Where will BFR be built?

[philw1776]

Seal Beach National Wildlife Refuge has lots of empty land for a factory!

[Jim]

Seal Beach National Wildlife Refuge has lots of empty land for a factory!

that statement has mutually exclusive words.

[vaporcobra]

Seal Beach National Wildlife Refuge has lots of empty land for a factory!

that statement has mutually exclusive words.

Don't worry, the seals will be luxuriously paid off for their acquiescence.

[clongton]

Hmm. Shotwell's wording that the factory would be in LA on the water and close to the launch site seems to rule out Los Angeles being the "LA". ISTM that a better fit for "LA" would be Louisiana. It fits better the sense of what she was saying; on the water - near the launch site (Boca Chica) - in LA (Louisiana abbreviation). What am I missing? Los Angeles certainly fits with "on the water", but does not help with "near the launch site". The barge would have to go thru the Panama Canal to get to Boca Chica. A site in Louisiana (LA) is a better fit to what she said.

[kenny008]

Did she say the word, "LA", or was it just written that way?  Nobody calls Louisiana "LA", just like nobody identifies Washington State by saying "WA".

[envy887]

Hmm. Shotwell's wording that the factory would be in LA on the water and close to the launch site seems to rule out Los Angeles being the "LA". ISTM that a better fit for "LA" would be Louisiana. It fits better the sense of what she was saying; on the water - near the launch site (Boca Chica) - in LA (Louisiana abbreviation). What am I missing? Los Angeles certainly fits with "on the water", but does not help with "near the launch site". The barge would have to go thru the Panama Canal to get to Boca Chica. A site in Louisiana (LA) is a better fit to what she said.

No, she said they were looking to build near a port in LA now, and would have more manufacturing sites near the launch sites later.

[clongton]

Hmm. Shotwell's wording that the factory would be in LA on the water and close to the launch site seems to rule out Los Angeles being the "LA". ISTM that a better fit for "LA" would be Louisiana. It fits better the sense of what she was saying; on the water - near the launch site (Boca Chica) - in LA (Louisiana abbreviation). What am I missing? Los Angeles certainly fits with "on the water", but does not help with "near the launch site". The barge would have to go thru the Panama Canal to get to Boca Chica. A site in Louisiana (LA) is a better fit to what she said.

No, she said they were looking to build near a port in LA now, and would have more manufacturing sites near the launch sites later.

Yes they are looking to build in Los Angeles now, but this story (quoted up-thread) indicates that space is for receiving "recovered" items.
SpaceX wants to double its footprint at the port of Los Angeles
See the very first line in the story. It's clearly indicated why they want to build at the port. Doesn't have anything to do with the BFR. It's more for the recovered Dragon spacecraft as well as 1st stages launched from Vandenberg ("to park and handle recovered space equipment").

[envy887]

Hmm. Shotwell's wording that the factory would be in LA on the water and close to the launch site seems to rule out Los Angeles being the "LA". ISTM that a better fit for "LA" would be Louisiana. It fits better the sense of what she was saying; on the water - near the launch site (Boca Chica) - in LA (Louisiana abbreviation). What am I missing? Los Angeles certainly fits with "on the water", but does not help with "near the launch site". The barge would have to go thru the Panama Canal to get to Boca Chica. A site in Louisiana (LA) is a better fit to what she said.

No, she said they were looking to build near a port in LA now, and would have more manufacturing sites near the launch sites later.

Yes they are looking to build in Los Angeles now, but this story (quoted up-thread) indicates that space is for receiving "recovered" items.
SpaceX wants to double its footprint at the port of Los Angeles
See the very first line in the story. It's clearly indicated why they want to build at the port. Doesn't have anything to do with the BFR. It's more for the recovered Dragon spacecraft as well as 1st stages launched from Vandenberg ("to park and handle recovered space equipment").

Shotwell was pretty clear that they will likely build BFR first near the port of LA, and eventually near the launch sites:

Where will the BFR be built?
We're looking at building a facility by the water in LA. We thought we'd build it in our factory in Hawthorne, but we priced transport to the harbor, and it came out to $2.5m per trip. It would require taking down stoplights, and just wouldn't be worth it. So we will build a new facility by the water. We will eventually also have a number of production sites by out launch sites.

https://www.reddit.com/r/spacex/comments/75ufq9/interesting_items_from_gwynne_shotwells_talk_at/

(Note: not verbatim quote, but notes from audience. Emphasis mine.)

[clongton]

Hmm. Shotwell's wording that the factory would be in LA on the water and close to the launch site seems to rule out Los Angeles being the "LA". ISTM that a better fit for "LA" would be Louisiana. It fits better the sense of what she was saying; on the water - near the launch site (Boca Chica) - in LA (Louisiana abbreviation). What am I missing? Los Angeles certainly fits with "on the water", but does not help with "near the launch site". The barge would have to go thru the Panama Canal to get to Boca Chica. A site in Louisiana (LA) is a better fit to what she said.

No, she said they were looking to build near a port in LA now, and would have more manufacturing sites near the launch sites later.

Yes they are looking to build in Los Angeles now, but this story (quoted up-thread) indicates that space is for receiving "recovered" items.
SpaceX wants to double its footprint at the port of Los Angeles
See the very first line in the story. It's clearly indicated why they want to build at the port. Doesn't have anything to do with the BFR. It's more for the recovered Dragon spacecraft as well as 1st stages launched from Vandenberg ("to park and handle recovered space equipment").

Shotwell was pretty clear that they will likely build BFR first near the port of LA, and eventually near the launch sites:

Where will the BFR be built?
We're looking at building a facility by the water in LA. We thought we'd build it in our factory in Hawthorne, but we priced transport to the harbor, and it came out to $2.5m per trip. It would require taking down stoplights, and just wouldn't be worth it. So we will build a new facility by the water. We will eventually also have a number of production sites by out launch sites.

https://www.reddit.com/r/spacex/comments/75ufq9/interesting_items_from_gwynne_shotwells_talk_at/

(Note: not verbatim quote, but notes from audience. Emphasis mine.)

So thru the Panama Canal then?

[envy887]

So thru the Panama Canal then?

That seems the likely way to reach Brownsville from LA.

[Dave G]

It really depends on how much work is involved in manufacturing as opposed to final assembly. It could be that 80% of the value add is done at Hawthorne, and the final assembly and testing at a new location.

Yes, this has been my assumption all along, that the majority of BFR manufacturing would be in Hawthorne, but the the large structures and final assembly would be somewhere else, close to water.

[FinalFrontier]

Hmm. Shotwell's wording that the factory would be in LA on the water and close to the launch site seems to rule out Los Angeles being the "LA". ISTM that a better fit for "LA" would be Louisiana. It fits better the sense of what she was saying; on the water - near the launch site (Boca Chica) - in LA (Louisiana abbreviation). What am I missing? Los Angeles certainly fits with "on the water", but does not help with "near the launch site". The barge would have to go thru the Panama Canal to get to Boca Chica. A site in Louisiana (LA) is a better fit to what she said.

No, she said they were looking to build near a port in LA now, and would have more manufacturing sites near the launch sites later.

Yes they are looking to build in Los Angeles now, but this story (quoted up-thread) indicates that space is for receiving "recovered" items.
SpaceX wants to double its footprint at the port of Los Angeles
See the very first line in the story. It's clearly indicated why they want to build at the port. Doesn't have anything to do with the BFR. It's more for the recovered Dragon spacecraft as well as 1st stages launched from Vandenberg ("to park and handle recovered space equipment").

Shotwell was pretty clear that they will likely build BFR first near the port of LA, and eventually near the launch sites:

Where will the BFR be built?
We're looking at building a facility by the water in LA. We thought we'd build it in our factory in Hawthorne, but we priced transport to the harbor, and it came out to $2.5m per trip. It would require taking down stoplights, and just wouldn't be worth it. So we will build a new facility by the water. We will eventually also have a number of production sites by out launch sites.

https://www.reddit.com/r/spacex/comments/75ufq9/interesting_items_from_gwynne_shotwells_talk_at/

(Note: not verbatim quote, but notes from audience. Emphasis mine.)

So thru the Panama Canal then?

Panama canal transits are not cheap and for a custom cargo like this they are going to be spending an awful lot shipping these if that is what they end up doing.

Long term it would make alot more sense to build a factory next to the Texas launch facility and roll the things out. But perhaps for some reason they don't want to, or can't, do that yet.

It is doable but they are going to lose a chunk of change paying for that transit. It will have to be a Jones Act operator as well, I will be very interested to see who gets the contract for that. If I had to guess I would say Crowley or KSEA. 

[Dave G]

Panama canal transits are not cheap and for a custom cargo like this they are going to be spending an awful lot shipping these if that is what they end up doing.

Long term it would make alot more sense to build a factory next to the Texas launch facility and roll the things out. But perhaps for some reason they don't want to, or can't, do that yet.

It is doable but they are going to lose a chunk of change paying for that transit. It will have to be a Jones Act operator as well, I will be very interested to see who gets the contract for that. If I had to guess I would say Crowley or KSEA.

Shotwell already said they will build BFR manufacturing facilities near their launch sites, but that's longer term.

She said the first BFR manufacturing facility will be in Los Angeles, somewhere near water.  That will presumably allow BFR development engineers to regularly visit the initial BFR manufacturing facility, which should help to speed development.

So back to the original question: Where will BFR be built? 

We know it will be in Los Angeles, somewhere near water, but where?

The article quoted up-thread is interesting, but that site seems pretty focused on storing previously flown F9 first stages.  Would they have enough room to build BFR there?

[rsdavis9]

Has anybody considered what the sizes of the pieces of the composite structures are? Wasn't the tank shown as 2 haves (riveted?) together.
So maybe the biggest piece of this thing is not too big to airlift or transport on road.
Then of course assemble at LA port or boca chica.

[Coastal Ron]

The whole cost may be slightly more complex - for example, it's likely there would be possibly significant lag time between requesting approval for transport and it happening.

I wouldn't think this would be an issue. They would know what the production and test schedule is months in advance, and I'm sure they would only have to provide a reasonable amount of advance notice for the cities involved.

Plus, if you might want to wheel the rocket back into the factory to do major stuff to it, there are obvious savings.

An interesting thought, but because of the type of construction for the BFS & ITS (carbon composite outer construction) I doubt there would be any need to return a stage to the factory. Any repairs would be done in the field or they would make it into a hanger queen.

$2.5M once may not be an issue. $20M and a few extra months of slip for 4 back and forth trips might be quite a different matter.
The slip may be rather more important.

I tend to take SpaceX at face value with their public declarations, and I think they analyzed the pros and cons of building in Hawthorne vs a factory next to a dock, and with the number of vehicles they plan to make that the one-way cost of transport would end up being more expensive than building a new factory focused just on BFR & ITS vehicle construction.

For instance, if they build four BFR/ITS that would cost $10M to move them if they could build both at the same time and transport both at the same time, but I think it's more likely that they would build them serially, so transporting each BFR and ITS separately would cost $20M total.

Another advantage of building the BFR & ITS at another facility is that the Falcon 9 production line won't need to be interrupted, so the pressure on SpaceX for the transition would be lessened considerably - any failure of a BFR or ITS would not have a material impact on their ongoing Falcon 9 operations.

So building a new waterside factory nearby would:

- Save $2.5M in transport costs for each BFR and ITS built in Hawthorne
- Cost SpaceX more money to build a BFR and ITS production line since it would not use existing facilities
- Give SpaceX the ability to build Falcon 9's concurrently with BFR and ITS production

Anything else significant?

[Dave G]

Seal Beach National Wildlife Refuge has lots of empty land for a factory!

that statement has mutually exclusive words.

And yet, there does appear to be ample commercially zoned empty properties next to the wildlife refuge.

[Dave G]

Another advantage of building the BFR & ITS at another facility is that the Falcon 9 production line won't need to be interrupted, so the pressure on SpaceX for the transition would be lessened considerably - any failure of a BFR or ITS would not have a material impact on their ongoing Falcon 9 operations.

I believe there's no question that the majority of BFR manufacturing will occur at Hawthorne.  That includes Raptor engines, avionics, grid fins, basically any sub-assembly that can be road transported without much fuss.

So as they ramp down F9/FH production and ramp up BFR sub-assembly production at Hawthorne, I suspect they'll need a lot more floor space.  The newly acquired Triumph building may be used for that.

[Darkseraph]

Another advantage of building the BFR & ITS at another facility is that the Falcon 9 production line won't need to be interrupted, so the pressure on SpaceX for the transition would be lessened considerably - any failure of a BFR or ITS would not have a material impact on their ongoing Falcon 9 operations.

So building a new waterside factory nearby would:

- Save $2.5M in transport costs for each BFR and ITS built in Hawthorne
- Cost SpaceX more money to build a BFR and ITS production line since it would not use existing facilities
- Give SpaceX the ability to build Falcon 9's concurrently with BFR and ITS production

Anything else significant?

9 Meters Diameter will not be a contraint for future vehicles, if for some reason they feel the need to build bigger. But that is only a benefit in the very far future.

I can't say I'm all that surprised they are building BFR at a new facility with access to the water. That always seemed like a simpler, duller and more pragmatic solution than disrupting LA traffic or lifting with giant airships. The company is promising the giant leap of building infrastructire on another planet so the small step of just building rockets at a more practical location seems like a trivial cost in perspective. I presume much of subcomponents of the system will still be built at Hawthorne and integrated at the new facility so it still could share a large amount of resources with the current F9/Dragon lines without forcing abrupt shutdown of the current lines and tooling.

[Coastal Ron]

Another advantage of building the BFR & ITS at another facility is that the Falcon 9 production line won't need to be interrupted, so the pressure on SpaceX for the transition would be lessened considerably - any failure of a BFR or ITS would not have a material impact on their ongoing Falcon 9 operations.

I believe there's no question that the majority of BFR manufacturing will occur at Hawthorne.  That includes Raptor engines, avionics, grid fins, basically any sub-assembly that can be road transported without much fuss.

So as they ramp down F9/FH production and ramp up BFR sub-assembly production at Hawthorne, I suspect they'll need a lot more floor space.  The newly acquired Triumph building may be used for that.

If they were going to build the BFR and ITS at the existing Hawthorne building it looked like they would have needed to exit out of the end of the existing Falcon 9 production line - which means they would have needed to move the Falcon 9 production line or box it up. Building the major structures of the BFR and ITS at the new factory means that the Falcon 9 1st and 2nd stage production line does not need to move.

As for Raptor production that should be able to fit on existing or revamped Merlin production lines if they use some form of cell manufacturing. The same for the avionics and other in-house components. Remember they still have to support flying reusable Block 5 Falcon 9's, so adding BFR and ITS products into existing production lines would be advantageous.

[wannamoonbase]

Another advantage of building the BFR & ITS at another facility is that the Falcon 9 production line won't need to be interrupted, so the pressure on SpaceX for the transition would be lessened considerably - any failure of a BFR or ITS would not have a material impact on their ongoing Falcon 9 operations.

I believe there's no question that the majority of BFR manufacturing will occur at Hawthorne.  That includes Raptor engines, avionics, grid fins, basically any sub-assembly that can be road transported without much fuss.

So as they ramp down F9/FH production and ramp up BFR sub-assembly production at Hawthorne, I suspect they'll need a lot more floor space.  The newly acquired Triumph building may be used for that.

These are going to be huge structures and seems there is a fair amount of hand waving about how to move them from Hawthorne to a port. 
 
Components and sub assemblies could be made in Hawthorne and sent to a coastal assembly area, keeping many of the people and hours of work in existing facilities.

Land and buildings are relatively cheap compared to space ships.  Having a building that can load directly onto a barge will save time, money and greatly reduce handling risks.