedded on the edge of SpaceX’s primary Boca Chica compound, which is approximately 20 miles from U. T. Rio Grande Valley’s Brownsville campus.

U. T. Rio Grande Valley built the STARGATE Technology Center building and related parking in 2017 to house the institution’s STARGATE program, meant to conduct astronomy research in cooperation with SpaceX. The institution thereafter discontinued the STARGATE research program and vacated the facility. Beginning in 2019, SpaceX initially leased a portion and later the entirety of the STARGATE facility and adjacent land. SpaceX has since built a multistory Booster High-bay rocket hangar on the vacant portion of the land.

The sale will include U. T. Rio Grande Valley’s partial interest in a solar array primarily owned by SpaceX, which removed this array in late 2023. The array provided supplemental electricity to the STARGATE facility. In addition, the sale will include a fiber optic cable and conduit that serves the STARGATE Technology Center and the adjacent SpaceX compound; sale of the conduit is subject to obtaining any requisite approvals and consents for the conveyance. The conduit extends from Brownsville to Boca Chica.

A grant from the U.S. Economic Development Administration (EDA) partially funded the design and construction of the STARGATE facility. U. T. Rio Grande Valley anticipates it may be obligated to pay up to approximately 70% of the value of the STARGATE improvements to the EDA upon the sale of the property.

Purchaser: Space Exploration Technologies Corporation, a Texas corporation, or related entities, successors, or assigns

Sale Price: Not less than fair market value as determined by independent appraisals; appraisal confidential pursuant to Texas Education Code Section 51.951

[pyromatter]

https://twitter.com/PhotogDina/status/1867303261184655719

Today @SpaceX filed a petition w/ Cameron Co @JudgeTrevino asking for special election to decide if Starbase can incorporate as a municipality.

“To continue growing the workforce necessary to…manufacture Starship, we need the ability to grow Starbase as a community.”

Other sources reporting on it as well

https://www.krgv.com/news/spacex-requesting-special-election-to-incorporate-starbase-into-cameron-county
https://myrgv.com/publications/the-monitor/2024/12/12/spacex-petitions-cameron-county-for-election-to-decide-incorporation/

[StraumliBlight]

https://x.com/PhotogDina/status/1867303261184655719
[...]

What was the reason that SpaceX's original attempt to incorporate back in March 2021 failed, was it insufficient population?

EDIT: There's a Spaceport Development Corporation meeting on December 16th, which is probably related.

[pyromatter]

https://twitter.com/PhotogDina/status/1867303261184655719
[...]

What was the reason that SpaceX's original attempt to incorporate back in March 2021 failed, was it insufficient population?

Perhaps. I can't remember why they didn't move ahead with it in 2021.

But earlier this year this story may have sparked another attempt.

https://riograndeguardian.com/trevino-brownsville-will-eventually-annex-spacexs-boca-chica-facility/