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 productionAnything else significant?
Quote from: Dave G on 10/12/2017 10:07 pmQuote from: Coastal Ron on 10/12/2017 09:37 pmAnother 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.
Quote from: Coastal Ron on 10/12/2017 09:37 pmAnother 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.
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.
Quote from: Coastal Ron on 10/12/2017 09:37 pmI 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 productionAnything else significant?- Add the cost of shipping thru the Panama Canal. That's a significant amount of money.
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.
Quote from: clongton on 10/13/2017 01:17 amQuote from: Coastal Ron on 10/12/2017 09:37 pmI 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 productionAnything else significant?- Add the cost of shipping thru the Panama Canal. That's a significant amount of money.They're proposing point to point transportation with these. Long term, if that even comes close to working out, they just need to ship to the nearest pad (presumably off the LA coast) and then fly to the others.
- Add the cost of shipping thru the Panama Canal. That's a significant amount of money.
My bet is that Gwynne Shotwell will be knocking on the door of whoever owns or leases the area where the Sea Launch plant is: HERE:
Quote from: speedevil on 10/12/2017 04:59 pmThe 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.QuotePlus, 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.Quote$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 productionAnything else significant?
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.
Plus, if you might want to wheel the rocket back into the factory to do major stuff to it, there are obvious savings.
$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.
From someone that lives and works in the area, if Elon thinks it's hard to drive to Hawthorn from his home in Brentwood, he's going to hate it, even more, driving further south to the LA Harbor area (add 30 more minutes). The additional drive to Seal Beach (to the area near where the old Rockwell Saturn second stage plant) would add an additional 30 min. Seal BeachMy bet is that Gwynne Shotwell will be knocking on the door of whoever owns or leases the area where the Sea Launch plant is: HERE:
SpaceX is not going to build an offshore launch facility just to fly the BFR to its launch facility.
Quote from: catdlr on 10/13/2017 03:05 amFrom someone that lives and works in the area, if Elon thinks it's hard to drive to Hawthorn from his home in Brentwood, he's going to hate it, even more, driving further south to the LA Harbor area (add 30 more minutes). The additional drive to Seal Beach (to the area near where the old Rockwell Saturn second stage plant) would add an additional 30 min. Seal BeachMy bet is that Gwynne Shotwell will be knocking on the door of whoever owns or leases the area where the Sea Launch plant is: HERE:Musk can afford a helicopter for that trip. Perhaps even for employees who need to shuttle back and forth from their sites.
They're proposing point to point transportation with these. Long term, if that even comes close to working out, they just need to ship to the nearest pad (presumably off the LA coast) and then fly to the others.
So is marina del ray not good for barges? It is the closest "port" to hawthorne. Link to Google MapsIt looks like it is all small pleasure boats and houses. The coast guard has a station there.
What's Google using the Spruce Goose facility for? Maybe they'd be willing to sell it to SpaceX?
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 productionAnything else significant?
