Author Topic: New SpaceX Operations Complex at the Cape (Roberts Rd.) (Read 304044 times)

edzieba · « **Reply #340 on:** 01/06/2022 12:39 pm »

Quote from: Michel Van on 01/06/2022 08:41 am

The Roberts road facility is 12 km road away from launch complex 39A.

For production of Starship/Superheavy i see no problem
But transport to launch site and storage of launcher could be a Issue do distance.
Either they build a High Bay near LC-39A or lease VAB for Starship/Superheavy storage and maintenance.

Or just drive the 12km. SMPTs can drive much further than that without issue, and there's paved road all the way there. No reason to build a whole new building to rent time on one just to avoid an occasional ~2 hour trip.

DistantTemple · « **Reply #341 on:** 01/06/2022 05:28 pm »

Quote from: edzieba on 01/06/2022 12:39 pm

Quote from: Michel Van on 01/06/2022 08:41 am
The Roberts road facility is 12 km road away from launch complex 39A.

For production of Starship/Superheavy i see no problem
But transport to launch site and storage of launcher could be a Issue do distance.
Either they build a High Bay near LC-39A or lease VAB for Starship/Superheavy storage and maintenance.
Or just drive the 12km. SMPTs can drive much further than that without issue, and there's paved road all the way there. No reason to build a whole new building to rent time on one just to avoid an occasional ~2 hour trip.

SX's F9 transporter that was a Shuttle transporter, is based on the same SPMT engineering (although not modular sections) ANd it certainly seems to be much faster than the 2 or 3 mph we've seen at BC.

Some SPMT's can be towed, as if they are a trailer. In this mode, on a good surface an SS or SH could likely be moved much faster. Even 10mph with no delays would put the duration under an hour!

pyromatter · « **Reply #342 on:** 01/06/2022 05:31 pm »

https://twitter.com/baserunner0723/status/1479132376454336512

DaveS · « **Reply #343 on:** 01/06/2022 05:37 pm »

Quote from: DistantTemple on 01/06/2022 05:28 pm

Quote from: edzieba on 01/06/2022 12:39 pm
Quote from: Michel Van on 01/06/2022 08:41 am
The Roberts road facility is 12 km road away from launch complex 39A.

For production of Starship/Superheavy i see no problem
But transport to launch site and storage of launcher could be a Issue do distance.
Either they build a High Bay near LC-39A or lease VAB for Starship/Superheavy storage and maintenance.
Or just drive the 12km. SMPTs can drive much further than that without issue, and there's paved road all the way there. No reason to build a whole new building to rent time on one just to avoid an occasional ~2 hour trip.
SX's F9 transporter that was a Shuttle transporter, is based on the same SPMT engineering (although not modular sections) ANd it certainly seems to be much faster than the 2 or 3 mph we've seen at BC.

Orbiter Transporter System facts:

raivo45 · « **Reply #344 on:** 01/20/2022 09:33 am »

Nice aerial shots of the site in these 2 videos: (At around 9:30 in both videos.)

harrystranger · « **Reply #345 on:** 01/21/2022 08:42 am »

SpaceX has submitted plans for Roberts Road West that includes a 320,000 sq ft (29,728 sq m) proposed building, with a 192,000 sq ft (17,837 sq m) future proposed building expansion. Also included are two 20.4k sq ft (1895 sq m) proposed buildings.

In the last image below I overlaid the footprint of the main building over the Boca Chica construction site.

Link to permit: https://permitting.sjrwmd.com/ep/#/prmtInfo?curId=&hdr=1&usrId=0&offclId=157352&seqNo=10

Direct download link to engineering plans: https://permitting.sjrwmd.com/apps/idcplg?IdcService=GET_FILE&coreContentOnly=1&RevisionSelectionMethod=Latest&allowInterrupt=1&dDocName=EREG_7445793

EL_DIABLO · « **Reply #346 on:** 01/21/2022 10:31 am »

Could you overlay those two 20.4k sq ft (1895 sq m) proposed buildings with the high bay? Definitely looks like that is their intended purpose.

Crispy · « **Reply #347 on:** 01/21/2022 10:32 am »

320,000ft² (512,000ft² with the extension) is a *big* building! For comparison, the main factory building at Hawthorne is ~295,000ft²
The two additional buildings look about the right size for high bays, but I'm a bit puzzled about how a completed booster/ship gets off the site. All the roads are about 9m wide, which doesn't leave much room for error. The current booster cradle in use at Starbase is wider than that.
EDIT: I checked and the two additional buildings are exactly the same footprint as the new widebay, about 50x65m

edzieba · « **Reply #348 on:** 01/21/2022 12:46 pm »

Quote from: Crispy on 01/21/2022 10:32 am

I'm a bit puzzled about how a completed booster/ship gets off the site. All the roads are about 9m wide, which doesn't leave much room for error. The current booster cradle in use at Starbase is wider than that.

The road at Boca Chica is also narrower than Starship. It is, however, wide enough for the pair of SPMTs that carry it, and the transport rig simply overhangs sides of the road.

frederickm17 · « **Reply #349 on:** 01/21/2022 02:14 pm »

This is just an environmental resource permit to build the stormwater management system which is why additional details on the buildings/parking are not available. However, stormwater management is largely based on the intensity of development on the site, so the details on the building sizes should be close to the final plans. We should get more details from the subsequent permits they will need to submit applications for, similar to the process we saw on the east side of the site.

ajmarco · « **Reply #350 on:** 01/21/2022 05:27 pm »

Quote from: frederickm17 on 01/21/2022 02:14 pm

This is just an environmental resource permit to build the stormwater management system which is why additional details on the buildings/parking are not available. However, stormwater management is largely based on the intensity of development on the site, so the details on the building sizes should be close to the final plans. We should get more details from the subsequent permits they will need to submit applications for, similar to the process we saw on the east side of the site.

True, stormwater management design is from a development standpoint directly impacted by the amount of impervious coverage. So overall layout or structures and improvements is what needs to be provided. Beyond that you are going to want to look for plans submitted for building/zoning permits.

WiresMN · « **Reply #351 on:** 01/21/2022 05:49 pm »

I found it interesting that the plan lacks hardscape other than the parking lot. There appears to be no passage from the assembly building to the integration high bays... Other than going out through the parking lot and onto Roberts Rd. I would assume those would be included in any runoff calculations.
Edit: unless that is what the doted fields around the building are. A key would be handy.

Crispy · « **Reply #352 on:** 01/21/2022 05:55 pm »

Quote from: WiresMN on 01/21/2022 05:49 pm

I found it interesting that the plan lacks hardscape other than the parking lot. There appears to be no passage from the assembly building to the integration high bays... Other than going out through the parking lot and onto Roberts Rd. I would assume those would be included in any runoff calculations.
Edit: unless that is what the doted fields around the building are. A key would be handy.

There is a key. Top right on page 5. The dots+triangles is concrete

retrojet · « **Reply #353 on:** 01/21/2022 08:11 pm »

https://twitter.com/RaceOrbit/status/1484633122666950664?s=20

AmigaClone · « **Reply #354 on:** 01/21/2022 10:24 pm »

I suspect that the large building will have the appearance of a more conventional factory, with the bulk of the building being between the low bay and med bay in height. In fact, I can see a situation where the first sight of a new Starship or SS Booster would be when either the nose section or the tank section of the Starship or three segments of the SS Booster move from that building to one of the tall towers (somewhat taller than the high bay.

Hamish.Student · « **Reply #355 on:** 01/21/2022 10:55 pm »

Quote from: retrojet on 01/21/2022 08:11 pm

https://twitter.com/RaceOrbit/status/1484633122666950664?s=20

Would the building look like that, with the appearance being of tents? Id have thought it would be something more like Hangar X.

lykos · « **Reply #356 on:** 01/22/2022 09:10 am »

It is time for solid buildings like Tesla-factories. Tents are for testing things.

TorenAltair · « **Reply #357 on:** 01/22/2022 10:42 am »

Quote from: lykos on 01/22/2022 09:10 am

It is time for solid buildings like Tesla-factories. Tents are for testing things.

Like Tesla?

Quote

Tesla is making a big car-building tent in Fremont permanent

These are no camping tents, they *are* solid buildings.

StuffOfInterest · « **Reply #358 on:** 01/22/2022 10:51 am »

You could see the building have multiple heights. Start low on the west side where initial ring forming takes place. Move up to the level of the Mid Bay at the east end where sub-sections are stacked. Roll out of doors on the east side and over to the high bays for final stacking. That actually fits with the two phase build plan. First phase, and the larger section, would be the low portion while the second phase, on the east side, would be the high portion. Before the second phase is done, the dual high bays can be used for the stacking that would take place in the main building expansion.

oldAtlas_Eguy · « **Reply #359 on:** 01/22/2022 02:37 pm »

A difference between Florida and south Texas is the rainfall. To keep the activities from stalling due to rainfall almost every day in the summertime. Having all or almost all manufacturing activities inside is a good thing. This is needed for a steady production cadence.

Also from announcement of a building start to the building completion has been < 1 year. So this facility is likely to be up and manufacturing Starships Q3 2022. Since the Launch mount at 39A is likely to be completed at about that same time. A launch may occur from 39A by end of year 2022 with a Starship built at Roberts Road.

Things are accelerating.