Author Topic: Starship Manufacturing Facility in San Pedro (Los Angeles) (Read 161485 times)

Ronsmytheiii · « **Reply #20 on:** 03/19/2018 06:57 pm »

SpaceX has been at this awhile:

Quote

Ww Marine Composites, LLC is a California Domestic Limited-Liability Company filed on November 15, 2016 . The company's filing status is listed as Active and its File Number is 201632010085.

https://www.bizapedia.com/ca/ww-marine-composites-llc.html

Edit: and the address listed for the company is that for Sotheby's International Realty, so in the future look out for their address for new SpaceX shell companies.

JBF · « **Reply #21 on:** 03/19/2018 07:00 pm »

Quote from: AncientU on 03/19/2018 06:25 pm

BFR is to be ready for test flights by early 2019... BFS (prototype?) is being built now in Hawthorne.
16-18 month construction places these facilities at completion summer of next year.
I suspect that these facilities are for full production of BFR and BFS; the near the launch site idea must have been over-ridden by the location of the most qualified work force and qualified employment resource pool.
Significant additions to the SpaceX navy will be forthcoming.

Remember 16-18 months is for both phase 1 and 2.

Cheapchips · « **Reply #22 on:** 03/19/2018 07:01 pm »

It's only a $150,000 fee to go through the Panama canal. That'd be cheaper than employee relocation for some time to come.

There's more relevantly skilled potential employees in California.

Real reason is probably that it's closer to Elons house.

gongora · « **Reply #23 on:** 03/19/2018 07:01 pm »

Quote from: M.E.T. on 03/19/2018 06:42 pm

What makes California so much more appealing that a sea voyage around an entire continent is still not too high a price to pay for having your factory there?

It's very close to their main factory/engineering groups, and the barge trip isn't that high a price.

mme · « **Reply #24 on:** 03/19/2018 07:15 pm »

Quote from: Cheapchips on 03/19/2018 07:01 pm

It's only a $150,000 fee to go through the Panama canal. That'd be cheaper than employee relocation for some time to come.

There's more relevantly skilled potential employees in California.

Real reason is probably that it's closer to Elons house.

And Tom Mueller's house. And Gwynne Shotwell's house. And the houses of 6,000+ existing, working, trained and motivated employees.

And Musk loves to have production and engineering close together.

Nomadd · « **Reply #25 on:** 03/19/2018 07:23 pm »

Production facilities for the first few prototypes and facilities for building them by the dozen might be quite a bit different. They might want to get a little further down the development path before they design the main factory. Once they're mostly done with development and into routine production, headquarters being two or three thousand miles away won't be such a big deal.

M.E.T. · « **Reply #26 on:** 03/19/2018 07:27 pm »

Quote from: mme on 03/19/2018 07:15 pm

Quote from: Cheapchips on 03/19/2018 07:01 pm
It's only a $150,000 fee to go through the Panama canal. That'd be cheaper than employee relocation for some time to come.

There's more relevantly skilled potential employees in California.

Real reason is probably that it's closer to Elons house.
And Tom Mueller's house. And Gwynne Shotwell's house. And the houses of 6,000+ existing, working, trained and motivated employees.

And Musk loves to have production and engineering close together.

Ok, good points. But this leaves me with a question about refurbishment. Where are returned Falcon 9 cores currently refurbished? I assume they go back to the factory to have any required restoration work done. Now, I know the idea is that BFR won't need major refurbishment for hundreds of flights, but that is probably an end goal rather than an immediate achievement from day one.

So, when a BFR has just landed and unexpectedly needs an engine replaced, or some other significant repair work done, can that be done at the landing site over on the east coast? Or will it need to be shipped through the Panama canal back to the LA factory? And meanwhile the BFS is waiting up in orbit for its 5 fuel tankers to fill it up for its flight to Mars.

How would that scenario work?

noogie · « **Reply #27 on:** 03/19/2018 07:29 pm »

It will be interesting how much they will try to push for building a tunnel between the new site and Hawthorne.
I can see them wanting to regularly move people and material between the sites and I can't see them wanting to drive on the congested roads in between.
Anyone know what SpaceX's (and The Boring Company's) relationship with the city authorities is like?

FutureSpaceTourist · « **Reply #28 on:** 03/19/2018 07:39 pm »

Quote

Caught a glimpse of SpaceX’s upcoming Mars facility. @teslarati #SpaceX #BFR

https://twitter.com/w00ki33/status/975827841685377030

Edit to add: accompanying article

https://www.teslarati.com/spacexs-first-bfr-manufacturing-facility-approved-long-beach-port-la-photos/

noogie · « **Reply #29 on:** 03/19/2018 07:49 pm »

Quote from: M.E.T. on 03/19/2018 06:42 pm

Is there some reason why engineering talent would not want to live in Florida? Surely the need for the whole Panama canal trip adds a lot of extra cost and complexity to the entire process. Why not just keep your construction on the east coast, close to your various launch pads? Isn't that what Blue Origin is going to do with their New Glenn factory?

What makes California so much more appealing that a sea voyage around an entire continent is still not too high a price to pay for having your factory there?

I suspect the software engineering talent is important here. In LA, you have access to an ecosystem of computing talent that is hard to find at the other prospective manufacturing sites.

Ronsmytheiii · « **Reply #30 on:** 03/19/2018 07:57 pm »

Quote from: Nomadd on 03/19/2018 07:23 pm

Production facilities for the first few prototypes and facilities for building them by the dozen might be quite a bit different. They might want to get a little further down the development path before they design the main factory. Once they're mostly done with development and into routine production, headquarters being two or three thousand miles away won't be such a big deal.

Seems like the plan:

Quote from: jpo234 on 03/19/2018 03:03 pm

Operations would involve development and manufacture of prototypes and first generation vessels within the proposed building. The facility would also establish the development processes prior to implementing production on a larger scale, which would not be accommodated in the proposed facility

Kansan52 · « **Reply #31 on:** 03/19/2018 08:08 pm »

How many will they build? F9 is likely to top out at fewer than a hundred because reuse means the Block 5s will take over.

So my guess, maybe 10 in the first generation. Maybe they have looked at the numbers and realize there won't be the need for more than one plant.

Coastal Ron · « **Reply #32 on:** 03/19/2018 08:17 pm »

Quote from: M.E.T. on 03/19/2018 06:42 pm

Is there some reason why engineering talent would not want to live in Florida? Surely the need for the whole Panama canal trip adds a lot of extra cost and complexity to the entire process. Why not just keep your construction on the east coast, close to your various launch pads? Isn't that what Blue Origin is going to do with their New Glenn factory?

What makes California so much more appealing that a sea voyage around an entire continent is still not too high a price to pay for having your factory there?

Lots of great answers to this already, and I'll add "SPEED" to it. They are already shifting existing resources from Falcon 9/H and other programs over to BFR/BFS, and those people don't even need to move their desk in order to start that work.

The construction phase will eventually require personnel to relocate from Hawthorne down to the Port of Los Angeles, but that isn't far, and it's still easy to shift personnel around between all their other projects.

Once they understand what they really want to build, and how they really want to build it, then yes, Musk has already talked about setting up a factory near the launch site. But they don't know that yet, which means they don't know what type of personnel they need yet - so it's cheaper and faster to just do the work locally. Shipping is cheap in comparison.

AbuSimbel · « **Reply #33 on:** 03/19/2018 08:23 pm »

Quote from: Ronsmytheiii on 03/19/2018 07:57 pm

Quote from: Nomadd on 03/19/2018 07:23 pm
Production facilities for the first few prototypes and facilities for building them by the dozen might be quite a bit different. They might want to get a little further down the development path before they design the main factory. Once they're mostly done with development and into routine production, headquarters being two or three thousand miles away won't be such a big deal.
Seems like the plan:

Quote from: jpo234 on 03/19/2018 03:03 pm
Operations would involve development and manufacture of prototypes and first generation vessels within the proposed building. The facility would also establish the development processes prior to implementing production on a larger scale, which would not be accommodated in the proposed facility

Yeah; my guess is that the announced 'start of production' for the first prototype ship refers to components they're building in Hawthorne (maybe something is moving for prop tanks at Janicki too) and they plan to assemble it in the 'Phase I' building when it's completed.

As for boosters, subsequent spacecraft prototypes and first production versions I think the 'Phase II' facility could suffice for a while even into operational flights. It's likely they're aiming at relatively high reusability right from the first production vehicle, so low production levels would be enough initially. Then they may build bigger facilities closer to the launch sites.

speedevil · « **Reply #34 on:** 03/19/2018 08:25 pm »

Quote from: Kansan52 on 03/19/2018 08:08 pm

How many will they build? F9 is likely to top out at fewer than a hundred because reuse means the Block 5s will take over.

So my guess, maybe 10 in the first generation. Maybe they have looked at the numbers and realize there won't be the need for more than one plant.

The first generation is (if it is intended to support 2022 Mars cargo launches) going to need at least three 'Mars class' BFS, and a couple of boosters, in order to be able to do the mission while losing one.

You'd probably want at a bare minimum one extra BFS, so you can lose one, and still do earth-sat service.
Tankers would be nice, and they may slightly reduce the number of launches, but they aren't urgent.

(assumes about daily flights of the booster is possible, and boiloff is tractably under lift rate of fuel).

There is really little need for more than ten, at least until Mars-crew, unless it turns out for some reason that reusability is fundamentally impossible, P2P takes off, or someone actually funds the Moon.

Starlink looks 'tiny' if you consider it as a launch a satellite plane a week, if you can actually rapidly refurbish.

philw1776 · « **Reply #35 on:** 03/19/2018 08:28 pm »

~30 minute drive for Hawthorne design engineers. Or SpaceX could get a helicopter or 2 for design engineers to get to the mfg facility like DEC did when I was there.
Hawthorne could still mfg Raptor engines & stuff with final assembly, system integration and pre-test at the Port facility.
Port makes it easy to get big ass composite tanks from Seattle if that's still the plan which I think it is.

I'd reconsider going back closer to 12m* diameter with this facility. But I guess Elon just likes his rockets & women tall and slim.

* I do NOT mean the 2016 IAC design. The 2017 IAC is a much better approach. I do mean a more squat vehicle.

AncientU · « **Reply #36 on:** 03/19/2018 08:29 pm »

Quote from: gongora on 03/19/2018 07:01 pm

Quote from: M.E.T. on 03/19/2018 06:42 pm
What makes California so much more appealing that a sea voyage around an entire continent is still not too high a price to pay for having your factory there?

It's very close to their main factory/engineering groups, and the barge trip isn't that high a price.

I don't think the skill set of the workforce in Florida is as appropriate for this construction as that in California and Washington.

And the sea voyage is just for the reusable hardware... not repeated for every launch.

meberbs · « **Reply #37 on:** 03/19/2018 08:47 pm »

I would expect that the very first prototypes will be started in the tent that was noticed upthread. This new facility will take some time to get up and running, I'd guess maybe end of the year for the phase 1, which would seem too late for their current plans for hops in the first half of next year.

The times in the application assume phase 1 and 2 done at the same time to estimate worst case construction activity, but in reality it will probably be a while before they actually do the expansion. Maybe they will build a couple more prototype ships, and maybe a prototype booster to better plan the full facility.

I think some people are forgetting that at least for a while it seems that tanks will be built in Washington, so it would be a lot harder to set up "at launch site" manufacturing until things are really moving. Port of LA is just a stop on the way for the tanks, so it doesn't add around the continent trips, maybe even means a smaller number of trips (compared to moving each tank separately).

Also not sure why some people are suggesting revisiting the design diameter, they knew when they did the IAC 2017 that they would probably end up building by the water in LA, so that shouldn't be reason enough to revisit that trade.

Michael Baylor · « **Reply #38 on:** 03/19/2018 11:49 pm »

My map has been updated.

View it here

Brovane · « **Reply #39 on:** 03/19/2018 11:55 pm »

Quote from: M.E.T. on 03/19/2018 06:42 pm

Quote from: AncientU on 03/19/2018 06:25 pm
Quote from: wannamoonbase on 03/19/2018 05:54 pm
Well this is exciting news isn't it?

Since they are moving assembly outside of the Hawthorne facility I think it makes sense to revisit the diameter.

Go for the wider and shorter vehicle for thermal efficiency on the tanks.

Maybe EM is just leaving room for BFR2 down the road.

Edit: it will be interesting to see if this site gets more construction attention than the BC launch site.

BC is to be ready for test flights by early 2019... BFS (prototype?) is being built now in Hawthorne.
16-18 month construction places these facilities at completion summer of next year.
I suspect that these facilities are for full production of BFR and BFS; the near the launch site idea must have been over-ridden by the location of the most qualified work force and qualified employment resource pool.
Significant additions to the SpaceX navy will be forthcoming.

Is there some reason why engineering talent would not want to live in Florida? Surely the need for the whole Panama canal trip adds a lot of extra cost and complexity to the entire process. Why not just keep your construction on the east coast, close to your various launch pads? Isn't that what Blue Origin is going to do with their New Glenn factory?

What makes California so much more appealing that a sea voyage around an entire continent is still not too high a price to pay for having your factory there?

By locating the BFR production at the LA Port SpaceX can easily move employees between the Port and Hawthorne site as needed. SpaceX doesn't need to pay for relocation or deal with the inevitable relocation costs for moving employees to Florida. A lot of employees had been drawn to SpaceX to work on a Mars spacecraft and have been busy for the last several years perfecting the F9. Now that this process is in its final phase those same resources can be shifted over to the BFR.

Southern California has always been a hotbed of Aerospace. Both the Saturn-V and S-II and S-IV stages built in Southern California. The Apollo Command Module and Space Shuttle built in Southern California. Lockheed Skunkwork's is located in Southern CA and they have turned out a slew of highly advanced aircraft. The B-1, B-2 and now the B-21 Bomber build in Southern CA.

Dan Rasky NASA - Build where the Talent resides -