SpaceX Cape SLC-37 Starship launch/landing facilities

[catdlr]

It has begun

Proposed Action: Space Launch Complex (SLC)-37 at CCSFS
SpaceX would modify, reuse, or demolish the existing SLC-37 infrastructure to support Starship-Super Heavy launch and landing operations.

PURPOSE OF THE PROPOSED ACTION
The purpose of the Action is to advance U.S. space capabilities and provide launch and landing infrastructure in furtherance of U.S. policy to ensure capabilities necessary to launch and insert DAF payloads into space (10 U.S.C. Section 2273, “Policy regarding assured access to space: national security payloads”).

NEED FOR THE PROPOSED ACTION
The need for the Action is to ensure DAF Assured Access to Space without compromising current launch capabilities and fulfill (in part) the U.S. Congress’s grant of authority to the Secretary of Defense, pursuant to 10 U.S.C. Section 2276(a), “Commercial space launch cooperation,” that the Secretary of Defense is permitted to take action to:

Maximize the use of the U.S. Department of Defense (DOD) space transportation infrastructure by the private sector in the U.S.
Maximize the effectiveness and efficiency of the space transportation infrastructure of the DOD.
Reduce the cost of services provided by the DOD related to space transportation infrastructure at launch support facilities and space recovery support facilities.
Encourage commercial space activities by enabling investment by covered entities in the space transportation infrastructure of the DOD.
Foster cooperation between the DOD and covered entities.

ABOUT THE PROJECT
The U.S. Department of the Air Force (DAF) is preparing an Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) to assess the potential environmental impacts of this project. The National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) requires federal agencies to assess the anticipated environmental impacts of their proposed actions, disclose their findings to the public, and solicit public input on their proposals. The EIS will:

Describe the affected environment

Evaluate potential impacts from the proposed action and alternatives

Propose mitigation to avoid, minimize, or reduce the potential for adverse impacts

SOURCE WEB SITE (NO DOCUMENTS)

Annoiuncement - Main Home Page

Proposed Action

Public Meetings

Public Comments






Edit updates: Polish up link names, fixed link tags, and added addition extracts to quotes.

[catdlr]

Confirmed by Alex

https://twitter.com/Alexphysics13/status/1758462685690151151

https://twitter.com/Alexphysics13/status/1758462690467467356

SpaceX is seeking to build a Starship Launch and Landing complex at the Cape Canaveral Space Force Station. The launch pad's environmental study process is already underway

Under the proposed plan, SpaceX would take over Space Launch Complex 37 currently in use by ULA for the Delta IV Heavy rocket. This rocket has one launch left so after that, the pad will remain vacant.

An alternative to this is building a new launch complex called SLC-50

[catdlr]

https://twitter.com/NASASpaceflight/status/1758480053166334294

Taking SLC-37 - which is not a surprise after the LC-49 plan never materialized - would be fascinating, given SpaceX has already entered a lease agreement for the other former Delta pad at SLC-6 in California.

[edzieba]

Proposed Action: Space Launch Complex (SLC)-37 at CCSFS
SpaceX would modify, reuse, or demolish the existing SLC-37 infrastructure to support Starship-Super Heavy launch and landing operations.

Alternative 1: SLC-50 at CCSFS
SpaceX would construct infrastructure to support Starship-Super Heavy launch and landing operations on a site that is currently undeveloped. SLC-50 would become a new SLC between SLC-40 and SLC-37.

Since it will be a few months before an EIS and a proper site map, here's the proposed primary and alternative locations.

[Craigles]

I'm confused as to who publishes and updates https://spaceforcestarshipeis.com/ .
For example, is this website from the Space Force, SpaceX, a journalist, or an environmental group, etc?

[Herb Schaltegger]

I'm confused as to who publishes and updates https://spaceforcestarshipeis.com/ .
For example, is this website from the Space Force, SpaceX, a journalist, or an environmental group, etc?

I asked the same thing on FB and Alex didn't answer. It honestly seems like some kind of attempt to look official with the use of a USAF logo, but the domain name refers to "Space Force," yet it's not a .gov or .mil site. I did a whois lookup and it dead-ended with some domain name anonymization/proxy company in Arizona.

[catdlr]

I'm confused as to who publishes and updates https://spaceforcestarshipeis.com/ .
For example, is this website from the Space Force, SpaceX, a journalist, or an environmental group, etc?

try contacting them here:  [email protected]

snail mail:  U.S. Postal Mail to: CCSFS Starship EIS c/o Jacobs, 5401 W. Kennedy Blvd #300, Tampa, Florida 33609

call 813 954 5608
VIRTUAL MEETING LINK COMING SOON
A virtual meeting will be available March 12 through March 22, 2024. It will feature a narrated slideshow showcasing the exhibit boards presented during the in-person meetings.

VIRTUAL Meeting
DATE Tuesday, March 12, 2024
TIME 6:00 p.m.

WHO WE ARE
Our website address is: https://spaceforcestarshipeis.com.

COMMENTS
When visitors leave comments on the site we collect the data shown in the comments form. All comments along with names will become part of the public record.

MEDIA
If you upload images to the website, you should avoid uploading images with embedded location data (EXIF GPS) included. Visitors to the website can download and extract any location data from images on the website.

[Herb Schaltegger]

To update my earlier post, Emre Kelly replied to my question on FB and confirmed the site is legit. Good to know.

[EL_DIABLO]

They should build it on SLC-48. Going to take forever for the SPMTs to get to SLC-37.

[edzieba]

They should build it on SLC-48. Going to take forever for the SPMTs to get to SLC-37.

That's on KSC land, which misses the purpose of having a launch site in CCSFS.

[spacenuance]

Space News article on this. Also the fact that the DOD/Space Force is heading this up feeds into all of the interest in Starship from the military for future purposes. Will see how this plays into NSSL Phase 3, if it does at all.

https://spacenews.com/space-force-to-study-cape-canaveral-launch-sites-for-starship/[Feb 17]

WASHINGTON — The U.S. Space Force is preparing to kick off environmental studies that could lead to SpaceX Starship launches from either the Cape Canaveral facility used by the Delta 4 or a new complex.

[Herb Schaltegger]

Space News article on this. Also the fact that the DOD/Space Force is heading this up feeds into all of the interest in Starship from the military for future purposes. Will see how this plays into NSSL Phase 3, if it does at all.

Yeah, but ... the reality is that this is, in essence, the Starship/SH version of SLC-40. Space Force is taking the lead in this because the land is on CCSFS. Sure, DOD will find plenty of uses for Starship-sized payloads eventually. But it'll be a good while (years) before Starship/SH qualifies for NatSec payloads. There aren't even that many that require SH (and those fly just fine from the civilian side at LC-39A).

[DanClemmensen]

Space News article on this. Also the fact that the DOD/Space Force is heading this up feeds into all of the interest in Starship from the military for future purposes. Will see how this plays into NSSL Phase 3, if it does at all.

Yeah, but ... the reality is that this is, in essence, the Starship/SH version of SLC-40. Space Force is taking the lead in this because the land is on CCSFS. Sure, DOD will find plenty of uses for Starship-sized payloads eventually. But it'll be a good while (years) before Starship/SH qualifies for NatSec payloads. There aren't even that many that require SH (and those fly just fine from the civilian side at LC-39A).

To qualify for NSSL, Starship must first successfully fly two non-NSSL missions. I don't think that will take "years". An NSSL mission can use Starship even if it does not "require" Starship. Once a Starship mission is cheaper than an F9 mission, SpaceX will propose it.

Of course, we still do not know when SpaceX will actually develop a generic cargo version.

[Alexphysics]

Space News article on this. Also the fact that the DOD/Space Force is heading this up feeds into all of the interest in Starship from the military for future purposes. Will see how this plays into NSSL Phase 3, if it does at all.

https://spacenews.com/space-force-to-study-cape-canaveral-launch-sites-for-starship/[Feb 17]

WASHINGTON — The U.S. Space Force is preparing to kick off environmental studies that could lead to SpaceX Starship launches from either the Cape Canaveral facility used by the Delta 4 or a new complex.

The Space Force is the one doing it because they're the operators of that spaceport. They're involved in all environmental processes for all launchpads within CCSFS.

[Zed_Noir]

<snip>
... the reality is that this is, in essence, the Starship/SH version of SLC-40. Space Force is taking the lead in this because the land is on CCSFS. Sure, DOD will find plenty of uses for Starship-sized payloads eventually. But it'll be a good while (years) before Starship/SH qualifies for NatSec payloads. There aren't even that many that require SH (and those fly just fine from the civilian side at LC-39A).

The NRO/USSF don't want to be confined to a single Florida launch pad for the Starship, IMO. Especially a pad that is sharing the launch complex with another pad.

We had a chicken and egg issue regarding payloads requiring a Starship stack. AIUI there wasn't payloads of that size proposed previously due to the lack of launcher availability. Inversely there was no launcher with 100+ tonne payload capacity developed due to the lack of payloads.

If SpaceX offers the Starship to NRO/USSF at a lower price then the Falcon 9 after being qualified for NatSec payloads. The NRO/USSF will fly just about everything in the Starship regardless of the payload size. Since the price is the same for launching a SmallSat or something that is sized for the Vulcan Centaur long payload fairing.
 

[EL_DIABLO]

They should build it on SLC-48. Going to take forever for the SPMTs to get to SLC-37.

That's on KSC land, which misses the purpose of having a launch site in CCSFS.

What's the reasoning?

[Jim]

Space News article on this. Also the fact that the DOD/Space Force is heading this up feeds into all of the interest in Starship from the military for future purposes. Will see how this plays into NSSL Phase 3, if it does at all.

https://spacenews.com/space-force-to-study-cape-canaveral-launch-sites-for-starship/[Feb 17]

WASHINGTON — The U.S. Space Force is preparing to kick off environmental studies that could lead to SpaceX Starship launches from either the Cape Canaveral facility used by the Delta 4 or a new complex.

No, not really.  They have to do this for any new launch vehicle flying from the Cape or Vandenberg.

[Jim]

They should build it on SLC-48. Going to take forever for the SPMTs to get to SLC-37.

That's on KSC land, which misses the purpose of having a launch site in CCSFS.

What's the reasoning?

Also, too big for that area.

[Emmettvonbrown]

I have to ask... with SH-Starship being so much larger than even Delta IV Heavy, do they have to enlarge the safe areas in case of explosion ?
Does Starship needs a "safe explosion area" as large as LC-39s, since it is closer in size from a Saturn V than a Titan III or Delta IV Heavy ?

[Jim]

I have to ask... with SH-Starship being so much larger than even Delta IV Heavy, do they have to enlarge the safe areas in case of explosion ?
Does Starship needs a "safe explosion area" as large as LC-39s, since it is closer in size from a Saturn V than a Titan III or Delta IV Heavy ?

Pad physical boundaries and acreage are not specifically safety related and certainly not to the size of the rocket.  Just a keep out zone for security.  It doubles as a clear zone for some local safety clears like lifting a loaded spacecraft on the rocket.  Pad spacing is based on the size of the vehicle.

BDA and LDA - Blast and Launch Danger Areas are not permanent physical boundaries.  But they are used during tanking and launch ops and security sets up road blocks per the defined area.  These are based on the propellant load of the vehicle

[Zed_Noir]

Previously complex SLC-37 hosted 2 launch pads before the arrival of the Delta IV. Will SpaceX  build 2 Starship launch pads at Complex SLC-37?

[AmigaClone]

Previously complex SLC-37 hosted 2 launch pads before the arrival of the Delta IV. Will SpaceX  build 2 Starship launch pads at Complex SLC-37?

One thing to note is that while SLC-37 was built with two launch pads, only one (37B) was ever used even when the pad was being used for Saturn I and Saturn IB launches.

[DanClemmensen]

Previously complex SLC-37 hosted 2 launch pads before the arrival of the Delta IV. Will SpaceX  build 2 Starship launch pads at Complex SLC-37?

One thing to note is that while SLC-37 was built with two launch pads, only one (37B) was ever used even when the pad was being used for Saturn I and Saturn IB launches.

SLC-37A exists as a concrete pad that was built in 1959-62. It was never used and has no(?) other infrastructure. SLC-37B is still an active pad and will lunch the last Delta IV Heavy in about 3 weeks. It may be easier for SpaceX to use SLC-37A since there would be less demolition work to do: hard to say unless you are a civil engineer who has actually been there. We now know that an OLM needs really serious pilings, etc, so even a existing concrete pad may need to be completely removed.

[Jim]

SLC-37A exists as a concrete pad that was built in 1959-62. It was never used and has no(?) other infrastructure.

It was fully outfitted for Saturn

[DanClemmensen]

SLC-37A exists as a concrete pad that was built in 1959-62. It was never used and has no(?) other infrastructure.

It was fully outfitted for Saturn

However, the Google maps satellite pictures show that there is no remaining visible structures, just the concrete, so SpaceX would not need to demolish them. By contrast, they will need to demolish the Delta IV Heavy infrastructure as SLC-37B before than can build there. My uninformed guess is they may choose to use SLC-37B first anyway, because it's slightly further away from the neighbors.  They may also choose to build two at the same time. Using one tower for both launch and landing is risky, because the landing happens less than 15 minutes after launch. This means that there is no time to fix even a trivial problem.

[Jim]

However, the Google maps satellite pictures show that there is no remaining visible structures, just the concrete, so SpaceX would not need to demolish them. By contrast, they will need to demolish the Delta IV Heavy infrastructure as SLC-37B before than can build there.

Actually, ULA may have to do it.

[gongora]

Space News article on this. Also the fact that the DOD/Space Force is heading this up feeds into all of the interest in Starship from the military for future purposes. Will see how this plays into NSSL Phase 3, if it does at all.

Yeah, but ... the reality is that this is, in essence, the Starship/SH version of SLC-40. Space Force is taking the lead in this because the land is on CCSFS. Sure, DOD will find plenty of uses for Starship-sized payloads eventually. But it'll be a good while (years) before Starship/SH qualifies for NatSec payloads. There aren't even that many that require SH (and those fly just fine from the civilian side at LC-39A).

To qualify for NSSL, Starship must first successfully fly two non-NSSL missions. I don't think that will take "years". An NSSL mission can use Starship even if it does not "require" Starship. Once a Starship mission is cheaper than an F9 mission, SpaceX will propose it.

Of course, we still do not know when SpaceX will actually develop a generic cargo version.

The qualification plan for a new vehicle including number of flights is negotiated between the launch provider and USSF.  The number of missions required can vary greatly.

[DanClemmensen]

Space News article on this. Also the fact that the DOD/Space Force is heading this up feeds into all of the interest in Starship from the military for future purposes. Will see how this plays into NSSL Phase 3, if it does at all.

Yeah, but ... the reality is that this is, in essence, the Starship/SH version of SLC-40. Space Force is taking the lead in this because the land is on CCSFS. Sure, DOD will find plenty of uses for Starship-sized payloads eventually. But it'll be a good while (years) before Starship/SH qualifies for NatSec payloads. There aren't even that many that require SH (and those fly just fine from the civilian side at LC-39A).

To qualify for NSSL, Starship must first successfully fly two non-NSSL missions. I don't think that will take "years". An NSSL mission can use Starship even if it does not "require" Starship. Once a Starship mission is cheaper than an F9 mission, SpaceX will propose it.

Of course, we still do not know when SpaceX will actually develop a generic cargo version.

The qualification plan for a new vehicle including number of flights is negotiated between the launch provider and USSF.  The number of missions required can vary greatly.

Sorry, I was over-extrapolating from our only three worked examples: F9, FH, and Vulcan Centaur. If it is negotiated, we might expect that all sorts of factors enter the equation. Vulcan might have benefited from ULA corporate experience and architectural similarity to Atlas V, while FH might have benefited from shared design with F9, etc. Both NG and Starship are very different from earlier rockets, and USSF would be justified in requiring more flights.

[russianhalo117]

SLC-37A exists as a concrete pad that was built in 1959-62. It was never used and has no(?) other infrastructure.

It was fully outfitted for Saturn

However, the Google maps satellite pictures show that there is no remaining visible structures, just the concrete, so SpaceX would not need to demolish them. By contrast, they will need to demolish the Delta IV Heavy infrastructure as SLC-37B before than can build there. My uninformed guess is they may choose to use SLC-37B first anyway, because it's slightly further away from the neighbors.  They may also choose to build two at the same time. Using one tower for both launch and landing is risky, because the landing happens less than 15 minutes after launch. This means that there is no time to fix even a trivial problem.

Note that the concrete bases of the Saturn Launch mounts and tower bases physically exist at both 37A and 37B. 37B's is well hidden by the modern 37B (should have been called either 37B-2 or 37C) which was built immediately adjacent to the legacy 37B Pad. If you study the structure bases at 37A you can no what to look for at 37B. Look around right behind modern 37B's combinef launch umbilical and lightning tower.
https://maps.app.goo.gl/znvBqYwgiFVgkuAt7

[catdlr]

SLC-37A exists as a concrete pad that was built in 1959-62. It was never used and has no(?) other infrastructure.

It was fully outfitted for Saturn

However, the Google maps satellite pictures show that there is no remaining visible structures, just the concrete, so SpaceX would not need to demolish them. By contrast, they will need to demolish the Delta IV Heavy infrastructure as SLC-37B before than can build there. My uninformed guess is they may choose to use SLC-37B first anyway, because it's slightly further away from the neighbors.  They may also choose to build two at the same time. Using one tower for both launch and landing is risky, because the landing happens less than 15 minutes after launch. This means that there is no time to fix even a trivial problem.

Note that the concrete bases of the Saturn Launch mounts and tower bases physically exist at both 37A and 37B. 37B's is well hidden by the modern 37B (should have been called either 37B-2 or 37C) which was built immediately adjacent to the legacy 37B Pad. If you study the structure bases at 37A you can no what to look for at 37B. Look around right behind modern 37B's combinef launch umbilical and lightning tower.
https://maps.app.goo.gl/znvBqYwgiFVgkuAt7

Since SpaceX decided on this pad rather than LC-49 (that possibly could hold 3 pairs of pads), what is in your opinion the possibility of constructing 4 pads at SLC-39 as another pair (RED Circles) on the opposite sides of that control bunker in line with the two other pads, or two (GREEN Circles) configures in an "X" pattern, one by the beach side and the other by the control bunker? Either would mean a lot of infrastructure changes (fuel, road, communication, fuel and Water supply, etc).  Or just leave it as two.

[Jim]

Since SpaceX decided on this pad rather than LC-49 (that possibly could hold 3 pairs of pads), what is in your opinion the possibility of constructing 4 pads at SLC-39 as another pair (RED Circles) on the opposite sides of that control bunker in line with the two other pads, or two (GREEN Circles) configures in an "X" pattern, one by the beach side and the other by the control bunker? Either would mean a lot of infrastructure changes (fuel, road, communication, fuel and Water supply, etc).  Or just leave it as two.

Too close together to use all at the same time.

[wannamoonbase]

Since SpaceX decided on this pad rather than LC-49 (that possibly could hold 3 pairs of pads), what is in your opinion the possibility of constructing 4 pads at SLC-39 as another pair (RED Circles) on the opposite sides of that control bunker in line with the two other pads, or two (GREEN Circles) configures in an "X" pattern, one by the beach side and the other by the control bunker? Either would mean a lot of infrastructure changes (fuel, road, communication, fuel and Water supply, etc).  Or just leave it as two.

I see another element to this move and that is that SpaceX is seeing the development and flying of this superheavy vehicle to be more complicated and time consuming than some earlier thoughts. 

If they have 2 towers in Texas, 2 at LC-37 and 1 at LC-39 that's 5.  That will be enough for maybe 4-5 years or more.

If they ever need 6 towers at LC-49 and they are fully utilizing whatever amount they do have at that time I'm sure other locations will be made available.

It's exciting that they are flying now, but it's a long long way to go to get to F9 type of flight cadence. 

What I see almost no one talking about is the commodities logistics.  If they were flying even weekly the amount of LOx, LN2, LCH4 would be a steady train of trucks. 

To get to Elon's fever dream flight rate it's very hard to imagine the transportation and/or distribution of the commodities.

So yes, 2 towers at LC-37 will be fine.

[DanClemmensen]

I see another element to this move and that is that SpaceX is seeing the development and flying of this superheavy vehicle to be more complicated and time consuming than some earlier thoughts. 

If they have 2 towers in Texas, 2 at LC-37 and 1 at LC-39 that's 5.  That will be enough for maybe 4-5 years or more.

So yes, 2 towers at LC-37 will be fine.

I used to believe that a single tower was sufficient for normal operations, and a second tower was needed only for redundancy. A single tower can probably launch multiple times per day, so one tower can support maybe 1000 launches per year.

No longer believe that. You need a second tower able to catch the booster. That's because the booster WILL be landing about 8 minutes after the launch, with no way to delay. Thus, you must have a tower available to catch it. But a launch has the possibility of causing a problem that prevents the tower from catching, and 8 minutes is not enough time to fix even a minor glitch.

If you are forced to have two towers, you can increase your tempo a lot. Assume tower 1 launched and suffers a glitch. You can catch on tower 2 even though tower 2 has a booster on its OLM. It's slightly risky, but you only do this in the rare case of launch damage to the chopstick system on the other tower.

[alugobi]

I believe that there is a future possibility that they go back to landing legs for domestic use. 

[SDSmith]

I believe that there is a future possibility that they go back to landing legs for domestic use.

I agree. The landing legs are needed for the moon and mars. Might as well test them on earth first. Much faster and cheaper.

[russianhalo117]

SLC-37A exists as a concrete pad that was built in 1959-62. It was never used and has no(?) other infrastructure.

It was fully outfitted for Saturn

However, the Google maps satellite pictures show that there is no remaining visible structures, just the concrete, so SpaceX would not need to demolish them. By contrast, they will need to demolish the Delta IV Heavy infrastructure as SLC-37B before than can build there. My uninformed guess is they may choose to use SLC-37B first anyway, because it's slightly further away from the neighbors.  They may also choose to build two at the same time. Using one tower for both launch and landing is risky, because the landing happens less than 15 minutes after launch. This means that there is no time to fix even a trivial problem.

Note that the concrete bases of the Saturn Launch mounts and tower bases physically exist at both 37A and 37B. 37B's is well hidden by the modern 37B (should have been called either 37B-2 or 37C) which was built immediately adjacent to the legacy 37B Pad. If you study the structure bases at 37A you can no what to look for at 37B. Look around right behind modern 37B's combinef launch umbilical and lightning tower.
https://maps.app.goo.gl/znvBqYwgiFVgkuAt7

Since SpaceX decided on this pad rather than LC-49 (that possibly could hold 3 pairs of pads), what is in your opinion the possibility of constructing 4 pads at SLC-39 as another pair (RED Circles) on the opposite sides of that control bunker in line with the two other pads, or two (GREEN Circles) configures in an "X" pattern, one by the beach side and the other by the control bunker? Either would mean a lot of infrastructure changes (fuel, road, communication, fuel and Water supply, etc).  Or just leave it as two.

That is pure conjecture. The order of construction preferences SLC-37 over LC-49 because the pad areaa are already significantly piled and prepared ground and infrastructure wise by the two prior users of the launch complex as a whole. This is not the sole resaon they preferenced SLC-37 over LC-49.

[catdlr]

SLC-37A exists as a concrete pad that was built in 1959-62. It was never used and has no(?) other infrastructure.

It was fully outfitted for Saturn

However, the Google maps satellite pictures show that there is no remaining visible structures, just the concrete, so SpaceX would not need to demolish them. By contrast, they will need to demolish the Delta IV Heavy infrastructure as SLC-37B before than can build there. My uninformed guess is they may choose to use SLC-37B first anyway, because it's slightly further away from the neighbors.  They may also choose to build two at the same time. Using one tower for both launch and landing is risky, because the landing happens less than 15 minutes after launch. This means that there is no time to fix even a trivial problem.

Note that the concrete bases of the Saturn Launch mounts and tower bases physically exist at both 37A and 37B. 37B's is well hidden by the modern 37B (should have been called either 37B-2 or 37C) which was built immediately adjacent to the legacy 37B Pad. If you study the structure bases at 37A you can no what to look for at 37B. Look around right behind modern 37B's combinef launch umbilical and lightning tower.
https://maps.app.goo.gl/znvBqYwgiFVgkuAt7

Since SpaceX decided on this pad rather than LC-49 (that possibly could hold 3 pairs of pads), what is in your opinion the possibility of constructing 4 pads at SLC-39 as another pair (RED Circles) on the opposite sides of that control bunker in line with the two other pads, or two (GREEN Circles) configures in an "X" pattern, one by the beach side and the other by the control bunker? Either would mean a lot of infrastructure changes (fuel, road, communication, fuel and Water supply, etc).  Or just leave it as two.

That is pure conjecture. The order of construction preferences SLC-37 over LC-49 because the pad areaa are already significantly piled and prepared ground and infrastructure wise by the two prior users of the launch complex as a whole. This is not the sole resaon they preferenced SLC-37 over LC-49.

russianhalo117,
It wasn't conjecture from me, my question came from a picture of a proposal for the area with six pads and I wanted to get some clarification if SLC-37 with two pads would be sufficient or could be modified with additional pads.  My question was already answered above by Jim, wannamoonbase, and DanClemmense, no need to continue.

[lrk]

I believe that there is a future possibility that they go back to landing legs for domestic use.

I agree. The landing legs are needed for the moon and mars. Might as well test them on earth first. Much faster and cheaper.

This was stated in regard to the booster, not the ship.  I don't see any reason why the booster would go back to using landing legs, unless catching turns out to be infeasible. 

[alugobi]

I believe that there is a future possibility that they go back to landing legs for domestic use.

I agree. The landing legs are needed for the moon and mars. Might as well test them on earth first. Much faster and cheaper.

This was stated in regard to the booster, not the ship.  I don't see any reason why the booster would go back to using landing legs, unless catching turns out to be infeasible.

I was going to reply about that but it's getting off topic now.

[StraumliBlight]

Public Scoping Meeting slideshow and audio uploaded on March 12th.

EDIT: Sam.gov page had a minor update on January 12th, 2025.

[kscfire1]

I have a question/observation that I haven't seen asked about SpaceX potentially using SLC-37 at CCSFS. I used to work there when it was CCAFS as a firefighter and have some knowledge of the pad sites. No one has brought up the fact that SLC-37 has two launch pads, 37 A & B. Only Pad B was being used by ULA, with Pad A never redeveloped for use. It has the potential for SpaceX to actually use it for 2 launch towers. Another potential site is SLC-34, that's just south of SLC-37. Just some random thoughts to share and maybe to put out there to ask.

[Herb Schaltegger]

Pretty sure this is all touched on/discussed here:

https://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=60383.0

[ChrisC]

Welcome to the forum!  But yeah there's likely an existing discussion for everything you can think of   NSF's own search mechanism is rather poor, but Google solves that, using the "site" directive, like this:

https://www.google.com/search?q=slc-37+site%3Aforum.nasaspaceflight.com

The Starship thread linked above is right there near the top of the results.

(and don't be surprised if a moderator merges this into that thread)
(EDIT: and indeed they're now merged; the two comments above mine and the one below were in another new thread created by this new user)

[kscfire1]

My main question was about the possibility of them using both pads at 37, for 2 towers. I just hadn't seen any talk of that, just the use of the ULA pad. I guess the proposal is to eliminate A & B and just make it one pad inside the SLC-37 footprint. Thanks for you responses.

[zubenelgenubi: Threads merged.]

[russianhalo117]

My main question was about the possibility of them using both pads at 37, for 2 towers. I just hadn't seen any talk of that, just the use of the ULA pad. I guess the proposal is to eliminate A & B and just make it one pad inside the SLC-37 footprint. Thanks for you responses.

[zubenelgenubi: Threads merged.]

The SpaceX lease includes all of SCL-37 within the perimeter fence boundary, except ULA retains the DPF/DSOC, which is now the VPF/VSOC (APF/ASOC is retained for additional Vulcan use but is used for Atlas-V CCB and Centaur-IIISEC/DEC storage and offline processing for the CCB's) for Vulcan Core Stage inital storage and offline processing.

This is a simplified answer.

[Nomadd]

The SpaceX lease includes all of SCL-37 within the perimeter fence boundary, except ULA retains the DPF/DSOC, which is now the VPF/VSOC (APF/ASOC is retained for additional Vulcan use but is used for Atlas-V CCB and Centaur-IIISEC/DEC storage and offline processing for the CCB's) for Vulcan Core Stage inital storage and offline processing.

This is a simplified answer.

 Is that a new acronym record for a single sentence?

[matthewkantar]

The SpaceX lease includes all of SCL-37 within the perimeter fence boundary, except ULA retains the DPF/DSOC, which is now the VPF/VSOC (APF/ASOC is retained for additional Vulcan use but is used for Atlas-V CCB and Centaur-IIISEC/DEC storage and offline processing for the CCB's) for Vulcan Core Stage inital storage and offline processing.

This is a simplified answer.

 Is that a new acronym record for a single sentence?

You mean a NARFASS?

[Jim]

The SpaceX lease includes all of SCL-37 within the perimeter fence boundary, except ULA retains the DPF/DSOC, which is now the VPF/VSOC (APF/ASOC is retained for additional Vulcan use but is used for Atlas-V CCB and Centaur-IIISEC/DEC storage and offline processing for the CCB's) for Vulcan Core Stage inital storage and offline processing.

This is a simplified answer.

The facility that housed the Delta IV LCC and upper stage prep Bay was the DOC, Delta Operations Center. It might be VOC (haven't heard of a change), but there never was DSOC (except on Psyche) and the former DPF (DSCS Processing Facility) in Area 59 is now the Dragon Processing Facility.
The Delta IV HIF is a HIF.
VPF was a Shuttle Vertical processing Facility.  Atlas V had a VIF which is used by Vulcan.  The ASOC (Atlas Spaceflight Operations Center) is now the Advanced Spaceflight Center.  An the former SMARF is now SPOC ( Spaceflight Processing Operations Center )

[russianhalo117]

The SpaceX lease includes all of SCL-37 within the perimeter fence boundary, except ULA retains the DPF/DSOC, which is now the VPF/VSOC (APF/ASOC is retained for additional Vulcan use but is used for Atlas-V CCB and Centaur-IIISEC/DEC storage and offline processing for the CCB's) for Vulcan Core Stage inital storage and offline processing.

This is a simplified answer.

The facility that housed the Delta IV LCC and upper stage prep Bay was the DOC, Delta Operations Center. It might be VOC (haven't heard of a change), but there never was DSOC (except on Psyche) and the former DPF (DSCS Processing Facility) in Area 59 is now the Dragon Processing Facility.
The Delta IV HIF is a HIF.
VPF was a Shuttle Vertical processing Facility.  Atlas V had a VIF which is used by Vulcan.  The ASOC (Atlas Spaceflight Operations Center) is now the Advanced Spaceflight Center.  An the former SMARF is now SPOC ( Spaceflight Processing Operations Center )

I'm not feeling well and clearly didn't type right and probably shouldn't be posting today. VOC AFAIU is currently unofficial but have heard spoken for. They are planning to rename the DOC following the recent retirement of the Delta family.

[FutureSpaceTourist]

Crosspost, follow-up to original post please (on 39A Starship thread):

twitter.com/sciguyspace/status/1792539487085445136

Dismantled towers, environmental studies, and more launch pads—what is up with SpaceX's plans for Starship in Florida?

https://arstechnica.com/space/2024/05/we-take-a-stab-at-decoding-spacexs-ever-changing-plans-for-starship-in-florida/

https://twitter.com/elonmusk/status/1792540090264379863

We’re aiming to build two towers at the Cape for Staeship, one at 39A and another tbd (we don’t have final approval yet)

[pyromatter]

The draft EIS is now delayed to Spring 2025.

https://spaceforcestarshipeis.com/

Also with the RFI for SLC-37 it seems the alternate location SLC-50 is not likely atm

https://sam.gov/opp/4bbc0691531348dca31bf898fb3321a9/view

Cape Canaveral Space Force Station Request for Information for Space Launch Complex-37 Lease

This Request for Information (RFI) is in support of additional market research by the Department of the Air Force (DAF), United States Space Force (USSF), and Space Launch Delta 45 (SLD 45) to identify potential sources to lease Space Launch Complex 37 (SLC-37) at Cape Canaveral Space Force Station (CCSFS), Florida.  Due to the unique attributes of SLC-37 and the goal of maximizing assured access to space in support of national security objectives, the DAF, USSF and SLD 45 are committed to ensuring the best use of this property.

The USSF seeks to issue a lease under 10 U.S.C. § 2667 to a space launch company to construct launch, recovery, and other associated space transportation infrastructure and to conduct launch and reentry activities at SLC-37.  Commercial use of CCSFS real property advances U.S. space capabilities and provides launch and launch support facilities in furtherance of U.S. policy to launch national security and other DoD payloads into space.  The DAF will execute a lease after completion of the required environmental planning documentation and issuance of a record of decision.

The DAF is interested in responses from companies that can demonstrate they meet the following requirements:

Launching a super-heavy class vehicle

The USSF does not currently have a super-heavy launch capability at CCSFS.  As SLC-37 has unique attributes that can support super-heavy launch vehicles, maximizing mass to orbit per launch is a priority.  For purposes of this RFI, “Super-heavy” is defined as a lift capability of greater than 50,000 kg to low Earth orbit (LEO).  To demonstrate ability to meet this requirement, respondents should provide a list of any launch vehicle with a super-heavy lift capability to LEO that you intend to launch from SLC-37 within five years of the date of this RFI.

Sufficient financial maturity

A launch service provider must have the financial maturity to bring the proposed launch vehicle into operations at SLC-37 within five years of the date of this RFI.  This includes building the necessary pad infrastructure in accordance with Government safety, environmental, security, and other applicable requirements, and developing the launch vehicle and associated manufacturing and logistics tail.  To demonstrate ability to meet this requirement, respondents should provide documentation of current financial resources and funding status and provide inputs on modifying, developing, reusing or demolishing the existing SLC-37 infrastructure to support super-heavy launch and recovery operations at SLC-37 within five years.

Increase launch diversity at CCSFS

The DAF is seeking to increase the number of launch vehicles that operate on CCSFS to provide resilience in the event of a vehicle or infrastructure anomaly, factory work stoppage, supply chain disruption, or other launch impediment.  With more requests than available pads, SLD 45 seeks to bring new launch vehicles to CCSFS rather than providing second pads to any launch vehicle currently operating at CCSFS.  To demonstrate ability to meet this requirement, respondents should address whether your intended vehicle for SLC-37 currently has a launch site on CCSFS.

Maximize the benefit to the space industry and U.S. economy

Launch services are foundational to the health of the space economy; therefore, commercial operations from SLC-37 should maximize the benefit to the space industry and the U.S. economy.  To demonstrate ability to meet this requirement, respondents should describe any unique capabilities of the intended launch vehicle (e.g., point-to-point delivery, payload return, survivability, reuse, crew transport) and the associated benefits for DoD, the space industry, and the U.S. economy.

Highest technical maturity

SLD 45 intends to allocate SLC-37 to a launch provider with a launch vehicle that is technically mature enough to begin operating from SLC-37 within five years to best utilize the site and ensure it does not sit idle.  Categories of maturity to be considered will include: National Security Space Launch certification, successful missions, test flights, production and design.  To demonstrate ability to meet this requirement, respondents should submit a schedule of projected milestones showing how the intended vehicle will be operational on SLC-37 within five years from the date of this RFI.

Maximize productivity while limiting adverse impacts

Proposed launch operations must strike an appropriate balance between maximizing productivity while also limiting adverse impact to other launch operations to capitalize on return on investment for the Government and protect the public and preserve critical national resources.  The DAF will consider the impact of the launch vehicle’s proposed operations on other operations at CCSFS in order to minimize disruption to missions at other launch complexes while operating at the highest rate of productivity possible.  The DAF will assess the impact of the launch vehicle’s explosive arcs and CONOPS on other CCSFS launch complexes, processing facilities, and transit routes.  For vehicles that use LOX/LNG propellant, the SLD 45 Safety Office will define the explosive arcs for consistency.  To demonstrate ability to meet this requirement, respondents should provide: projected launch rate, mass to orbit per launch, quantities of fuels needed, explosive arcs and hazard areas, including explosive siting maps in work or approved, mitigation alternatives for anticipated impacts to neighboring operations and transportation routes, and projected launch rates across all the company’s launch sites on CCSFS.

Please address in writing your company’s interest in leasing SLC-37 and your company’s ability to meet the DAF requirements by December 12, 2024 at 1700 EST.  Please email your response to Erin White, SSC SLD 45 at the following address: [email protected]

Please include specific details regarding your company’s ability to fulfill each of these requirements and explain how your company will demonstrate compliance.  Limit your response to 15 pages, use 12 point New Times Roman font with one inch margins on each page.

The DAF is also interested in hearing industry feedback regarding its requirements, which are subject to change.

[edzieba]

If anything a new RFI seeking SLC-37 tenants makes SLC-50 more likely: if SLC-37 for Starship were considered a done deal, there'd be little reason to re-open bids.

[pyromatter]

If anything a new RFI seeking SLC-37 tenants makes SLC-50 more likely: if SLC-37 for Starship were considered a done deal, there'd be little reason to re-open bids.

As I understand it DAF is making sure all the legal dotted i's and crossed t's is complete to avoid people complaining they didn't considering alternative companies. Also the time to respond to the RFI is very short and not many companies can qualify for super-heavy launch capability and launch it within 5 years.

This Request for Information (RFI) is in support of additional market research by the Department of the Air Force (DAF), United States Space Force (USSF), and Space Launch Delta 45 (SLD 45) to identify potential sources to lease Space Launch Complex 37 (SLC-37) at Cape Canaveral Space Force Station (CCSFS), Florida.

[pyromatter]

One thing I hadn't noticed (changed early 2025), on this page they updated the proposed action

https://spaceforcestarshipeis.com/proposed-action/

SpaceX would reconstruct the existing SLC-37 infrastructure to support up to 76 annual Starship/Super Heavy launches and landings annually.

The website still states the draft EIS is expected to be published in Spring 2025.
So it could drop any day.

[catdlr]

SpaceX Starship-Super Heavy CCSFS Draft EIS

Source

[StraumliBlight]

https://twitter.com/SpaceflightNow/status/1931039805548204500

The @usairforce published its Draft Environmental Impact Statement on SpaceX's proposal to use pad 37 at Cape Canaveral Space Force Station to launch Starship-Super Heavy up to 76 times annually.

Public review runs now through July 28.

https://spaceforcestarshipeis.com/

[edzieba]

Two figures from the sonic boom analysis portion of the appendices. I believe these are the first Starship landing trajectory models shown since the "three aft fins that are also legs" era of Starship. It also confirms that Starship entry is not intended to be out over ocean and 'flown' back to a landing site, but to be entirely over CONUS.

[wannamoonbase]

One thing I hadn't noticed (changed early 2025), on this page they updated the proposed action

https://spaceforcestarshipeis.com/proposed-action/

SpaceX would reconstruct the existing SLC-37 infrastructure to support up to 76 annual Starship/Super Heavy launches and landings annually.

The website still states the draft EIS is expected to be published in Spring 2025.
So it could drop any day.

I was wondering when the 44 (I think it was 44) launches for Starship were specifically just for KSC.  76 from CCSFB and 44 from KSC (120 total) and you're talking real mass to orbit.

I like the layout of LC37.  It's a large complex and this seems to make great use of it and has common commodities.

[catdlr]

Today's Starship Weekly goes over the EIS.

The discussion starts at 9:00 in the following video (I have it designed to start with the following link).

https://youtube.com/watch?v=CWYryy9vZJo#t=540s

[catdlr]

https://twitter.com/SERobinsonJr/status/1932442884956979577

SPACEX NEWS: SpaceX has been given a limited entry right to prepare Space Launch Complex 37 (SLC-37) at Cape Canaveral Space Force Station for Starship operations.

Ground crews are expected to begin removing Delta IV-era structures at the launch pad this week.

The U.S. Air Force and Defense Department are still evaluating and finalizing the environmental review for the full take over, but have already pointed out they found no negative impacts with the proposal.
7:21 AM · Jun 10, 2025

[StraumliBlight]

https://twitter.com/_mgde_/status/1933173674556698920

END OF AN ERA: former ULA infrastructure at SLC-37, used to launch the Delta IV family of launch vehicles, was demolished this morning at the Cape Canaveral Space Force Station.

It has been given new life with SpaceX and the Starship program. Lots to look forward to!

[wannamoonbase]

https://twitter.com/_mgde_/status/1933173674556698920

END OF AN ERA: former ULA infrastructure at SLC-37, used to launch the Delta IV family of launch vehicles, was demolished this morning at the Cape Canaveral Space Force Station.

It has been given new life with SpaceX and the Starship program. Lots to look forward to!

I will pour one out tonight for LC37. 

LC37 is a large site, the original planners in the 60's thought big.  It's going to be exciting to see this converted and built out over the next couple of years.

[catdlr]

https://witter.com/johnkrausphotos/status/1933185100860076500

Clean up on aisle 37.

Aerial view of the demolished legacy launch infrastructure at SLC-37B — clearing the way for Starship launches from Florida’s Space Coast

[catdlr]

https://twitter.com/BocasBrain/status/1933212477095096467

[catdlr]

https://twitter.com/CarstensPete/status/1933216403798065337

"Farewell"

[catdlr]

https://twitter.com/_mgde_/status/1933249224457556479

Gonna miss old 37! It was always one of my favorites to visit and see in action at the Cape.

However, what lies ahead is game-changing. Bring it!

[catdlr]

https://twitter.com/julia_bergeron/status/1933272113311277447

Out with the old, in with the new. Sigh. I should be used to this skyline changing by now.

[catdlr]

Starship and Slick 37 are in Love

Jun 27, 2025
SpaceX will be getting approval to take over Space Launch Complex 37 at Cape Canaveral Space Force Center. This video explains how that site was chosen and what their plans are.

[catdlr]

A few shots of work at SLC-37 from Marcus House's weekly video

SLC-37 as of June 28, 2025

[catdlr]

https://twitter.com/TheOldManPar/status/1942949896220250128

Public sessions are underway for
@SpaceX
's plans to convert LC-37 at Cape Canaveral for Starship. Last night in Titusville, several dozen people attended but only three spoke on the record.

Tonight, there is another session at the Radisson Resort at The Port, 8701 Astronaut Blvd, Cape Canaveral, FL 32920. 4-7pm

Tomorrow, Dr. Joe Lee Smith Recreation Center
415 Stone St, Cocoa, FL 32922. 4-7pm

July 15th, there is an online session at 6pm.

@TalkOTitusville
 encourages all citizens interested to attend the hearings and if they so desire, enter their viewpoints on the record.

[catdlr]

Harry Stranger

This single capture alone covers Starship related work at LC-39A & SLC-37, Relativity's LC-16 being upgraded for Terran R, Stoke Space's LC-14 under construction to support Nova, and even a Falcon 9 on SLC-40.

https://twitter.com/Harry__Stranger/status/1947985347419443436

[ThatOldJanxSpirit]

Shortly before the next flight, I will do a live technical update on Starship, going over progress to date and engineering/production/launch plans for the future.

https://twitter.com/elonmusk/status/1948568264893686111

Awesome render indeed.

Where’s the SQD? Either they’ve forgotten to draw it, or they are returning to fuelling the ship via the booster.

I find it difficult to believe that they would route fuel lines through the hot stage ring so I’m thinking the first explanation is more likely.

[catdlr]

Shortly before the next flight, I will do a live technical update on Starship, going over progress to date and engineering/production/launch plans for the future.

https://x.com/elonmusk/status/1948568264893686111

Awesome render indeed.

Where’s the SQD? Either they’ve forgotten to draw it, or they are returning to fuelling the ship via the booster.

I find it difficult to believe that they would route fuel lines through the hot stage ring so I’m thinking the first explanation is more likely.

Your eyesight is commendable. Numerous elements are absent, and the trees within the vicinity are overgrown, complemented by sizable and well-maintained retention ponds. There is an attractive expanse of grass throughout the area. Nonetheless, the Ground Support has been significantly minimized in scope, including fuel tanks, fuel lines, various support bunkers, buildings, and general equipment. I am assured that the illustration was created for the Environmental Draft audience, which prefers to see a highly polished presentation presented as a cohesive whole.

I've added what would be more representative of what this facility could appear like after completion.

[steveleach]

Shortly before the next flight, I will do a live technical update on Starship, going over progress to date and engineering/production/launch plans for the future.

Awesome render indeed.

Where’s the SQD? Either they’ve forgotten to draw it, or they are returning to fuelling the ship via the booster.

I find it difficult to believe that they would route fuel lines through the hot stage ring so I’m thinking the first explanation is more likely.

Your eyesight is commendable. Numerous elements are absent, and the trees within the vicinity are overgrown, complemented by sizable and well-maintained retention ponds. There is an attractive expanse of grass throughout the area. Nonetheless, the Ground Support has been significantly minimized in scope, including fuel tanks, fuel lines, various support bunkers, buildings, and general equipment. I am assured that the illustration was created for the Environmental Draft audience, which prefers to see a highly polished presentation presented as a cohesive whole.

I've added what would be more representative of what this facility could appear like after completion.

It looks to me like there's a lot of stuff underground or grassed over in that render.

As far as fuelling the ship, could they be planning to route the propellants along the chopstick arms?

[geza]

Where’s the SQD? Either they’ve forgotten to draw it, or they are returning to fuelling the ship via the booster.

I find it difficult to believe that they would route fuel lines through the hot stage ring so I’m thinking the first explanation is more likely.

Your eyesight is commendable. Numerous elements are absent, and the trees within the vicinity are overgrown, complemented by sizable and well-maintained retention ponds. There is an attractive expanse of grass throughout the area. Nonetheless, the Ground Support has been significantly minimized in scope, including fuel tanks, fuel lines, various support bunkers, buildings, and general equipment. I am assured that the illustration was created for the Environmental Draft audience, which prefers to see a highly polished presentation presented as a cohesive whole.

I've added what would be more representative of what this facility could appear like after completion.

It looks to me like there's a lot of stuff underground or grassed over in that render.

As far as fuelling the ship, could they be planning to route the propellants along the chopstick arms?

Sooner, or later, they will need a crew access also.

[catdlr]

A special NSF Video to explain the EIS.  The video mostly covers LC39A, with some mentions of SLC-37.

Bases of the video come from this EIS document post here:
https://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=48478.msg2706219#msg2706219

Starship Is Large - SpaceX's Florida Plans Are HUGE!

Aug 7, 2025
The Federal Aviation Administration just released the Draft Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) for SpaceX Starship launches at Launch Complex 39A, and it's loaded with new insights. From launch cadence increases to methane liquefiers, catch towers, deluge systems, and even sonic booms over Central Florida—this is the most detailed look yet at Starship’s future on the Space Coast.

Join Ryan Caton for a deep-dive breakdown of the 410-page Draft EIS and its 25 appendices. We’ll unpack everything from infrastructure updates and environmental impacts to launch site logistics, transport plans, noise levels, and how this all ties into NASA’s Artemis Program and SpaceX’s Mars ambitions.

🔗 NSF Store: https://www.nasaspaceflight.com/shop/

⚡ Become a member of NASASpaceflight's channel for exclusive discord access, fast turnaround clips, and other exclusive benefits. Your support helps us continue our 24/7 coverage. Click JOIN above to get started.⚡

🤵 Hosted by Ryan Caton.
🖊️ Written by Alejandro Alcantarilla Romera.
✂️ Edited by Ryan Caton (@thenasaman)
💼 Produced by Kevin Michael Reed (@kmreed)

[catdlr]

Maxar 70cm? August 20th, 2:24 p.m. local Eastern. Roberts road, slc37

[catdlr]

Maxar 56cm Aug 21 11:50 am local eastern. slc37

[catdlr]

Cross-post to the latest flyover video/images

https://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=61579.msg2720659#msg2720659

[catdlr]

Here is an updated satellite image from VANTOR as posted in the RGV Discourse.

[catdlr]

Although it appears the old pad has been cleared from the demolition work, the site has not yet been given permission to start construction according to the current approval milestones.

https://spaceforcestarshipeis.com/

https://discord.com/channels/732509550606942268/743560252766814308/1428916895125340252

[catdlr]

This group has been providing updates for Starbase, which are posted in those threads, and they will now expand to SLC-37.

StarbaseTracking
@TrackingTheSB

Starbase Tracking Presents:

Cape Canaveral!

Coming To You: PDUPCFS 36UI 3136

Just move one step back, nice and slow.
Each letter and number in the row.
Crack the code and you will see,
A date that’s clear as it can be.

See you there!

https://twitter.com/TrackingTheSB/status/1981075079195693068

[edzieba]

Although it appears the old pad has been cleared from the demolition work, the site has not yet been given permission to start construction according to the current approval milestones.

https://spaceforcestarshipeis.com/

https://discord.com/channels/732509550606942268/743560252766814308/1428916895125340252

Strange as it sounds, the EIS process does not need to be completed (or technically, even started*) for construction to start. SpaceX would not be able to launch from the site before the EIS process is completed, but they can still build it. Companies generally don't do this as it risks investing in infrastructure that cannot be used, but that hasn't stopped SpaceX before.


* e.g. Starbase tower 1 build started before the EA process started.

[catdlr]

Didn't think I would post from Discourse, but this group has contracted VANTOR for weekly views of the caps pads, and it seems worth adding to my repertoire of sources.

https://discord.com/channels/732509550606942268/743560252766814308/1431499427427913800

[catdlr]

Harry Stranger updated for Nov 26

Harry Stranger
@Harry__Stranger
Demolition work at SLC-37 leaves the old pad area nearly completely flat, but still a long way to go before it can support launches.

https://x.com/Harry__Stranger/status/1993809118600286418

[StraumliBlight]

Record of Decision [Nov 20]

The DAF has decided to allow Space Exploration Technologies Corporation (SpaceX) to redevelop Space Launch Complex (SLC)-37 at CCSFS for Starship-Super Heavy launch and landing operations as described in the Decision paragraph below.

The DAF will execute a real property agreement and other agreements between the United States Space Force (USSF) and SpaceX for SpaceX’s use of SLC-37 for Starship-Super Heavy launch and landing operations, with a focus on Starship-Super Heavy missions supporting the DAF, DOW, and other national security requirements and objectives. Starship-Super Heavy operations at CCSFS will ensure mission-essential functions for the DOW, enable USSF to meet current and future mission requirements, and support civilian launch capabilities needed to meet projected rapid increase in launch requirements (FEIS § 2.1).

In addition to the real property agreement, Space Launch Delta 45 (SLD 45) would approve the program on the range, including modifications to the program for access to the Eastern Range; Starship-Super Heavy would not be accepted onto the Eastern Range until all requirements of the CCSFS Range Safety Office are met.

[DanClemmensen]

Record of Decision [Nov 20]

Thanks!
I have no reason to disbelieve this is an actual government document. However, I don't know how to find the official version.
  https://spaceforcestarshipeis.com
does not appear to be a government URL.

[StraumliBlight]

I have no reason to disbelieve this is an actual government document. However, I don't know how to find the official version.
  https://spaceforcestarshipeis.com
does not appear to be a government URL.

https://www.federalregister.gov/documents/2024/02/21/2024-03554/notice-of-intent-to-prepare-an-environmental-impact-statement-for-spacex-starship-super-heavy

The project website (SpaceForceStarshipEIS.com) provides information related to the EIS, such as environmental documents, schedule, and project details, as well as a comment form. Comments may be submitted via the website comment form, emailed to [email protected], or mailed to CCSFS Starship EIS c/o Jacobs, 5401 W Kennedy Blvd., Suite 300, Tampa, Florida 33609.

[catdlr]

https://twitter.com/dpoddolphinpro/status/1994508516904624422

Ryan Caton
@dpoddolphinpro

BREAKING: The Environmental Impact Statement for
@SpaceX
 Starship Operations at Space Launch Complex-37 in Florida is complete!

It permits 76 launches, landings (each stage), and static fires (each stage) per year. This is the same as the draft we first saw a few months ago.

[wannamoonbase]

https://twitter.com/SpaceX/status/1995641577591767181

SpaceX
@SpaceX
We’ve received approval to develop Space Launch Complex-37 for Starship operations at Cape Canaveral Space Force Station. Construction has started.
With three launch pads in Florida, Starship will be ready to support America’s national security and Artemis goals as the world’s premiere spaceport continues to evolve to enable airport-like operations. We’d like to thank the Department of the Air Force (@usairforce), 45th Space Force (@SLDelta45), and U.S. Fish and Wildlife (@USFWS) for their effort on the environmental review

Edit: Cross posting into the LC37 thread.


This is going to be an enormous amount of construction work.  Probably take a couple years from now to see results, but boy howdy, imagine 5 active Starship launch pads.


That's some mass to orbit.

[catdlr]

SpaceX can launch its Starship megarocket from Florida pad, Air Force says

Modifications to Space Launch Complex 37 at Cape Canaveral Space Force Station have already begun.

By Mike Wall

[catdlr]

SpaceX gets Environmental Approval for Starship at SLC-37
written by Ryan Weber December 5, 2025

[Rocket Rancher]

I believe there will be local back-lash if SX follows through with airline-like operations of this vehicle. No wants to live next to an airport with the constant sound/vibration of launches and the sonic booms of returns in this case. I suspect the sonic boom are 2-3X louder than what the Shuttle was just based on booster size. The novelty of rocket launches will wear off quickly when they are launching and returning in the middle of the night. Sadly, this area has been discovered and a lot of people are moving into the area. And let's face it, they were here before SS operations.   

[wannamoonbase]

I believe there will be local back-lash if SX follows through with airline-like operations of this vehicle. No wants to live next to an airport with the constant sound/vibration of launches and the sonic booms of returns in this case. I suspect the sonic boom are 2-3X louder than what the Shuttle was just based on booster size. The novelty of rocket launches will wear off quickly when they are launching and returning in the middle of the night. Sadly, this area has been discovered and a lot of people are moving into the area. And let's face it, they were here before SS operations.   

100% agree, I lived in Cape Canaveral for 3 years and worked at CCAFS, never missed a launch. 

Even the old Delta and Atlas' were noticeable in town.  Starship launch and return will be irritating for sure.  SpaceX is likely playing the game that they will take what they can get now and ask for more later if needed.  They have to have a small amount of uncertainty as to whether they can reach a 100+ launches a year.

I don't think the population surrounding CCSFB will tolerate Elon's dreamed of flight rate, they'll need to find other locations or move off shore.

[DanClemmensen]

I don't think the population surrounding CCSFB will tolerate Elon's dreamed of flight rate, they'll need to find other locations or move off shore.

Yes, they will. Perhaps the government can provide moving assistance for each family, but the government usually jsut forces the families to work it out for themselves.

[meekGee]

I don't think the population surrounding CCSFB will tolerate Elon's dreamed of flight rate, they'll need to find other locations or move off shore.

Yes, they will. Perhaps the government can provide moving assistance for each family, but the government usually jsut forces the families to work it out for themselves.

He wasn't specific about who "they" were

[spacenut]

How many will they possibly be launching from pad 39A along with 37?  Also, are they going to have one or two towers at 39A?  Then they will have two pads at Starbase. 

So, within two years how many pads and how many launches have been permitted for each location? 

[Jim]

I don't think the population surrounding CCSFB will tolerate Elon's dreamed of flight rate, they'll need to find other locations or move off shore.

Yes, they will. Perhaps the government can provide moving assistance for each family, but the government usually jsut forces the families to work it out for themselves.

Not for 100k people or so.

[sstli2]

People will complain and it will be controversial, but with the blessing of the USSF for 76 launches - a little over 1x / week - it will eventually be tolerated. It's not just the Cape. Cocoa Beach, Merritt Island, Titusville, etc. will definitely notice a big difference versus a Falcon 9 or Atlas V launch. People have already reported noticing a difference with just a New Glenn launch (1/4th the engine thrust).

Once Starship gets going, I anticipate enough push back that going from 76/year to something much larger - if and when such a cadence becomes feasible -  won't get rubber stamped so easily. Rocket launches are cool to us, but the typical Space Coast resident likes fishing and boating and honestly doesn't give a damn about a rocket launch. There'll be a point where off shore is the only option.

[DanClemmensen]

I don't think the population surrounding CCSFB will tolerate Elon's dreamed of flight rate, they'll need to find other locations or move off shore.

Yes, they will. Perhaps the government can provide moving assistance for each family, but the government usually jsut forces the families to work it out for themselves.

He wasn't specific about who "they" were

Yep, and I took advantage of it. This same thing has happened for decades all over the country. It's called NIMBY. Every affected community thinks they are a special case with unique concerns, and they are. Specific cases include airport noise, power plants, chemical plants, and highways. I'm very sorry for the affected community, but in this particular case there are no suitable alternatives. A launch facility needs to be on an east coast at a relatively low latitude. In the US, that's the Cape. That choice was made in 1949, and the surrounding community grew up to take advantage of the economic benefits starting then.

[rsdavis9]

So thunderstorms can be loud. Does anybody have a comparison of the radius that the sonic boom of the return booster and ship will compared to a t-storm?
When i have visited and hiked the cape there I am always amazed at the wildlife which has benefited from the launch activities keeping people from developing the land.

[StraumliBlight]

Congressman Byron Donalds letter [Dec 16]

SpaceX Starship will operate from Launch Complex 39A (LC-39A) within the Kennedy Space Center in 2026. Following that, SpaceX Starship will utilize Launch Complex 37 (SLC-37) in 2027.

Notice of Record of Decision for the Environmental Impact Statement for SpaceX Starship-Super Heavy at Cape Canaveral Space Force Station, Florida [Dec 18]

On November 20, 2025, the Department of the Air Force (DAF) signed the Record of Decision (ROD) for the Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) for SpaceX Starship-Super Heavy at Cape Canaveral Space Force Station (CCSFS), FL.

[catdlr]

https://x.com/INiallAnderson/status/2008615372321419549

Niall-Ian Anderson
@INiallAnderson
At least 1 of the Launch Towers at SLC-37 seems to have changed locations now that SpaceX are getting deeper into their permitting process -

[russianhalo117]

https://x.com/INiallAnderson/status/2008615372321419549

Niall-Ian Anderson
@INiallAnderson
At least 1 of the Launch Towers at SLC-37 seems to have changed locations now that SpaceX are getting deeper into their permitting process -

One will use the legacy Pad A site area and one will use the legacy Pad B site area. Legacy is defined as Apollo Project).

[StraumliBlight]

https://twitter.com/INiallAnderson/status/2006529049649115345

Groundwork at SLC-37 is well under way with December seeing their largest push yet! One area of great interest going into 2026! -
⏲️: June - December

[edzieba]

https://twitter.com/INiallAnderson/status/2006529049649115345

Groundwork at SLC-37 is well under way with December seeing their largest push yet! One area of great interest going into 2026! -
⏲️: June - December

First of the two Apollo-era concrete strucutres (that supported the umbilical towers) has been demolished.

[catdlr]

https://twitter.com/rocketjunkie94/status/2016177926392213811

Jake (Max-Q) 🏴󠁧󠁢󠁷󠁬󠁳󠁿
@rocketjunkie94
·
Here's another fantastic 50cm/pixel satellite image of Space Launch Complex 37 (SLC-37) at Cape Canaveral Space Force Station taken on January 23, 2026 @ 16:01:14 UTC.

Credit: Harry Stranger / © CNES 2026, Distribution AIRBUS DS.