SpaceX Cape SLC-37 Starship launch/landing facilities

[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.