Author Topic: SpaceX Texas launch site Discussion and Updates - Thread 6  (Read 720951 times)

Offline Dave G

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3231
  • Liked: 2127
  • Likes Given: 2021
Re: SpaceX Texas launch site Discussion and Updates - Thread 6
« Reply #140 on: 10/21/2017 12:07 pm »
I think Nomadd said it the best.
http://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=43026.msg1720947#msg1720947
Quote
I doubt they're trying to slip a whole new class of rocket in with a line vaguely referring to suborbital tests.

To be clear, I'm not saying the FAA wouldn't approve BFS test flights from Boca Chica Beach.  In fact, I think they would.

I'm just saying that SpaceX would need to get additional approvals from the FAA to do so.  The current EIS wording clearly doesn't allow any sub-orbital test vehicles bigger than Falcon 9, or anything with more than 6,900 gallons of propellant.

I'm also saying that, in order for SpaceX to get the additional FAA approvals for BFS test flights, as part of that process, the FAA would require a public comment period, and we haven't seen this yet.

Again this is just for BFS test flights.  The full BFR/BFS stack is a different story.  I think that will be way over the legal sound limit for Boca Chica Village, so the FAA won't allow full BFR launches from Boca Chica Beach, hence the need for an offshore platform.  The good news is that 5 miles off Boca Chica Beach, the ocean is only 72 feet deep.

And like Lobo, I also think they'll fly BFR from the cape first, but I think they'll launch BFR from Boca Chica eventually.
« Last Edit: 10/21/2017 01:02 pm by Dave G »

Offline Jcc

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1196
  • Liked: 404
  • Likes Given: 203
Re: SpaceX Texas launch site Discussion and Updates - Thread 6
« Reply #141 on: 10/21/2017 01:19 pm »
They are going to need multiple launch sites for flight rate and redundancy. I think they will build a F9/FH capable pad there as soon as they are done with all the repairs and upgrades to 40 and 39A.

And I am tending to agree that an offshore pad for BFR would be a great way to go, although a bit expensive to build initially. It would hopefully sidestep all issues with noise, safety, environmental, and beach closures. They can run power, fiber and water out to the platform. For that matter, they could probably sink a well directly below the platform and get fresh water for deluge. If they are lucky they might even get methane ;D

The logistics of getting the rocket, supplies and personnel out to the platform in an efficient manner need to worked out. They would need a hangar and processing facility with access to the water so they can load BFR onto a barge and be carried out to the platform. For the first several years they will want to process mate and inspect  BFR in a dry and secure location. It will be a while before even the booster is "gas 'n' go".

Offline Dave G

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3231
  • Liked: 2127
  • Likes Given: 2021
Re: SpaceX Texas launch site Discussion and Updates - Thread 6
« Reply #142 on: 10/21/2017 01:50 pm »
If they are lucky they might even get methane ;D

Here's an interesting tidbit:

Campirano: Elon Musk may have bigger plans for Boca Chica
http://riograndeguardian.com/campirano-elon-musk-may-have-bigger-plans-for-boca-chica/
Quote
“They are moving forward with plans for Boca Chica... If there are any changes to that it will be potentially be because something else is going on. We are excited to see that (the International Astronautical Congress) going on. And then, of course, the university (UTRGV) is starting to do some of the preliminary work on Stargate (at Boca Chica). All that stuff goes hand in hand.”

Campirano also briefly spoke about Valley Crossing Pipeline, which will transport clean burning natural gas to the CFE—Mexico’s state-owned utility. The pipeline comes south in the Valley and then goes offshore before reaching Mexico.

Offline Dave G

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3231
  • Liked: 2127
  • Likes Given: 2021
Re: SpaceX Texas launch site Discussion and Updates - Thread 6
« Reply #143 on: 10/21/2017 02:09 pm »
They would need a hangar and processing facility with access to the water so they can load BFR onto a barge and be carried out to the platform.

The Port of Brownsville is a world class deepwater sea port.  It regularly hosts aircraft carriers, oil drilling rigs, and huge container ships.

There's plenty of undeveloped land along the sea channel (see 3rd picture below).

The channel exits into the ocean just a few miles from Boca Chica Beach.
« Last Edit: 10/21/2017 02:17 pm by Dave G »

Offline Robotbeat

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 39270
  • Minnesota
  • Liked: 25240
  • Likes Given: 12115
Re: SpaceX Texas launch site Discussion and Updates - Thread 6
« Reply #144 on: 10/21/2017 02:13 pm »

For the Texas launch site, the main questions now are:
1) Will they ever launch F9/FH from there, or will they go straight to BFR?
2) Will they launch BFR from land, or from platform a few miles offshore?

Well, I think there's also the real question of will they ever launch anything from there?  I think it could be relegated more to a contingency backup, with the mail goal of getting SLS cancelled and access to pad 39B as well as other KSC assets, to be able to set up shop for BFR/BFR in earnest at KSC.  If that falls through, then I think BC is a fall back...or at least a threat to the Space Coast to help broker the deals SpaceX wants.

Because really if they want to do a platform a few miles offshore, there's really no reason they couldn't do that at the Cape too...even as a backup.  There's the Turn Basin at KSC as well as Port Canaveral to operate out of.  Even if things don't fall into place at KSC the way I think Elon's hoping they will, they will still have two pads at the Cape, so there's advantages to centralize there , rather than break off BFR to Texas.  So Elon's main plans would have to fall through, and those at the Cape would have to hose secondary plans of staging BFR in some other way at the Cape, I think, before BFR goes to BC. 
In such an event, they could move Falcon off 39A so that it would be dedicated to BFR to allow better operations there, and then they may want a secondary East Coast Falcon pad, in which case BC could be a Falcon Pad.  Less desirable of course than getting 39B, but I'm sure SpaceX has various plans just in case.  For now, I think BC is on hold while they see how things develop politically as BFR/BFS starts to get built and moves towards test flights.  So they know if they need to do anything at BC, and if so, what?
If SpaceX gets 39B and SLS is cancelled as I think Elon's hoping, I don't think there will be a Falcon pad at BC, and no real reason to try to force BFR there around all of the exclusions zones and environmental issues.  IMHO.
Theyll launch BFR from Boca Chica. I don't understand your skepticism in spite of all the stuff SpaceX has said.
Chris  Whoever loves correction loves knowledge, but he who hates reproof is stupid.

To the maximum extent practicable, the Federal Government shall plan missions to accommodate the space transportation services capabilities of United States commercial providers. US law http://goo.gl/YZYNt0

Offline cuddihy

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1251
  • Liked: 580
  • Likes Given: 935
Re: SpaceX Texas launch site Discussion and Updates - Thread 6
« Reply #145 on: 10/21/2017 03:09 pm »
I believe they will have to keep doing Something at Boca Chica or they will have to pay back their $15M in tax credits from the state of Texas.

As the cost of building a launch pad for BFS and operating the test regime there is probably less than that bill, I think they will at least do that...
« Last Edit: 10/21/2017 03:09 pm by cuddihy »

Offline philw1776

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1836
  • Seacoast NH
  • Liked: 1842
  • Likes Given: 983
Re: SpaceX Texas launch site Discussion and Updates - Thread 6
« Reply #146 on: 10/21/2017 04:32 pm »
I'm assuming a fixed offshore pad, not floating.  The ocean floor is shallow for miles off Boca Chica Beach.

To help quantify this, I Googled "map of ocean depths" and found this.
https://www.arcgis.com/home/webmap/viewer.html?webmap=5ae9e138a17842688b0b79283a4353f6

As an example, for a launch pad 5 miles offshore from Boca Chica Beach, the ocean is just 22 meters (72 feet) deep.

Always been a proponent of offshore launch, especially when we thought the BFR was a lot bigger than Nova class.  What's also interesting is look off the coast of Cape Canaveral where the depth of the shallow Chester Shoal is even less 10+ miles out.  Hmmmmm.

Anchoring a platform in shallow seas makes more economical sense than an exotic floating platform.  Such anchored platforms are called jackup rigs.  "The greatest water depth a jackup can drill in is 550 feet"  So, easy 100 foot or so rigs are on the "easy do" state of the art.

https://info.drillinginfo.com/offshore-rigs-primer-offshore-drilling/
FULL SEND!!!!

Offline Dave G

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3231
  • Liked: 2127
  • Likes Given: 2021
Re: SpaceX Texas launch site Discussion and Updates - Thread 6
« Reply #147 on: 10/21/2017 04:35 pm »
I believe they will have to keep doing Something at Boca Chica or they will have to pay back their $15M in tax credits from the state of Texas.

Tax credits?

SpaceX hasn't yet paid much of any taxes for Boca Chica, certainly not $15M, so there's no way they could have gotten $15M in tax credits.

A tax credit is where the government says you don't have to pay as much taxes as you would normally. 

For example, let's say you make $100K and pay $20K in taxes.  A tax credit of $5K means you only have to pay $15K in taxes.  But if you only made $10K that year, and didn't pay any taxes, a tax credit of $5K is meaningless.

Another example, as an incentive for a company to locate a new facility in their state, a state government offers a company $10M in tax credits over the next 10 years.  That means that over the next 10 years, the company will pay $10M less in total taxes than they would have normally, which probably means $1M a year less in state corporate taxes.  The state hasn't given the company any money directly.  If the company fails to locate the facility there, they owe the state nothing.

Offline Nomadd

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 8839
  • Lower 48
  • Liked: 60430
  • Likes Given: 1305
Re: SpaceX Texas launch site Discussion and Updates - Thread 6
« Reply #148 on: 10/21/2017 04:59 pm »
They did spend about $3 million on the highway.
Those who danced were thought to be quite insane by those who couldn't hear the music.

Offline cuddihy

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1251
  • Liked: 580
  • Likes Given: 935
Re: SpaceX Texas launch site Discussion and Updates - Thread 6
« Reply #149 on: 10/21/2017 05:14 pm »
Some tax credits are re-sellable to other companies and serve effectively as assets. I don't know if the SpaceX tax credits were of this type, but I was relying on some articles that stated SpaceX was getting up to $15M in Texas tax credits to launch from Boca Chica.

Offline Dave G

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3231
  • Liked: 2127
  • Likes Given: 2021
Re: SpaceX Texas launch site Discussion and Updates - Thread 6
« Reply #150 on: 10/21/2017 05:43 pm »
They did spend about $3 million on the highway.

The Feds also put up $1.2 million for Stargate.

If SpaceX decides not to use Boca Chica, local residents will still have much nicer roads, and UTRGV will still have a cutting edge radio astronomy site away from all the clutter of the city.

To be clear, I do think SpaceX will launch from Boca Chica.  Gwynne's comments at Stanford heavily imply that.  And I think SpaceX still believes a private launch site will significantly lower launch costs.  Plus there the issue of contending for launch windows at the cape and vandy, and all the red tape that goes with launching from a military base.  And if you look at the history of SpaceX, they usually end up doing what they say, although it's usually been late. 

But for the people on this thread that are speculating SpaceX will pull out, I have to admit there's not a lot holding them to a Texas launch site.  If SpaceX were really in love with the cape, they could have 3 pads there.



Offline starsilk

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 686
  • Denver
  • Liked: 268
  • Likes Given: 115
Re: SpaceX Texas launch site Discussion and Updates - Thread 6
« Reply #151 on: 10/21/2017 05:59 pm »
Water in these quantities is really heavy.  39A's deluge system holds 1135 tonnes of water.

To achieve insensitivity to waves, semisubmersibles have relatively small cross sections though the water line.  That also means large changes in load (say, a 4000 tonne rocket and 1100 tonnes of water suddenly going away) require large vertical displacements.

Also, that tank is going to have to be high up, leading to a large overturning moment.

Sealaunch somehow dealt with this problem.  They even launched off the side of the platform rather than the center.  Their barge must have been really, really big relative to the rocket.
Water towers are the easy way to get pressure on land. At sea, with a possibility of tipping, simply set the tank down low or even underwater and pressurize it.

They are after all a rocket company. Pressurized tanks is their thing..

Sent from my BLN-L24 using Tapatalk


Offline Dave G

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3231
  • Liked: 2127
  • Likes Given: 2021
Re: SpaceX Texas launch site Discussion and Updates - Thread 6
« Reply #152 on: 10/21/2017 07:18 pm »
... semisubmersibles have relatively small cross sections though the water line...
At sea, with a possibility of tipping, simply set the tank down low or even underwater and pressurize it.

Again, for a launch platform 5-miles offshore from Boca Chica Beach, the ocean is only 72 feet deep.

No need for a semi-submersible like SeaLaunch.  Use a fixed launch platform with a rigid structure attaching it directly to the sea floor.  No issue with weight changes tipping it over.

Offline starsilk

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 686
  • Denver
  • Liked: 268
  • Likes Given: 115
Re: SpaceX Texas launch site Discussion and Updates - Thread 6
« Reply #153 on: 10/21/2017 07:22 pm »
... semisubmersibles have relatively small cross sections though the water line...
At sea, with a possibility of tipping, simply set the tank down low or even underwater and pressurize it.

Again, for a launch platform 5-miles offshore from Boca Chica Beach, the ocean is only 72 feet deep.

No need for a semi-submersible like SeaLaunch.  Use a fixed launch platform with a rigid structure attaching it directly to the sea floor.  No issue with weight changes tipping it over.
They may want it low or submerged to avoid weather issues or interference issues with the vehicle. It can't be positioned a decent distance away unless they build two platforms.

Sent from my BLN-L24 using Tapatalk


Offline Jcc

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1196
  • Liked: 404
  • Likes Given: 203
Re: SpaceX Texas launch site Discussion and Updates - Thread 6
« Reply #154 on: 10/21/2017 07:33 pm »
... semisubmersibles have relatively small cross sections though the water line...
At sea, with a possibility of tipping, simply set the tank down low or even underwater and pressurize it.

Again, for a launch platform 5-miles offshore from Boca Chica Beach, the ocean is only 72 feet deep.

No need for a semi-submersible like SeaLaunch.  Use a fixed launch platform with a rigid structure attaching it directly to the sea floor.  No issue with weight changes tipping it over.

It might be most economical and practical to use 2 or more standard jack barges and place them adjacent to one another, to guarantee a safe distance for the propellant tanks, etc.

Offline Dave G

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3231
  • Liked: 2127
  • Likes Given: 2021
Re: SpaceX Texas launch site Discussion and Updates - Thread 6
« Reply #155 on: 10/21/2017 08:46 pm »
They may want it low or submerged to avoid weather issues or interference issues with the vehicle. It can't be positioned a decent distance away unless they build two platforms.

Not sure what you mean by weather issues.  If anything, a water tower would provide better lightning protection.

As for interference issues with the vehicle, remember that the whole BFR pad concept relies on pinpoint landings right back on the launch pad, which is right next to the launch tower/crane.

In fact, looking at the rendering of the offshore pad Elon presented at IAC, I'm starting to wonder if this is more than just notional.  Could the launch tower/gantry also serve as a water tower?  If the flame duct is somehow routed underwater, and assuming sound is not an issue for an offshore pad, how much deluge water would they need?

Offline StuffOfInterest

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 927
  • Just interested in space
  • McLean, Virginia, USA
  • Liked: 920
  • Likes Given: 231
Re: SpaceX Texas launch site Discussion and Updates - Thread 6
« Reply #156 on: 10/21/2017 09:55 pm »
Regarding all the hand-wringing about if SpaceX will pull out of Boca Chica, are they still buying property?  It seems like Dave G updates his maps every few weeks with new parcels being picked up by Dogleg Park.  I really don't see them pulling out.  At the most, SpaceX may alter the pad design a bit to allow handling launch mounts for both Falcon/Falcon-Heavy and the BFR.  Even if they never launch the BFR from the ground based pad, it won't cost them that much more to make the concrete structures able to accommodate it even if the support infrastructure is not all in place.

As for all of the talk about offshore platforms, except for those specifically about offshore at Boca Chica, that discussion seems to belong in the "BFR ASDS" thread over in the reusable rockets section.

Offline Comga

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 6466
  • Liked: 4572
  • Likes Given: 5136
Re: SpaceX Texas launch site Discussion and Updates - Thread 6
« Reply #157 on: 10/21/2017 10:29 pm »
I'm assuming a fixed offshore pad, not floating.  The ocean floor is shallow for miles off Boca Chica Beach.

To help quantify this, I Googled "map of ocean depths" and found this.
https://www.arcgis.com/home/webmap/viewer.html?webmap=5ae9e138a17842688b0b79283a4353f6

As an example, for a launch pad 5 miles offshore from Boca Chica Beach, the ocean is just 22 meters (72 feet) deep.

Always been a proponent of offshore launch, especially when we thought the BFR was a lot bigger than Nova class.  What's also interesting is look off the coast of Cape Canaveral where the depth of the shallow Chester Shoal is even less 10+ miles out.  Hmmmmm.

Anchoring a platform in shallow seas makes more economical sense than an exotic floating platform.  Such anchored platforms are called jackup rigs.  "The greatest water depth a jackup can drill in is 550 feet"  So, easy 100 foot or so rigs are on the "easy do" state of the art.

https://info.drillinginfo.com/offshore-rigs-primer-offshore-drilling/
 

Isn't that a jackup rig at the Port of Brownsville in the post three above yours?  The legs look way taller than 72'.


PS  I am really looking forward to this thread returning to news about construction at Boca Chica.  It's been a while.
What kind of wastrels would dump a perfectly good booster in the ocean after just one use?

Online mto

  • Member
  • Posts: 83
  • Alberta Canada
  • Liked: 22
  • Likes Given: 4424
Re: SpaceX Texas launch site Discussion and Updates - Thread 6
« Reply #158 on: 10/21/2017 11:21 pm »
PS  I am really looking forward to this thread returning to news about construction at Boca Chica.  It's been a while.
Me too. Maybe it's time for an updates only thread.

Offline IanThePineapple

PS  I am really looking forward to this thread returning to news about construction at Boca Chica.  It's been a while.
Me too. Maybe it's time for an updates only thread.

Yep, and with construction likely starting soon, we'll need 2 different threads to not drown out info with discussions

Tags:
 

Advertisement NovaTech
Advertisement Northrop Grumman
Advertisement
Advertisement Margaritaville Beach Resort South Padre Island
Advertisement Brady Kenniston
Advertisement NextSpaceflight
Advertisement Nathan Barker Photography
1