Most likely Boca Chica will be the pad used for initial suborbital testing of the BFS prototype so they'll need to get this up and running relatively soon.
These comments strongly suggest Falcon won't fly from Texas:QuoteYou have two pads in Florida, pus Vandenberg. Is it fair to say that given what you can do from your current locations, you don’t need one in Texas?Yes, that’s correct. We have demonstrated we can launch at least twice from each of these pads. We’re talking about being able to do at least six launches a month if we wanted to. It is not our intention to do so.What we have manifested in customer commitments are not bottlenecked by the lack of a fourth launch site. We can manage with the three. Between upgrading our production capability, having the pads — and most importantly, the visibility — between the balance of those three we don’t foresee not being able to meet customer commitments. I am happy to take on more launch commitments right now.https://www.spaceintelreport.com/spacex-reassures-commercial-satellite-market-falcon-9-wont-soon-scrapped-bfr/
You have two pads in Florida, pus Vandenberg. Is it fair to say that given what you can do from your current locations, you don’t need one in Texas?Yes, that’s correct. We have demonstrated we can launch at least twice from each of these pads. We’re talking about being able to do at least six launches a month if we wanted to. It is not our intention to do so.What we have manifested in customer commitments are not bottlenecked by the lack of a fourth launch site. We can manage with the three. Between upgrading our production capability, having the pads — and most importantly, the visibility — between the balance of those three we don’t foresee not being able to meet customer commitments. I am happy to take on more launch commitments right now.
Quote from: Nomadd on 10/15/2017 10:56 am I was talking to someone in Brownsville yesterday. A lot of people and agencies have invested a lot of time and money in this port, and cancelling the Falcon here in exchange for a vague idea of something happening someday is not going over well, to put it lightly. SpaceX credibility in The RGV couldn't be much lower at the moment.My guess: They'll build an F9/FH pad on Boca Chica Beach soon, and a BFR pad a few miles offshore from Boca Chica Beach. Both will use the same control center, tracking station, oxygen production, water tower, etc.
I was talking to someone in Brownsville yesterday. A lot of people and agencies have invested a lot of time and money in this port, and cancelling the Falcon here in exchange for a vague idea of something happening someday is not going over well, to put it lightly. SpaceX credibility in The RGV couldn't be much lower at the moment.
Quote from: Nomadd on 10/15/2017 10:56 am I was talking to someone in Brownsville yesterday. A lot of people and agencies have invested a lot of time and money in this port, and cancelling the Falcon here in exchange for a vague idea of something happening someday is not going over well, to put it lightly. SpaceX credibility in The RGV couldn't be much lower at the moment.BF spaceship testing isn't anything to sneeze at and could bring just as much or more near-term rumbling launch goodness. In fact, it would probably bring more employment to care for and feed the test vehicles.As for the tourism at SPI, it's tough to know know how much of an "event" atmosphere the testing would bring about.
I think a suborbital hop as Elon described "a few hundred Km in altitude and range" could launch from BC and land on a drone ship. Drone ship landing might be the only way they can get permission to do it.
One question is if there is any way to have one pad serve F9/FH, BFR and BFS (including BFS by itself for testing), or if it is even worth it to do that. >
Updated information has allowed for a preliminary envisioning process (via L2 Envisioning) with pad engineers and experts evaluating a second, larger, Horizontal Integration Facility (HIF) outside the pad perimeter, allowing the subscale BFR to roll to an additional mount along the same trench at 39A. An article on this 39A option will follow in the coming weeks.
Is it true that the planned pad location is not suitable for BFR due to excessive noise and not far enough from BC Village?
If so, why is Boca Chica "perfect for BFR according to Gwynne?
Quote from: Jcc on 10/15/2017 07:42 pmI think a suborbital hop as Elon described "a few hundred Km in altitude and range" could launch from BC and land on a drone ship. Drone ship landing might be the only way they can get permission to do it.I believe that such launches and landings are covered under the existing environmental impact review.
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.
If I were SpaceX I'd want my EIS permissions aligned with my future vehicle flight plans before spending $$ constructing expensive stuff like launch pads, support facilities like propellant tanks and control centers.
Well IF the RGV folks are chagrined that there may be no Falcon launches because they don't get to see rocket flights then they may be amenable to amending the EIS statement to allow BFS hops and RTLS tests.
Quote from: Nomadd on 10/15/2017 10:56 am I was talking to someone in Brownsville yesterday. A lot of people and agencies have invested a lot of time and money in this port, and cancelling the Falcon here in exchange for a vague idea of something happening someday is not going over well, to put it lightly. SpaceX credibility in The RGV couldn't be much lower at the moment.My guess: They'll build an F9/FH pad on Boca Chica Beach soon, and a BFR pad a few miles offshore from Boca Chica Beach. Both will use the same control center, tracking station, oxygen production, water tower, etc. I'm assuming an offshore platform would have electrical cables, fiber-optics, and flexible pipe run from the beach to the offshore platform, so they would need the current launch site location to support an offshore platform anyway.To clarify, what Gwynne Shortwell recently said at Stanford was:QuoteBoca Chica launch site under construction is the "perfect location for BFR"She did not mention anything else about Boca Chica other than its prime suitability for BFR.Everything else is speculation.Nothing in her comments suggested that Falcon 9 and Falcon Heavy wouldn't fly from Boca Chica.And given the issues with Texas State beach closure laws, and with BFR being way over the Federal legal sound limit in Boca Chica Village, and with the current EIS allowing only 12 launches per year, I suspect "perfect location for BFR" implies a fixed platform a few miles off Boca Chica Beach, like Elon showed in the presentation:
Boca Chica launch site under construction is the "perfect location for BFR"She did not mention anything else about Boca Chica other than its prime suitability for BFR.