I doubt they're trying to slip a whole new class of rocket in with a line vaguely referring to suborbital tests.
If they are lucky they might even get methane
“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.
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.
Quote from: Dave G on 10/20/2017 11:24 pmFor 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.
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?
Quote from: Dave G on 10/20/2017 09:55 pmI'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=5ae9e138a17842688b0b79283a4353f6As an example, for a launch pad 5 miles offshore from Boca Chica Beach, the ocean is just 22 meters (72 feet) deep.
I'm assuming a fixed offshore pad, not floating. The ocean floor is shallow for miles off Boca Chica Beach.
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.
They did spend about $3 million on the highway.
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.
Quote from: IainMcClatchie on 10/20/2017 09:39 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.
... semisubmersibles have relatively small cross sections though the water line...
Quote from: starsilk on 10/21/2017 05:59 pmQuote from: IainMcClatchie on 10/20/2017 09:39 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.
Quote from: Dave G on 10/20/2017 10:33 pmQuote from: Dave G on 10/20/2017 09:55 pmI'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=5ae9e138a17842688b0b79283a4353f6As 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/
PS I am really looking forward to this thread returning to news about construction at Boca Chica. It's been a while.
Quote from: Comga on 10/21/2017 10:29 pmPS 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.