Author Topic: SpaceX Cape 39A Starship launch/landing facilities  (Read 410394 times)

Online pyromatter

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 935
  • United Kingdom
  • Liked: 3425
  • Likes Given: 19
Re: SpaceX Cape 39A Starship launch/landing facilities
« Reply #380 on: 05/06/2022 04:18 pm »
Looks like the launch mount is going to get some legs soon based on the row of tubes just above the foundation works.

Also, what is that octagon shaped pad on the left of the image likely to be?  Looks like a lot of rebar going in.  Didn't they do something like that in Boca Chica, but it isn't visible now as everything around is is covered in concrete?
Starship suborbital stand

Is there a source for that or is it speculation? Could it be foundations for a new water tower, instead?

Speculation.

However the shape and size look very similar to the sub orbital pads

Offline AS_501

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 577
  • Pittsburgh, PA
  • Liked: 412
  • Likes Given: 329
Re: SpaceX Cape 39A Starship launch/landing facilities
« Reply #381 on: 05/06/2022 04:48 pm »
Is anyone concerned about how close this is to the current F9/H launch facility?  If there was a SH/SS accident shortly after liftoff, flaming debris could rain down on the F9/H facility.  In fact, I can't think of two launch pads so close to each other anywhere.  Say it ain't so....much of a problem.
Launches attended:  Apollo 11, ASTP (@KSC, not Baikonur!), STS-41G, STS-125, EFT-1, Starlink G4-24, Artemis 1
Notable Spacecraft Observed:  Echo 1, Skylab/S-II, Salyuts 6&7, Mir Core/Complete, HST, ISS Zarya/Present, Columbia, Challenger, Discovery, Atlantis, Dragon Demo-2, Starlink G4-14 (8 hrs. post-launch), Tiangong

Offline quagmire

  • Full Member
  • *
  • Posts: 170
  • Liked: 255
  • Likes Given: 46
Re: SpaceX Cape 39A Starship launch/landing facilities
« Reply #382 on: 05/06/2022 07:56 pm »
Is anyone concerned about how close this is to the current F9/H launch facility?  If there was a SH/SS accident shortly after liftoff, flaming debris could rain down on the F9/H facility.  In fact, I can't think of two launch pads so close to each other anywhere.  Say it ain't so....much of a problem.

LC-17 had the two pads relatively close to each other. Granted Starship/super heavy going boom is a lot more energetic than Delta II and probably not as close as starship is to the main 39A pad, but still close proximity.

Offline alugobi

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1550
  • Liked: 1605
  • Likes Given: 0
Re: SpaceX Cape 39A Starship launch/landing facilities
« Reply #383 on: 05/06/2022 08:54 pm »
If SpaceX isn't concerned, why should any readers here be concerned?

Offline The Shard Baby

  • Member
  • Posts: 14
  • Structural Engineer & Part 1 Architect
  • London, UK
  • Liked: 12
  • Likes Given: 13
Re: SpaceX Cape 39A Starship launch/landing facilities
« Reply #384 on: 05/07/2022 02:37 pm »
Latest KSC LC39 SpaceX Starship Launch Pad 1 Construction Progress Update Diagram - 6th May 2022. Drawn in Microsoft Paint 🎨
I make Microsoft Paint illustrations and time-lapses showing the development of construction projects from London's tall buildings to SpaceX's developments on Starship! Check out my youtube channel: https://www.youtube.com/c/TheShardBaby/

Offline su27k

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 6414
  • Liked: 9100
  • Likes Given: 885
Re: SpaceX Cape 39A Starship launch/landing facilities
« Reply #385 on: 05/07/2022 03:42 pm »
CSI Starbase Investigations: Is SpaceX falling behind on Pad39A Starship Launch Pad Construction?


Online pyromatter

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 935
  • United Kingdom
  • Liked: 3425
  • Likes Given: 19
Re: SpaceX Cape 39A Starship launch/landing facilities
« Reply #386 on: 05/16/2022 06:24 pm »

Online pyromatter

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 935
  • United Kingdom
  • Liked: 3425
  • Likes Given: 19

Online pyromatter

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 935
  • United Kingdom
  • Liked: 3425
  • Likes Given: 19

Offline su27k

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 6414
  • Liked: 9100
  • Likes Given: 885
Re: SpaceX Cape 39A Starship launch/landing facilities
« Reply #389 on: 06/13/2022 01:45 pm »
SpaceX faces NASA hurdle for Starship backup launch pad

Quote from: Reuters
NASA wants Elon Musk's SpaceX to ensure its plan to launch its next-generation Starship rocket from Florida would not put at risk nearby launch infrastructure critical to the International Space Station, a senior space agency official told Reuters.

<snip>

SpaceX has already invested heavily in building a Starship pad some hundreds of feet from pad 39A's launch tower. It has responded by pitching NASA on a plan to outfit its other Florida pad - Launch Complex 40, five miles away on Space Force property - with the means to launch U.S. astronauts, according to a person familiar with the plans.

The company is also studying ways to "harden" 39A, or make the launchpad more resilient to both an explosive Starship accident and the immense forces emitted from a successful Starship liftoff, Lueders said.

Offline Athelstane

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 334
  • Washington, D.C.
  • Liked: 311
  • Likes Given: 867
Re: SpaceX Cape 39A Starship launch/landing facilities
« Reply #390 on: 06/13/2022 03:19 pm »
SpaceX faces NASA hurdle for Starship backup launch pad

Quote from: Reuters
NASA wants Elon Musk's SpaceX to ensure its plan to launch its next-generation Starship rocket from Florida would not put at risk nearby launch infrastructure critical to the International Space Station, a senior space agency official told Reuters.

<snip>

SpaceX has already invested heavily in building a Starship pad some hundreds of feet from pad 39A's launch tower. It has responded by pitching NASA on a plan to outfit its other Florida pad - Launch Complex 40, five miles away on Space Force property - with the means to launch U.S. astronauts, according to a person familiar with the plans.

The company is also studying ways to "harden" 39A, or make the launchpad more resilient to both an explosive Starship accident and the immense forces emitted from a successful Starship liftoff, Lueders said.

Honestly surprised that NASA and SpaceX hadn't sorted this out by now.

Offline MGoDuPage

  • Member
  • Posts: 66
  • Liked: 54
  • Likes Given: 28
Re: SpaceX Cape 39A Starship launch/landing facilities
« Reply #391 on: 06/13/2022 04:47 pm »
SpaceX faces NASA hurdle for Starship backup launch pad

Quote from: Reuters
NASA wants Elon Musk's SpaceX to ensure its plan to launch its next-generation Starship rocket from Florida would not put at risk nearby launch infrastructure critical to the International Space Station, a senior space agency official told Reuters.

<snip>

SpaceX has already invested heavily in building a Starship pad some hundreds of feet from pad 39A's launch tower. It has responded by pitching NASA on a plan to outfit its other Florida pad - Launch Complex 40, five miles away on Space Force property - with the means to launch U.S. astronauts, according to a person familiar with the plans.

The company is also studying ways to "harden" 39A, or make the launchpad more resilient to both an explosive Starship accident and the immense forces emitted from a successful Starship liftoff, Lueders said.

Honestly surprised that NASA and SpaceX hadn't sorted this out by now.


Yeah, I'm not sure I understand the timing of this.  The instant SpaceX made it clear that they wanted to build SS/SH launch infrastructure at 39A, wouldn't this have naturally come up?

I'm not an engineer, so perhaps it's impossible/impractical from a logistics/financial standpoint, but in theory if NASA had voiced this concern previously, couldn't SpaceX have built the SS/SH infrastructure several more hundred feet away from the F9 infrastructure & still technically be on pad 39A?

Two side notes:

1) I think SpaceX has a long term lease for a notional Pad 49 just to the north of 39A. Has SpaceX submitted plans to build that out & has NASA approved of those plans? It seems like the best long term solution will be to build out 49 and designate that as a 100% SS/SH facility.


2) Someone mentioned over on Reddit that Vlucan Centaur is slated to be using the same launch pad/facility as the one used by Atlas V & Boeint's Starliner. I don't know if there are other pads capable of launching an Atlas V w/ crewed Starliner. But if not..... is NASA requiring ULA & Boeing to do a similar risk-avoidance exercise?
 

Offline Athelstane

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 334
  • Washington, D.C.
  • Liked: 311
  • Likes Given: 867
Re: SpaceX Cape 39A Starship launch/landing facilities
« Reply #392 on: 06/13/2022 04:51 pm »

1) I think SpaceX has a long term lease for a notional Pad 49 just to the north of 39A. Has SpaceX submitted plans to build that out & has NASA approved of those plans? It seems like the best long term solution will be to build out 49 and designate that as a 100% SS/SH facility.

That is my sense as well.

Lots of room to build several pads at LC-49, and it's reasonably far away from everything else. Use LC-39A sparingly while Falcon 9 is still in operation (which is going to be for at least a decade).

Quote
2) Someone mentioned over on Reddit that Vlucan Centaur is slated to be using the same launch pad/facility as the one used by Atlas V & Boeint's Starliner. I don't know if there are other pads capable of launching an Atlas V w/ crewed Starliner. But if not..... is NASA requiring ULA & Boeing to do a similar risk-avoidance exercise?

That's a great question.

Online wannamoonbase

  • Elite Veteran
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 5434
  • Denver, CO
    • U.S. Metric Association
  • Liked: 3122
  • Likes Given: 3879
Re: SpaceX Cape 39A Starship launch/landing facilities
« Reply #393 on: 06/13/2022 04:55 pm »
2) Someone mentioned over on Reddit that Vlucan Centaur is slated to be using the same launch pad/facility as the one used by Atlas V & Boeint's Starliner. I don't know if there are other pads capable of launching an Atlas V w/ crewed Starliner. But if not..... is NASA requiring ULA & Boeing to do a similar risk-avoidance exercise?

Vulcan is not the size of Superheavy and its miles away.

NASA is right to be concerned, I suspect that DOD also wants some assurances as some of the planned payloads need to use LC39A.

A problem with a fully fueled Superheavy could be very destructive.  Even LC49 north of LC39B may be a concern for that pad.
Wildly optimistic prediction, Superheavy recovery on IFT-4 or IFT-5 (Welp a little early on IFT-4, but still have a shot at 5)

Offline Jim

  • Night Gator
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 37507
  • Cape Canaveral Spaceport
  • Liked: 21562
  • Likes Given: 429
Re: SpaceX Cape 39A Starship launch/landing facilities
« Reply #394 on: 06/13/2022 04:56 pm »


2) Someone mentioned over on Reddit that Vlucan Centaur is slated to be using the same launch pad/facility as the one used by Atlas V & Boeint's Starliner. I don't know if there are other pads capable of launching an Atlas V w/ crewed Starliner. But if not..... is NASA requiring ULA & Boeing to do a similar risk-avoidance exercise?
 

No different than FH and non Dragon F9 using 39A
« Last Edit: 06/13/2022 04:58 pm by Jim »

Offline volker2020

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 315
  • Frankfurt, Germany
  • Liked: 324
  • Likes Given: 837
Re: SpaceX Cape 39A Starship launch/landing facilities
« Reply #395 on: 06/13/2022 05:01 pm »
I can understand that NASA is not happy with using Launch Complex 40 for both Falcon 9 and Super Heavy. The question for me is, did they pay SpaceX to keep that redundancy? I am quite sure, they won't have Super Heavy and Facon at the pad at the same time. What legal basis does NASA have for such a request? After all, it is no cost plus contract.

Online DanClemmensen

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 5575
  • Earth (currently)
  • Liked: 4387
  • Likes Given: 1790
Re: SpaceX Cape 39A Starship launch/landing facilities
« Reply #396 on: 06/13/2022 05:11 pm »
I can understand that NASA is not happy with using Launch Complex 40 for both Falcon 9 and Super Heavy. The question for me is, did they pay SpaceX to keep that redundancy? I am quite sure, they won't have Super Heavy and Facon at the pad at the same time. What legal basis does NASA have for such a request? After all, it is no cost plus contract.
I don't know (or much care) about the "legal basis". NASA sees risk to ISS operations, and they are exploring ways to mitigate the risk. But if you want a "legal basis" start with the CCP contract. I think SpaceX has a contractual obligation to maintain reliable Crew Dragon service to the ISS. SpaceX's CCP lawyers could claim that NASA has implicitly guaranteed the availability of the launch pad, but NASA would respond by saying that the only way to do this is to minimize risk by denying SpaceX the right to launch Starship. This is a stupid and contentious way to resolve the problem. I think it's smarter to have redundant ground facilities in any case. A Starship mishap is not the only thing that can render a launch pad unusable.

Offline MGoDuPage

  • Member
  • Posts: 66
  • Liked: 54
  • Likes Given: 28
Re: SpaceX Cape 39A Starship launch/landing facilities
« Reply #397 on: 06/13/2022 05:28 pm »
2) Someone mentioned over on Reddit that Vlucan Centaur is slated to be using the same launch pad/facility as the one used by Atlas V & Boeint's Starliner. I don't know if there are other pads capable of launching an Atlas V w/ crewed Starliner. But if not..... is NASA requiring ULA & Boeing to do a similar risk-avoidance exercise?

Vulcan is not the size of Superheavy and its miles away.

NASA is right to be concerned, I suspect that DOD also wants some assurances as some of the planned payloads need to use LC39A.

A problem with a fully fueled Superheavy could be very destructive.  Even LC49 north of LC39B may be a concern for that pad.

I'm not saying NASA doesn't have a right to be concerned--I think they DO.

However, what I'm wondering whether NASA raised this issue previously? If they did & SpaceX ignored their concerns, then that's on SpaceX. But if not, then why not, and why should SpaceX have to pay for a concern that was raised after-the-fact?

Also, are you saying the Vulcan launch infrastructure is miles away from the AtlasV/Starliner launch infrastrucutre? If so, then I agree there's no reason for NASA to require similar steps from ULA. But if not, then even if Vulcan won't be as big as the SH/SS stack, there'd still be a substantial risk of damaging the ability of Starliner to launch if an early Vulcan vehicle goes kablooey a few hundred feet away, no?

Offline Jim

  • Night Gator
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 37507
  • Cape Canaveral Spaceport
  • Liked: 21562
  • Likes Given: 429
Re: SpaceX Cape 39A Starship launch/landing facilities
« Reply #398 on: 06/13/2022 06:07 pm »

Also, are you saying the Vulcan launch infrastructure is miles away from the AtlasV/Starliner launch infrastrucutre?


it is the exact same pad.

The issue is the size of Starship, not a vehicle sharing the same pad (see my earlier comment).
« Last Edit: 06/13/2022 06:07 pm by Jim »

Online DanClemmensen

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 5575
  • Earth (currently)
  • Liked: 4387
  • Likes Given: 1790
Re: SpaceX Cape 39A Starship launch/landing facilities
« Reply #399 on: 06/13/2022 08:34 pm »
2) Someone mentioned over on Reddit that Vlucan Centaur is slated to be using the same launch pad/facility as the one used by Atlas V & Boeint's Starliner. I don't know if there are other pads capable of launching an Atlas V w/ crewed Starliner. But if not..... is NASA requiring ULA & Boeing to do a similar risk-avoidance exercise?

Vulcan is not the size of Superheavy and its miles away.

NASA is right to be concerned, I suspect that DOD also wants some assurances as some of the planned payloads need to use LC39A.

A problem with a fully fueled Superheavy could be very destructive.  Even LC49 north of LC39B may be a concern for that pad.

I'm not saying NASA doesn't have a right to be concerned--I think they DO.

However, what I'm wondering whether NASA raised this issue previously? If they did & SpaceX ignored their concerns, then that's on SpaceX. But if not, then why not, and why should SpaceX have to pay for a concern that was raised after-the-fact?

Also, are you saying the Vulcan launch infrastructure is miles away from the AtlasV/Starliner launch infrastrucutre? If so, then I agree there's no reason for NASA to require similar steps from ULA. But if not, then even if Vulcan won't be as big as the SH/SS stack, there'd still be a substantial risk of damaging the ability of Starliner to launch if an early Vulcan vehicle goes kablooey a few hundred feet away, no?
The other reason the concern is high may be that Starliner is not yet crew-qualified. If Starliner were already operational, loss of the ability to launch Crew Dragon would not be as big a problem. If this factors into NASA's reasoning, then they might not want to risk 39A with a Starship launch attempt until Starliner-1 is ready to fly.

 

Advertisement NovaTech
Advertisement Northrop Grumman
Advertisement
Advertisement Margaritaville Beach Resort South Padre Island
Advertisement Brady Kenniston
Advertisement NextSpaceflight
Advertisement Nathan Barker Photography
0