Roll on an SPMT to the industrial area south of the Brownsville canal and then load on a barge.They need to close more roads but that should still be easier than anything involving flight.
SpaceX seems to have other plans for Roberts Road, almost all of us are sure that inside this big facility they will bring some production stuff for Starship, also, surely SpaceX could be planning full production of the vehicles at KSC and not rely on flights from Boca Chica.I think the likelihood of SpaceX getting their vehicles from Boca Chica to KSC either by air, land or sea is diminishing as we see more and more construction plans at KSC.
Quote from: Conexion Espacial on 01/25/2022 08:48 pmSpaceX seems to have other plans for Roberts Road, almost all of us are sure that inside this big facility they will bring some production stuff for Starship, also, surely SpaceX could be planning full production of the vehicles at KSC and not rely on flights from Boca Chica.I think the likelihood of SpaceX getting their vehicles from Boca Chica to KSC either by air, land or sea is diminishing as we see more and more construction plans at KSC.The whole discussion seems to fail on the lack of understanding the full scale of what SpaceX intends to do in terms of SS/SH production. It's a big step away from single digit per month production. They likely will need multiple facilities going flat out to meet the full number of vehicles that they intend to produce.Secondarily, the discussion fails on the handling of recovered vehicles as well. There will be a bunch of them if SpaceX plans succeed. There will be a need to house/process/maintain the fleet. A big step towards the airline type model where a limited number of factories keep cranking out vehicles. The vehicles are then maintained away from the factory and closer to points of use.I do expect vehicles to be produced, flown and then recovered to a location other than build site. SS in particular will have a lot of flexibility in this regard. Getting produced vehicles-particularly boosters- out to offshore platforms does seem to imply that an initial hop for a new booster might go from build site to offshore platform as a standard practice.At the build cost they are shooting for it's hard to imagine that the other transit options don't introduce a major cost penalty to the operational system. Perhaps build, checkout, static fire, hop, recovery, and only then an operational (stacked) launch for a new booster- one that is then flight proven via an initial hop.
The skin of the SLS core stage is so thin that the boosters cannot lift it from the bottom at launch. The booster thrust is transferred into an upper thrust beam at the top of the core stage. Nevertheless, the pressurized SLS core is transported horizontally via the Pegasus barge.I do not understand why a pressurized SH or SS could not also be transported in like manner. Many here claim that they cannot, but I have not yet read an explanation that fully explains why.
It would rely on constant pressurization, but more importantly it would require a massive crane at both ends of the trip and enormous specialty jigs for safely rotating it. It would also make otherwise accessible routes impossible due to the massive turning radius it would have. What problem is transporting it horizontal even trying to solve? It won't fit under powerlines or overpasses vertical or horizontal, so it doesn't make any otherwise inaccessible routes possible.
Quote from: DreamyPickle on 01/25/2022 04:22 pmRoll on an SPMT to the industrial area south of the Brownsville canal and then load on a barge.They need to close more roads but that should still be easier than anything involving flight.No road closures needed at all, just as there are no road closures for SPMT moves to/from the launch site. Heck of a potential traffic backup behind a slow moving wide load (port traffic would need to divert to the north access), but no road closures. SpaceX already contract Roll-Lift, whose bread and butter is moving over land and over ocean objects far larger and FAR heavier than super heavy or Starship. Even if you added the constraint of upright transportation they could get vehicles from Brownsville port to LC-39A via the Turning Basin without any major difficulty. That makes transport of vehicles from BC to LC-39A a COTS service that can be purchased rather than some new capability to develop. That puts it far ahead of "just fly the vehicles suborbitally" as if that didn't require an entire new legislative regime to handle, which is just as likely to have the same requirements to meet as orbital launches. Or in other words: if you can get a license for X suborbital BC-to-cape transport flights per year, and X>5, you are equally placed to get a license for X orbital launches from BC per year and eliminate the whole vehicle transport step altogether. Turning that one suborbital flights into multiple ones (BC to platform, platform to destination, possibly with more than one platform in between) makes the process even more complex and expensive in terms of administrative overhead and adds the costs of building and operating one or more platforms - and requires said platforms to be ready to catch, re-load propellants, and launch vehicles, while they are instead currently in mothballs without even the demo work completed yet. Remember that the '5 launches per year' figure is not some immutable hard limit chiselled into a stone tablet and cast into the base of launch mount. If you're thinking "But that would require a WR to the current EA!" when it comes to applying for a license for additional launches, so would ferry flights, as those are not mentioned in the EA either.
Quote from: DreamyPickle on 01/25/2022 04:22 pmRoll on an SPMT to the industrial area south of the Brownsville canal and then load on a barge.They need to close more roads but that should still be easier than anything involving flight.Are you assuming a horizontal move or a vertical move?That is a distance of 16 miles by road. the move would take about 8 hours at 2 mph, which is probably the average speed. 4 mph is a brisk walk and I don't think they usually go that fast. They would need to do this at least once a week if my production rate guesstimate is correct.
Quote from: DanClemmensen on 01/25/2022 04:30 pmQuote from: DreamyPickle on 01/25/2022 04:22 pmRoll on an SPMT to the industrial area south of the Brownsville canal and then load on a barge.They need to close more roads but that should still be easier than anything involving flight.Are you assuming a horizontal move or a vertical move?That is a distance of 16 miles by road. the move would take about 8 hours at 2 mph, which is probably the average speed. 4 mph is a brisk walk and I don't think they usually go that fast. They would need to do this at least once a week if my production rate guesstimate is correct.Don't discount using rail for something like this.If they could get permission to build a narrow-gauge rail line from their manufacturing facility to the canal (along the road verge typically) they could easily achieve horizontal relocation to a barge without any interruption to major roads and population at their own pace (certainly more than 2mph). Electric engines are a thing too, so it could be as green as they want it to be.
What is the point of shipping them from BC to KSC? It seems quite clear to me they'll manufacture locally in KSC.
Why not use a hoverbarge to get it out of the estuary? It's not new technology and doesn't need a channel. The oil industry is familiar with them.http://www.hovertranssolutions.com/
Quote from: EL_DIABLO on 01/26/2022 09:31 pmWhat is the point of shipping them from BC to KSC? It seems quite clear to me they'll manufacture locally in KSC.My question is about shipping from BC. If there is no way to ship from BC, then why are they building a factory in BC? Do you think the BC factory will be abandoned? If the BC factory is merely a prototype to be abandoned, then why are they expanding it?
Quote from: ninjaneer on 01/26/2022 09:57 pmWhy not use a hoverbarge to get it out of the estuary? It's not new technology and doesn't need a channel. The oil industry is familiar with them.http://www.hovertranssolutions.com/Very interesting. Where would this vehicle come onshore and how would it get to a location where an SS or SH be loaded?
Quote from: DanClemmensen on 01/26/2022 10:00 pmQuote from: ninjaneer on 01/26/2022 09:57 pmWhy not use a hoverbarge to get it out of the estuary? It's not new technology and doesn't need a channel. The oil industry is familiar with them.http://www.hovertranssolutions.com/Very interesting. Where would this vehicle come onshore and how would it get to a location where an SS or SH be loaded?They usually just go up a beach, but they tend to deliver things that are not tall. If they can deal with the tipping angle, just pulling up over the beach then hovering down the road would be easiest...
Quote from: Asteroza on 01/26/2022 10:10 pmQuote from: DanClemmensen on 01/26/2022 10:00 pmQuote from: ninjaneer on 01/26/2022 09:57 pmWhy not use a hoverbarge to get it out of the estuary? It's not new technology and doesn't need a channel. The oil industry is familiar with them.http://www.hovertranssolutions.com/Very interesting. Where would this vehicle come onshore and how would it get to a location where an SS or SH be loaded?They usually just go up a beach, but they tend to deliver things that are not tall. If they can deal with the tipping angle, just pulling up over the beach then hovering down the road would be easiest...I meant where, specifically, near the BC factory is this technically possible and also permitted for a hovercraft of this size?
Quote from: TomH on 01/26/2022 06:20 amThe skin of the SLS core stage is so thin that the boosters cannot lift it from the bottom at launch. The booster thrust is transferred into an upper thrust beam at the top of the core stage. Nevertheless, the pressurized SLS core is transported horizontally via the Pegasus barge.I do not understand why a pressurized SH or SS could not also be transported in like manner. Many here claim that they cannot, but I have not yet read an explanation that fully explains why.It would rely on constant pressurization, but more importantly it would require a massive crane at both ends of the trip and enormous specialty jigs for safely rotating it. It would also make otherwise accessible routes impossible due to the massive turning radius it would have. What problem is transporting it horizontal even trying to solve? It won't fit under powerlines or overpasses vertical or horizontal, so it doesn't make any otherwise inaccessible routes possible.
Quote from: robot_enthusiast on 01/26/2022 10:14 amQuote from: TomH on 01/26/2022 06:20 amThe skin of the SLS core stage is so thin that the boosters cannot lift it from the bottom at launch. The booster thrust is transferred into an upper thrust beam at the top of the core stage. Nevertheless, the pressurized SLS core is transported horizontally via the Pegasus barge.I do not understand why a pressurized SH or SS could not also be transported in like manner. Many here claim that they cannot, but I have not yet read an explanation that fully explains why.It would rely on constant pressurization, but more importantly it would require a massive crane at both ends of the trip and enormous specialty jigs for safely rotating it. It would also make otherwise accessible routes impossible due to the massive turning radius it would have. What problem is transporting it horizontal even trying to solve? It won't fit under powerlines or overpasses vertical or horizontal, so it doesn't make any otherwise inaccessible routes possible.This makes little sense. The SLS core is almost as big as SH, yet there is no problem. Look at how much infrastructure SX has already built. Why are a couple of cranes and a few jigs problematic?Why are you talking about power lines, turning radii, and overpasses? There is no need to roll the thing to Brownsville. You just build a dock at BC and transport it to FL on open water.
Why are you talking about power lines, turning radii, and overpasses? There is no need to roll the thing to Brownsville. You just build a dock at BC and transport it to FL on open water.
I have never been to BC, but when I look at a map, I cannot find a place to build a dock. All of the commentary about a dock has been about a location about 16 miles away on the ship channel near Brownsville. To the north of BC there is a big wetland between the ship channel and BC and that wetland is a wildlife sanctuary. To the south, the Rio Grande is non navigable. To the east, the beach is directly on the gulf and I don't think anyone will will be able to get permission for a dock there for a whole lot of reasons.
I would think that BC could pump out sub assemblies ready for stacking easier and faster than trying to come up with the infrastructure for moving a completed SH or SS. Assembling a High bay does not appear to take long if you have ordered it ahead of time. It is also not too hard to peel off some of the BC workforce to get things started. They could have this all completed long before there is a pad or integration tower.
Quote from: DanClemmensen on 01/27/2022 05:59 amI have never been to BC, but when I look at a map, I cannot find a place to build a dock. All of the commentary about a dock has been about a location about 16 miles away on the ship channel near Brownsville. To the north of BC there is a big wetland between the ship channel and BC and that wetland is a wildlife sanctuary. To the south, the Rio Grande is non navigable. To the east, the beach is directly on the gulf and I don't think anyone will will be able to get permission for a dock there for a whole lot of reasons.They are wetlands but not a wildlife sanctuary.
<snip>OK, back to the original question: How will SpaceX ship SH and SS this year? building a dock at BC will require dredging a channel from the ship channel through the mud flat, and this will require all sorts of permits and approvals. Has anyone seen any evidence that such an approval process has been started?
Quote from: EL_DIABLO on 01/27/2022 09:14 amQuote from: DanClemmensen on 01/27/2022 05:59 amI have never been to BC, but when I look at a map, I cannot find a place to build a dock. All of the commentary about a dock has been about a location about 16 miles away on the ship channel near Brownsville. To the north of BC there is a big wetland between the ship channel and BC and that wetland is a wildlife sanctuary. To the south, the Rio Grande is non navigable. To the east, the beach is directly on the gulf and I don't think anyone will will be able to get permission for a dock there for a whole lot of reasons.They are wetlands but not a wildlife sanctuary.OK, back to the original question: How will SpaceX ship SH and SS this year? building a dock at BC will require dredging a channel from the ship channel through the mud flat, and this will require all sorts of permits and approvals. Has anyone seen any evidence that such an approval process has been started?
With the permits they have they cant launch the full stack. But what about hopping starship out to a barge waiting off the coast then taking it to florida on the barge? For super heavy they would need to hop it to one of the platforms, then transfer it to a barge for transport to florida.
Quote from: DanClemmensen on 01/27/2022 02:56 pm<snip>OK, back to the original question: How will SpaceX ship SH and SS this year? building a dock at BC will require dredging a channel from the ship channel through the mud flat, and this will require all sorts of permits and approvals. Has anyone seen any evidence that such an approval process has been started?No need to dredge. Just beached a barge at high tide at the beach at the end of highway 4. Load the Starship or the Super Heavy onto the barge with a crane during the following low tide. Float the barge out at the next high tide maybe with the help of tugs along with dumping ballast water. Of course a temporary roadway extension of Highway 4 is required for the crane and the Starship transporter.
Quote from: DanClemmensen on 01/27/2022 02:56 pmQuote from: EL_DIABLO on 01/27/2022 09:14 amQuote from: DanClemmensen on 01/27/2022 05:59 amI have never been to BC, but when I look at a map, I cannot find a place to build a dock. All of the commentary about a dock has been about a location about 16 miles away on the ship channel near Brownsville. To the north of BC there is a big wetland between the ship channel and BC and that wetland is a wildlife sanctuary. To the south, the Rio Grande is non navigable. To the east, the beach is directly on the gulf and I don't think anyone will will be able to get permission for a dock there for a whole lot of reasons.They are wetlands but not a wildlife sanctuary.OK, back to the original question: How will SpaceX ship SH and SS this year? building a dock at BC will require dredging a channel from the ship channel through the mud flat, and this will require all sorts of permits and approvals. Has anyone seen any evidence that such an approval process has been started?- Dock at Brownsville port: check, already leased on south side near the new South Port Connector Road- South Port Connector Road: mostly check, was due to be opened at the end of 2021- Boca Chica Blvd.: also check, still exists, runs from junction with South Port Connector Road straight to the manufacturing site- Contract with company specialising with moving large heavy objects over land and sea: Check. Roll-lift do that as their bread and butter, and their SPMTs have been moving Starships and Super Heavies for years now- Water access to LC-39 from either the Atlantic or the Intracoastal Waterway: check. route is via Port Canaveral all the way to the turning basin, where a dock already exists for offloading large rocket bodies.- Road access from the turning basin to LC-39A: Check, Saturn Causeway was resurfaced recently, and stretches alongside the Crawler way all around to the far side of LC-39A, bypassing the HIF blocking the ramp the the main pad. No need for new docks, hovercraft, wetland dredging, etc, the route already exists.
Quote from: Zed_Noir on 01/27/2022 03:28 pmQuote from: DanClemmensen on 01/27/2022 02:56 pm<snip>OK, back to the original question: How will SpaceX ship SH and SS this year? building a dock at BC will require dredging a channel from the ship channel through the mud flat, and this will require all sorts of permits and approvals. Has anyone seen any evidence that such an approval process has been started?No need to dredge. Just beached a barge at high tide at the beach at the end of highway 4. Load the Starship or the Super Heavy onto the barge with a crane during the following low tide. Float the barge out at the next high tide maybe with the help of tugs along with dumping ballast water. Of course a temporary roadway extension of Highway 4 is required for the crane and the Starship transporter.Beaching a barge on a protected beach is likely to be a problem. I assume the beach is protected as a turtle nesting area. Am I wrong?
It seems a lot of the "just make a few modifications!" ideas are missing two underlying issues:1) Environmental studies take a long time to finish.2) The population will tolerate a fair amount of change, but half of the people on the gulf coast are environmentalists and the other half are conservationists. It's like a Voltron of anger when they work together.
Possible methods: *launch to orbit. Works for ship but not for the booster, and (apparently) to be licensed for only 5 per year *suborbital "hop". Works for both ship and booster, but no evidence for a landing site under construction anywhere except BC *Phobos and Deimos are candidates but no evidence that they are being built out for this yet. *barge. No evidence for any construction of a dock, and the nearest candidate is about 16 miles away. *use a hovercraft over the beach. That's a big hovercraft. No evidence that SpaceX is looking for such a craft.
Quote from: DanClemmensen on 01/27/2022 03:41 pmQuote from: Zed_Noir on 01/27/2022 03:28 pmQuote from: DanClemmensen on 01/27/2022 02:56 pm<snip>OK, back to the original question: How will SpaceX ship SH and SS this year? building a dock at BC will require dredging a channel from the ship channel through the mud flat, and this will require all sorts of permits and approvals. Has anyone seen any evidence that such an approval process has been started?No need to dredge. Just beached a barge at high tide at the beach at the end of highway 4. Load the Starship or the Super Heavy onto the barge with a crane during the following low tide. Float the barge out at the next high tide maybe with the help of tugs along with dumping ballast water. Of course a temporary roadway extension of Highway 4 is required for the crane and the Starship transporter.Beaching a barge on a protected beach is likely to be a problem. I assume the beach is protected as a turtle nesting area. Am I wrong?Surely not the entire beach. Just the turtle nesting area, otherwise no one will be allow on the beach during the turtle hatching season.
Quote from: EL_DIABLO on 01/26/2022 09:31 pmWhat is the point of shipping them from BC to KSC? It seems quite clear to me they'll manufacture locally in KSC.Eventually, yes. But it's going to take time to both build up the infrastructure to build vehicles in, the supply chains to provide parts and material, and to hire and train the standing army to work there. On the other hand, BC has been doing that for years.On the launch site site, LC-39A is cleared for build and has little prospect of not receiving a launch license once applied (FONSI already in hand), and no state-mandated public access concerns to limit flight rates. It also sits in the middle of an established orbital launch complex with existing range safety, tracking, telemetry, support personnel, etc, in place and a well-oiled machine for supporting Falcon 9 launches. LOX tankage is already present, so only LCH4 tankage needs to be built out (and at the BC launch site, it's possible that the LCH4 tankage built may need repair or replacement before it can be activated). Construction is actively under way, though of course the BC site has the advantage of construction mostly being complete. The upshot is a few months down the road there is the prospect of having a production site in Texas pumping out vehicles but unable to fly them, and a launch site in Florida ready to fly vehicles but with the nearby factory not yet ready. In that situation, a no-up-front-cost option (literally, until you call up Roll-lift and stamp out a contract you are not putting any money down on assets like enormous floating launch complexes) to get ships at A to the launch site at B is a no-brainer. When it comes to 'hop transport', there are to big barriers: first, the enormous cost of building both the floating launch complexes themselves (when looking at X, and then X-but-on-a-ship, the X-but-on-a-ship will probably have an extra zero stuck on the end of the price tag) and the supply chain to get propellants to them, they are hardly less vulnerable to permitting than any other launch site. A launch license will still need to be issues, so an environmental assessment will still need to be conducted, and you're back to square one in terms of timeline even if you ignore the time needed to build out the platforms themselves. "But they're only short hops"/"but the propellant load is small" etc do not matter one jot: the launch license for Astra's Rocket 3 and for Starship Super Heavy are the same launch license. And with the low flight rates (even the most optimistic annual rates for full-bore Starship are well below even private aviation let alone commercial) and a wholesale revamp of launch licensing just having been concluded, that situation is not likely to change any time soon.
As I mentioned in a previous reply I don't think there are any plans to ship anything anywhere anytime soon. What is made in BC will launch from BC and what is made in KSC will launch from KSC. Long term when the off shore platforms will be ready I think they will hop them. If that for whatever reason cannot be done they will be barged out, with edzieba's option being more likely, though I'd like the idea of a channel being dredged in the south bay (environmentalists probably less so). I mostly threw it out to discuss how feasible it would be to get permissions to do so.Obviously they are just my 0.02 cents, I could be wrong.
Surely not the entire beach. Just the turtle nesting area, otherwise no one will be allow on the beach during the turtle hatching season.
The Mil Mi-26 can carry about 1/4 of a starship by mass. It's probably as loud as a launch, too.
Quote from: ninjaneer on 01/27/2022 05:52 pm The Mil Mi-26 can carry about 1/4 of a starship by mass. It's probably as loud as a launch, too.Wildly inaccurate, multiple orders of magnitude difference. I was in the VIP stands when Apollo 13 launched. From 3 miles away my ears ached and the vibrations pounded through my torso like it was a sheet of paper. The amount of energy being released by that chopper is a minuscule fraction of that being burned in a SHLV.
Quote from: TomH on 01/27/2022 08:41 pmQuote from: ninjaneer on 01/27/2022 05:52 pm The Mil Mi-26 can carry about 1/4 of a starship by mass. It's probably as loud as a launch, too.Wildly inaccurate, multiple orders of magnitude difference. I was in the VIP stands when Apollo 13 launched. From 3 miles away my ears ached and the vibrations pounded through my torso like it was a sheet of paper. The amount of energy being released by that chopper is a minuscule fraction of that being burned in a SHLV.errr? Great to hear of such experiences.However what has it got to do with the quoted post or even the specific quote?Carrying (pieces of) starships by helicopter, is somewhat different from launching rockets!Maybe X industries could make a giant quadcopter (like a drone) to lift 200 tonnes to ferry the SS and SH? the downdraft would be outside the radius of the ships.
Rolling vertical to the shipping channel could be timed to occur at night, possibly over multiple days between a set of "way stations" to keep any given closure short. If we assume 7 hours total spread out over a week with a daily closure scheduled for that day's segment between 3AM and 4AM I doubt it would cause too much of a problem for people.Edit - For that matter, with appropriate security and traffic control is there any reason that other occasional night traffic to the port that might exist could not be allowed to pass by in a timely fashion?
Here's the route to the docks as soon as the new road is complete. It's desperately unexotic. (gmaps)
In my opinion we have a severe disconnect between the apparently-planned manufacturing rate at BC (my guess: 52 units/yr, a mix of SH and SS) and the approved launch rate to LEO from BC (5 per year). My guesses are as likely to be wrong as your 0.02 cents.Would you care to comment on my guesses? do you think the production rate will be less than 5/yr, or do you think SpaceX will get approval for more launches? At one point Elon was angsting because SpaceX needed 20 Starlink-on-Starship launches before the end of 2022.
true, but all traffic to the beach ,residences E of the port connector and spacex will be blocked for 8 hours or so for each move. right now starship/booster moves close rt 4 for 2 hours just between the build site and launch site ( about 1.5 mi)
Quote from: DanClemmensen on 01/27/2022 06:06 pmIn my opinion we have a severe disconnect between the apparently-planned manufacturing rate at BC (my guess: 52 units/yr, a mix of SH and SS) and the approved launch rate to LEO from BC (5 per year). My guesses are as likely to be wrong as your 0.02 cents.Would you care to comment on my guesses? do you think the production rate will be less than 5/yr, or do you think SpaceX will get approval for more launches? At one point Elon was angsting because SpaceX needed 20 Starlink-on-Starship launches before the end of 2022.Agreed, that's where the disconnect is. I think the key word is planned, it doesn't mean they will be producing that many in BC anytime soon, not until they have off shore platforms or are able to get licensed for more orbital launches. I wouldn't read too much into that, Elon is always pushing super aggressive timelines. The way I see it it was more of a 'rally the troops' kind of message.
Quote from: EL_DIABLO on 01/28/2022 11:32 amQuote from: DanClemmensen on 01/27/2022 06:06 pmIn my opinion we have a severe disconnect between the apparently-planned manufacturing rate at BC (my guess: 52 units/yr, a mix of SH and SS) and the approved launch rate to LEO from BC (5 per year). My guesses are as likely to be wrong as your 0.02 cents.Would you care to comment on my guesses? do you think the production rate will be less than 5/yr, or do you think SpaceX will get approval for more launches? At one point Elon was angsting because SpaceX needed 20 Starlink-on-Starship launches before the end of 2022.Agreed, that's where the disconnect is. I think the key word is planned, it doesn't mean they will be producing that many in BC anytime soon, not until they have off shore platforms or are able to get licensed for more orbital launches. I wouldn't read too much into that, Elon is always pushing super aggressive timelines. The way I see it it was more of a 'rally the troops' kind of message.From this, I infer that you think BC will not manufacture many units in 2022. Your vision appears to be hop-to-offshore, which I also think is likely, so I guess we must just wait until we see a Mechazilla being build on Phobos or Deimos (platforms, not moons).If they are only assembling 5 SH and 5 SS in 2022, then why are the building the new "wide bay" (i.e., triple-wide high bay)? they could likely assemble those 10 units in the existing high bay in 2022.
Quote from: DanClemmensen on 01/28/2022 03:03 pmQuote from: EL_DIABLO on 01/28/2022 11:32 amQuote from: DanClemmensen on 01/27/2022 06:06 pmIn my opinion we have a severe disconnect between the apparently-planned manufacturing rate at BC (my guess: 52 units/yr, a mix of SH and SS) and the approved launch rate to LEO from BC (5 per year). My guesses are as likely to be wrong as your 0.02 cents.Would you care to comment on my guesses? do you think the production rate will be less than 5/yr, or do you think SpaceX will get approval for more launches? At one point Elon was angsting because SpaceX needed 20 Starlink-on-Starship launches before the end of 2022.Agreed, that's where the disconnect is. I think the key word is planned, it doesn't mean they will be producing that many in BC anytime soon, not until they have off shore platforms or are able to get licensed for more orbital launches. I wouldn't read too much into that, Elon is always pushing super aggressive timelines. The way I see it it was more of a 'rally the troops' kind of message.From this, I infer that you think BC will not manufacture many units in 2022. Your vision appears to be hop-to-offshore, which I also think is likely, so I guess we must just wait until we see a Mechazilla being build on Phobos or Deimos (platforms, not moons).If they are only assembling 5 SH and 5 SS in 2022, then why are the building the new "wide bay" (i.e., triple-wide high bay)? they could likely assemble those 10 units in the existing high bay in 2022.The wide bay has an identical footprint to the two high bays they're planning on constructing in Florida. It's entirely plausible that they're using Boca Chica as a pathfinder for the ideal design for the production facilities while also future proofing for when they may want to ramp up production.
Quote from: robot_enthusiast on 01/28/2022 09:03 pmQuote from: DanClemmensen on 01/28/2022 03:03 pmQuote from: EL_DIABLO on 01/28/2022 11:32 amQuote from: DanClemmensen on 01/27/2022 06:06 pmIn my opinion we have a severe disconnect between the apparently-planned manufacturing rate at BC (my guess: 52 units/yr, a mix of SH and SS) and the approved launch rate to LEO from BC (5 per year). My guesses are as likely to be wrong as your 0.02 cents.Would you care to comment on my guesses? do you think the production rate will be less than 5/yr, or do you think SpaceX will get approval for more launches? At one point Elon was angsting because SpaceX needed 20 Starlink-on-Starship launches before the end of 2022.Agreed, that's where the disconnect is. I think the key word is planned, it doesn't mean they will be producing that many in BC anytime soon, not until they have off shore platforms or are able to get licensed for more orbital launches. I wouldn't read too much into that, Elon is always pushing super aggressive timelines. The way I see it it was more of a 'rally the troops' kind of message.From this, I infer that you think BC will not manufacture many units in 2022. Your vision appears to be hop-to-offshore, which I also think is likely, so I guess we must just wait until we see a Mechazilla being build on Phobos or Deimos (platforms, not moons).If they are only assembling 5 SH and 5 SS in 2022, then why are the building the new "wide bay" (i.e., triple-wide high bay)? they could likely assemble those 10 units in the existing high bay in 2022.The wide bay has an identical footprint to the two high bays they're planning on constructing in Florida. It's entirely plausible that they're using Boca Chica as a pathfinder for the ideal design for the production facilities while also future proofing for when they may want to ramp up production.Does this mean that you think BC will never become an actual manufacturing facility with SH and SS in series production? It's just a prototype to be abandoned? If so , then of course they don't need a way to ship product. That seems more like wishful thinking from the Florida amazing people to me.
Quote from: DanClemmensen on 01/29/2022 12:03 amQuote from: robot_enthusiast on 01/28/2022 09:03 pmQuote from: DanClemmensen on 01/28/2022 03:03 pmQuote from: EL_DIABLO on 01/28/2022 11:32 amQuote from: DanClemmensen on 01/27/2022 06:06 pmIn my opinion we have a severe disconnect between the apparently-planned manufacturing rate at BC (my guess: 52 units/yr, a mix of SH and SS) and the approved launch rate to LEO from BC (5 per year). My guesses are as likely to be wrong as your 0.02 cents.Would you care to comment on my guesses? do you think the production rate will be less than 5/yr, or do you think SpaceX will get approval for more launches? At one point Elon was angsting because SpaceX needed 20 Starlink-on-Starship launches before the end of 2022.Agreed, that's where the disconnect is. I think the key word is planned, it doesn't mean they will be producing that many in BC anytime soon, not until they have off shore platforms or are able to get licensed for more orbital launches. I wouldn't read too much into that, Elon is always pushing super aggressive timelines. The way I see it it was more of a 'rally the troops' kind of message.From this, I infer that you think BC will not manufacture many units in 2022. Your vision appears to be hop-to-offshore, which I also think is likely, so I guess we must just wait until we see a Mechazilla being build on Phobos or Deimos (platforms, not moons).If they are only assembling 5 SH and 5 SS in 2022, then why are the building the new "wide bay" (i.e., triple-wide high bay)? they could likely assemble those 10 units in the existing high bay in 2022.The wide bay has an identical footprint to the two high bays they're planning on constructing in Florida. It's entirely plausible that they're using Boca Chica as a pathfinder for the ideal design for the production facilities while also future proofing for when they may want to ramp up production.Does this mean that you think BC will never become an actual manufacturing facility with SH and SS in series production? It's just a prototype to be abandoned? If so , then of course they don't need a way to ship product. That seems more like wishful thinking from the Florida amazing people to me.Why would they give up on BC? Even if it stays a development site. They are going to be developing for decades. But once Florida is up and building they will not be shipping to Florida.
This thread was not intended to be about shipping to Florida. The point of the thread is that if SH and SS are manufactured in BC, then they must somehow leave BC. If there is a second factory, then SH and SS must somehow leave that factory also, but that's a separate issue. I was hoping we could speculate here on how the BC product in manufactured over the next 12 months will leave BC.
Quote from: WiresMN on 01/29/2022 02:49 amQuote from: DanClemmensen on 01/29/2022 12:03 amQuote from: robot_enthusiast on 01/28/2022 09:03 pmQuote from: DanClemmensen on 01/28/2022 03:03 pmQuote from: EL_DIABLO on 01/28/2022 11:32 amQuote from: DanClemmensen on 01/27/2022 06:06 pmIn my opinion we have a severe disconnect between the apparently-planned manufacturing rate at BC (my guess: 52 units/yr, a mix of SH and SS) and the approved launch rate to LEO from BC (5 per year). My guesses are as likely to be wrong as your 0.02 cents.Would you care to comment on my guesses? do you think the production rate will be less than 5/yr, or do you think SpaceX will get approval for more launches? At one point Elon was angsting because SpaceX needed 20 Starlink-on-Starship launches before the end of 2022.Agreed, that's where the disconnect is. I think the key word is planned, it doesn't mean they will be producing that many in BC anytime soon, not until they have off shore platforms or are able to get licensed for more orbital launches. I wouldn't read too much into that, Elon is always pushing super aggressive timelines. The way I see it it was more of a 'rally the troops' kind of message.From this, I infer that you think BC will not manufacture many units in 2022. Your vision appears to be hop-to-offshore, which I also think is likely, so I guess we must just wait until we see a Mechazilla being build on Phobos or Deimos (platforms, not moons).If they are only assembling 5 SH and 5 SS in 2022, then why are the building the new "wide bay" (i.e., triple-wide high bay)? they could likely assemble those 10 units in the existing high bay in 2022.The wide bay has an identical footprint to the two high bays they're planning on constructing in Florida. It's entirely plausible that they're using Boca Chica as a pathfinder for the ideal design for the production facilities while also future proofing for when they may want to ramp up production.Does this mean that you think BC will never become an actual manufacturing facility with SH and SS in series production? It's just a prototype to be abandoned? If so , then of course they don't need a way to ship product. That seems more like wishful thinking from the Florida amazing people to me.Why would they give up on BC? Even if it stays a development site. They are going to be developing for decades. But once Florida is up and building they will not be shipping to Florida.This thread was not intended to be about shipping to Florida. The point of the thread is that if SH and SS are manufactured in BC, then they must somehow leave BC. If there is a second factory, then SH and SS must somehow leave that factory also, but that's a separate issue. I was hoping we could speculate here on how the BC product in manufactured over the next 12 months will leave BC.
Quote from: DanClemmensen on 01/29/2022 02:55 amThis thread was not intended to be about shipping to Florida. The point of the thread is that if SH and SS are manufactured in BC, then they must somehow leave BC. If there is a second factory, then SH and SS must somehow leave that factory also, but that's a separate issue. I was hoping we could speculate here on how the BC product in manufactured over the next 12 months will leave BC.If that's your actual question, then the answer is simple. They will fly the majority, and if they have a launch pad ready elsewhere that doesn't have an operational factory yet, they could ship a few vehicles there for initial testing. You keep arguing that this is not feasible because you are vastly overestimating how many vehicles they will build.
They also have Deimos and Phobos that are planned to be offshore launch sites a few years down the road. They will have to take at least one Superheavy and a few Starships to each of those sites. Flying is a good way to do it. However, we are talking about the FAA limiting flights to 5 per year and also they haven't dealt with permission to land at Boca Chica. Under current circumstances with no manufacturing in Florida, and Deimos and Phobos not yet ready, and with NASA wanting to launch the Lunar Starship from Cape Kennedy, they will certainly have to ship by barge from the Brownsville shipping canal. Even if they get approval to build a launch facility at the pad 49 location at Kennedy, that is going to take 2-3 years from approval, unless they finish a pad at their current approved location. Deimos and Phobos will take at least 2 years.
Does anyone with knowledge in these matters know how quickly the five launches per year at BC could be revised upwards, assuming the track record of the effects of the initial launches turns out to be below initial projections?I would guess the regulatory situation in BC will be dynamic.
Quote from: robot_enthusiast on 01/29/2022 12:13 pmQuote from: DanClemmensen on 01/29/2022 02:55 amThis thread was not intended to be about shipping to Florida. The point of the thread is that if SH and SS are manufactured in BC, then they must somehow leave BC. If there is a second factory, then SH and SS must somehow leave that factory also, but that's a separate issue. I was hoping we could speculate here on how the BC product in manufactured over the next 12 months will leave BC.If that's your actual question, then the answer is simple. They will fly the majority, and if they have a launch pad ready elsewhere that doesn't have an operational factory yet, they could ship a few vehicles there for initial testing. You keep arguing that this is not feasible because you are vastly overestimating how many vehicles they will build.OK, your estimate of production and schedule at BC differ from mine. I think that the BC facility is designed to reach a one-per-week capacity by the end of 2022, and you do not. What production rate do you think the BC facility is designed for? When do you think it will reach that rate?If the build rate is to remain low, why are they adding more capacity?We know that SpaceX is contracted to deliver Starship HLS, with a demo mission next year. That requires a minimum of one HLS, one depot, one tanker and one booster. It also requires on the order of ten launches. We also know that Elon wants to launch 20 Starlink-on-Starship flights this year. This requires one booster and one Starship. The number orbital flights exceeds the 5-flight limit. I concluded that they will need another launch site, and from that I concluded that they need a way to deliver the SH and SS to that launch site.
Every launch site may not have manufacturing to go with it. This whole Superheavy/Starship combo is to be fully reusable. One facility turning out a rocket a month could build up a lot of rockets. Look at Falcon 9, most boosters are being reused. Twelve rockets in one year could yeild 144 launches the second year doing one a month. Why have so many manufacturing facilities? Maybe one at Boca Chica, and one in Florida would be enough to build up a flotilla of Starships in a few years. Engines are going to be made to keep up with Starship/Superheavy production now. SpaceX hasn't even gone orbital yet, but if successful, they are going to have to make a lot of Starships and Superheavies. They are going to have to expand engine manufacturing first.
[SNIP].....I was hoping we could speculate here on how the BC product in manufactured over the next 12 months will leave BC.
When reusability has become reliable enough to operate launch sites using a small number of vehicles used over and over again, self transportation of vehicles via flight becomes a no brainer. The window in time where transportation from one launch site to another via any method other than flight makes sense is extremely small (if it exists at all).
Quote from: spacenut on 01/29/2022 09:40 pmEvery launch site may not have manufacturing to go with it. This whole Superheavy/Starship combo is to be fully reusable. One facility turning out a rocket a month could build up a lot of rockets. Look at Falcon 9, most boosters are being reused. Twelve rockets in one year could yeild 144 launches the second year doing one a month. Why have so many manufacturing facilities? Maybe one at Boca Chica, and one in Florida would be enough to build up a flotilla of Starships in a few years. Engines are going to be made to keep up with Starship/Superheavy production now. SpaceX hasn't even gone orbital yet, but if successful, they are going to have to make a lot of Starships and Superheavies. They are going to have to expand engine manufacturing first. When reusability has become reliable enough to operate launch sites using a small number of vehicles used over and over again, self transportation of vehicles via flight becomes a no brainer. The window in time where transportation from one launch site to another via any method other than flight makes sense is extremely small (if it exists at all).
Many people seem to have given up on SpaceX being able to launch from BC in the last couple of weeks. Is there something I've missed? Is it confirmed that the FAA will not permit full stack launches?
Permits and heavy construction are not subtle. The surface transport option for which we see concrete facts on the ground is the South Port Connector Road. We are eager for an update on it.
Why do you guys think they won't be manufactured at KSC? Given the size of the facility that they are about to build at Roberts rd. it seems pretty obvious to me.
Quote from: EL_DIABLO on 01/31/2022 06:08 pmWhy do you guys think they won't be manufactured at KSC? Given the size of the facility that they are about to build at Roberts rd. it seems pretty obvious to me.Speaking for myself and not others, I think the BC production capacity will be quite a bit higher than the demand for SH and SS over the next several years. Therefore, there is no need for another production facility. My reasoning is in an earlier post. summary: With fast turnaround a single SH and five SS can support 365 launches/year, but the launch demand will not exceed 130 launches/year (which was teh world total in 2021). Other stuff increases the total of SHs + SSs to about 18 units, and I think BC can support this after the expansion now underway.
Quote from: DanClemmensen on 01/31/2022 11:00 pmQuote from: EL_DIABLO on 01/31/2022 06:08 pmWhy do you guys think they won't be manufactured at KSC? Given the size of the facility that they are about to build at Roberts rd. it seems pretty obvious to me.Speaking for myself and not others, I think the BC production capacity will be quite a bit higher than the demand for SH and SS over the next several years. Therefore, there is no need for another production facility. My reasoning is in an earlier post. summary: With fast turnaround a single SH and five SS can support 365 launches/year, but the launch demand will not exceed 130 launches/year (which was teh world total in 2021). Other stuff increases the total of SHs + SSs to about 18 units, and I think BC can support this after the expansion now underway.That then begs the question, what do you think the huge facility being planned at Roberts rd. is for?
....Cape factory online is late 2024 earliest.
The 1,000 Starships to Mars is many oppositions after the early opposition landings, which will likely be 10 years in the future. Exotic production and flight rates are not needed soonest although "only" refueling a few cargo and crewed Mars ships per opposition involves many tens of launches each opposition.Elon has said they're not even thinking about the ocean platforms right now so we should look at both Boca and the Cape as the next 5+ years flights' solutions with ocean platformS needed for volume.My bet is on the road to the harbor as short term Boca to the Cape. Cape factory online is late 2024 earliest.
Quote from: philw1776 on 02/01/2022 07:55 pm....Cape factory online is late 2024 earliest.I can bet you'll be surprised in the next several months And the same for many people here
Quote from: Alvian@IDN on 02/28/2022 01:31 amQuote from: philw1776 on 02/01/2022 07:55 pm....Cape factory online is late 2024 earliest.I can bet you'll be surprised in the next several months And the same for many people hereCorrect. Cape factory online is THIS year, according to my sources. They also intend to have the LC-39A OLM and Stage 0 done by the end of this year. Same for the tank farm. Note: those are realistic estimates by SpaceX personnel, not the overly optimistic twitter shots from Elon.
Quote from: woods170 on 02/28/2022 08:26 amQuote from: Alvian@IDN on 02/28/2022 01:31 amQuote from: philw1776 on 02/01/2022 07:55 pm....Cape factory online is late 2024 earliest.I can bet you'll be surprised in the next several months And the same for many people hereCorrect. Cape factory online is THIS year, according to my sources. They also intend to have the LC-39A OLM and Stage 0 done by the end of this year. Same for the tank farm. Note: those are realistic estimates by SpaceX personnel, not the overly optimistic twitter shots from Elon.NOTE that to build the tank rings and the preliminary stacking of the 3 and 4 ring stacks does not need sophisticated infrastructure to get started. Just a tent where the robotic ring maker can be located. Such that by the time the high bay is completed there would be all the ring stacks ready for stacking together. At Boca Chica from start of rings showing up to a stacked vehicle is ~3 months for an SS and ~4 months for the SH. They can actually do that faster and have in the past. Also to note that the 3 and 4 month build duration is also supportive of the build rate of a new set every <6 weeks. Or about 8 complete SH and SS pairs in a year.
Quote from: Alvian@IDN on 02/28/2022 01:31 amQuote from: philw1776 on 02/01/2022 07:55 pm....Cape factory online is late 2024 earliest.I can bet you'll be surprised in the next several months And the same for many people hereYep. It seems like some are just missing the big patch of land being cleared right now at Roberts Road that is surprisingly too big in area for anything Falcon related.... If you folks have missed it, I recommend watching the recent KSC update videos on our NSF youtube channel
Quote from: Alexphysics on 02/28/2022 11:17 pmQuote from: Alvian@IDN on 02/28/2022 01:31 amQuote from: philw1776 on 02/01/2022 07:55 pm....Cape factory online is late 2024 earliest.I can bet you'll be surprised in the next several months And the same for many people hereYep. It seems like some are just missing the big patch of land being cleared right now at Roberts Road that is surprisingly too big in area for anything Falcon related.... If you folks have missed it, I recommend watching the recent KSC update videos on our NSF youtube channel We think we know for sure that SpaceX will be producing components for at least one "stage zero" in Florida, and possibly two or more, at Roberts Rd. I'm fairly sure they will need a Starship refurbishment facility, probably also at Roberts Rd. Each "stage zero" probably includes tanks for the tank farms, and each tank farm will be larger than the one at BC to support a high launch cadence. These requirements account for everything we have yet seen at Roberts Rd. Until we see Starship components at the site or SpaceX makes an announcement, we will not know for sure if they will be building Starships there in the short term. Simply from a scheduling perspective, It would make sense for Roberts Rd. to concentrate on stage zero before producing Starships. After the tanks get built, then can shift over to Starship if needed.
Quote from: DanClemmensen on 02/28/2022 11:44 pmQuote from: Alexphysics on 02/28/2022 11:17 pmQuote from: Alvian@IDN on 02/28/2022 01:31 amQuote from: philw1776 on 02/01/2022 07:55 pm....Cape factory online is late 2024 earliest.I can bet you'll be surprised in the next several months And the same for many people hereYep. It seems like some are just missing the big patch of land being cleared right now at Roberts Road that is surprisingly too big in area for anything Falcon related.... If you folks have missed it, I recommend watching the recent KSC update videos on our NSF youtube channel We think we know for sure that SpaceX will be producing components for at least one "stage zero" in Florida, and possibly two or more, at Roberts Rd. I'm fairly sure they will need a Starship refurbishment facility, probably also at Roberts Rd. Each "stage zero" probably includes tanks for the tank farms, and each tank farm will be larger than the one at BC to support a high launch cadence. These requirements account for everything we have yet seen at Roberts Rd. Until we see Starship components at the site or SpaceX makes an announcement, we will not know for sure if they will be building Starships there in the short term. Simply from a scheduling perspective, It would make sense for Roberts Rd. to concentrate on stage zero before producing Starships. After the tanks get built, then can shift over to Starship if needed.Why do you so easily assume that the current facilities being built are for refurbishment rather than construction when they first have to reuse a ship at all? Like... all of the assumptions on building more "stage 0's" and things like that seem to be more grounded on pre-concieved assumptions that you probably had before all of this appeared there rather than being based on what actually would make more sense. And we have already in plain sight a glaring example of how this would go which is: a production site, a launch site and within the production site there is a staging site where parts for Stage 0 are put together (namely, the launch tower) before being transported to the launch pad. This is literally how it was at Starbase, why think it'll be hugely different at KSC? They're not going to reinvent the wheel here.
Quote from: Alexphysics on 03/01/2022 02:01 amQuote from: DanClemmensen on 02/28/2022 11:44 pmQuote from: Alexphysics on 02/28/2022 11:17 pmQuote from: Alvian@IDN on 02/28/2022 01:31 amQuote from: philw1776 on 02/01/2022 07:55 pm....Cape factory online is late 2024 earliest.I can bet you'll be surprised in the next several months And the same for many people hereYep. It seems like some are just missing the big patch of land being cleared right now at Roberts Road that is surprisingly too big in area for anything Falcon related.... If you folks have missed it, I recommend watching the recent KSC update videos on our NSF youtube channel We think we know for sure that SpaceX will be producing components for at least one "stage zero" in Florida, and possibly two or more, at Roberts Rd. I'm fairly sure they will need a Starship refurbishment facility, probably also at Roberts Rd. Each "stage zero" probably includes tanks for the tank farms, and each tank farm will be larger than the one at BC to support a high launch cadence. These requirements account for everything we have yet seen at Roberts Rd. Until we see Starship components at the site or SpaceX makes an announcement, we will not know for sure if they will be building Starships there in the short term. Simply from a scheduling perspective, It would make sense for Roberts Rd. to concentrate on stage zero before producing Starships. After the tanks get built, then can shift over to Starship if needed.Why do you so easily assume that the current facilities being built are for refurbishment rather than construction when they first have to reuse a ship at all? Like... all of the assumptions on building more "stage 0's" and things like that seem to be more grounded on pre-concieved assumptions that you probably had before all of this appeared there rather than being based on what actually would make more sense. And we have already in plain sight a glaring example of how this would go which is: a production site, a launch site and within the production site there is a staging site where parts for Stage 0 are put together (namely, the launch tower) before being transported to the launch pad. This is literally how it was at Starbase, why think it'll be hugely different at KSC? They're not going to reinvent the wheel here.No, because I do not have enough knowledge to have preconceived notions. I have three questions and no answers: --How many SH and SS will SpaceX produce at BC in 2022 and 2023? --What will they do with them? --How many total SH and SS will SpaceX need in 2022 and 2023?Do you have guesses for the answers for these three questions?
To add to the above, I'd like to know why you are so fixated on the number of SH's and SS's.
I would be surprised if SpaceX themselves even know the answer to #1 and #2. There are two main bottlenecks: Raptor availability and the FAA. If the FAA comes through soon with a FONSI, then I would expect Starbase to take priority for the first (few) orbital flight(s). But that (a FONSI) is not guaranteed. KSC got kicked into high gear recently probably partially due to this uncertainty and also because they need Starship at KSC for Artemis. They will almost certainly be manufacturing Starships there, no shipping.Back to Boca Chica, Nomadd here said recently that the top people at BC weren't even sure which direction things were going to go there, more of it being an experiment. There are a number of different scenarios of how it could play out between KSC, Raptor, FAA, and a dozen other things, so I think answering your questions is not really possible at this time.
If total SS/SH production is constrained by raptor availability, then adding a new facility at KSC does not help this specific problem.
Why does the use of Starships for Artemis call for production of Starships in Florida? It's not true for SLS or F9 or FH or almost all other Artemis components.
Quote from: EL_DIABLO on 03/01/2022 10:14 amTo add to the above, I'd like to know why you are so fixated on the number of SH's and SS's.Fixation on numbers: If the number of SH's and SS's that can be manufactured in BC in 2022 and 2023 substantially exceeds the number that SpaceX can use world wide, then adding new production in Florida makes little sense unless they intend to shut down BC. Shutting down BC seems unlikely: they are working hard to complete the new "wide bay", effectively tripling their production capacity in BC. But why manufacture at BC at all unless there is a plan for delivering them, hence this thread. I have questions, not answers.
Quote from: chopsticks on 03/01/2022 04:55 amI would be surprised if SpaceX themselves even know the answer to #1 and #2. There are two main bottlenecks: Raptor availability and the FAA. If the FAA comes through soon with a FONSI, then I would expect Starbase to take priority for the first (few) orbital flight(s). But that (a FONSI) is not guaranteed. KSC got kicked into high gear recently probably partially due to this uncertainty and also because they need Starship at KSC for Artemis. They will almost certainly be manufacturing Starships there, no shipping.Back to Boca Chica, Nomadd here said recently that the top people at BC weren't even sure which direction things were going to go there, more of it being an experiment. There are a number of different scenarios of how it could play out between KSC, Raptor, FAA, and a dozen other things, so I think answering your questions is not really possible at this time.Good answer, thanks. If KSC production capability is insurance against the need to shut BC down completely due to the FONSI, it all makes sense.If total SS/SH production is constrained by raptor availability, then adding a new facility at KSC does not help this specific problem.Why does the use of Starships for Artemis call for production of Starships in Florida? It's not true for SLS or F9 or FH or almost all other Artemis components.It's also the case that if we assume (I do) that SpaceX must have both a tank-farm manufacturing capability and a SS/SH refurbishment facility in Florida, then the incremental capital cost of a full production facility is not all that high, so go ahead and build it even if there is a chance it is not really needed.
There are a lot of missing informations and uncertainity in this picture, this is only wild guessing, what couod be the actual plan from SpaceX.Simple question as an example: why are there 2 suborbital pads at boca chica? They didn't use this capacity, parallel processing for 2 suborbital launches. The plans are changing always there.
But why manufacture at BC at all unless there is a plan for delivering them, hence this thread.
I don't know that Artemis necessarily calls for production at the Cape, but it only seems logical that they would do that given what they are starting to build there. We have heard from reliable sources here that Artemis HLS will be launching from the Cape - I can't think of any reason why they would choose to build HLS anywhere else when they will be building other Starships right there.
Quote from: MTom on 03/01/2022 08:27 pmThere are a lot of missing informations and uncertainity in this picture, this is only wild guessing, what couod be the actual plan from SpaceX.Simple question as an example: why are there 2 suborbital pads at boca chica? They didn't use this capacity, parallel processing for 2 suborbital launches. The plans are changing always there.the suborbital pads are needed to static fire starships, there is no other place you can do that
Quote from: daavery on 03/01/2022 08:44 pmQuote from: MTom on 03/01/2022 08:27 pmThere are a lot of missing informations and uncertainity in this picture, this is only wild guessing, what couod be the actual plan from SpaceX.Simple question as an example: why are there 2 suborbital pads at boca chica? They didn't use this capacity, parallel processing for 2 suborbital launches. The plans are changing always there.the suborbital pads are needed to static fire starships, there is no other place you can do thatYes, I know.My comment is about the possibility of wrong conclusions from outsiders while making capacity calculations.
BC production is unlikely to exceed one unit per week before 2024.
Quote from: DanClemmensen on 03/05/2022 03:15 pmBC production is unlikely to exceed one unit per week before 2024. Read that in some fairy tale book?
- The construction contractor already provided notice of substantial completion - Soft opening planned for late February - The road is planned to have Monday to Friday hours - Minor items remained like a guard shack and some rip-rap around abutments - In response to questions from the board, Mr Chavis said that a turning radius, the width, and overweight traffic were part of the criteria. An alternative including expensive wetlands bridges was chosen to avoid having to own expensive wetlands mitigations forever.
Quote from: Jim on 03/05/2022 06:27 pmQuote from: DanClemmensen on 03/05/2022 03:15 pmBC production is unlikely to exceed one unit per week before 2024. Read that in some fairy tale book?Oddly enough you used to say that about F9s.
Quote from: meekGee on 03/05/2022 11:35 pmQuote from: Jim on 03/05/2022 06:27 pmQuote from: DanClemmensen on 03/05/2022 03:15 pmBC production is unlikely to exceed one unit per week before 2024. Read that in some fairy tale book?Oddly enough you used to say that about F9s.But he was correct. After you get to reusability, you do not need to produce many units anymore. SpaceX was originally going to have the capacity to produce 30 boosters per year, but now they only produce a few new ones a year to sustain an F9 launch rate of one a week.
Quote from: DanClemmensen on 03/06/2022 12:27 amQuote from: meekGee on 03/05/2022 11:35 pmQuote from: Jim on 03/05/2022 06:27 pmQuote from: DanClemmensen on 03/05/2022 03:15 pmBC production is unlikely to exceed one unit per week before 2024. Read that in some fairy tale book?Oddly enough you used to say that about F9s.But he was correct. After you get to reusability, you do not need to produce many units anymore. SpaceX was originally going to have the capacity to produce 30 boosters per year, but now they only produce a few new ones a year to sustain an F9 launch rate of one a week.We were talking then about 50 launches per year. Starship is aiming at a much much higher launch rate. Take Musk at his word about 1000 ships per synode to Mars, or daily P2P service between multiple starports and you start getting an idea about production volumes.1000 ships at only 50/yr is 20 years, which is already too long...So you'll see that production rate manifest itself somewhere, no fantasy.
Quote from: meekGee on 03/06/2022 12:39 amQuote from: DanClemmensen on 03/06/2022 12:27 amQuote from: meekGee on 03/05/2022 11:35 pmQuote from: Jim on 03/05/2022 06:27 pmQuote from: DanClemmensen on 03/05/2022 03:15 pmBC production is unlikely to exceed one unit per week before 2024. Read that in some fairy tale book?Oddly enough you used to say that about F9s.But he was correct. After you get to reusability, you do not need to produce many units anymore. SpaceX was originally going to have the capacity to produce 30 boosters per year, but now they only produce a few new ones a year to sustain an F9 launch rate of one a week.We were talking then about 50 launches per year. Starship is aiming at a much much higher launch rate. Take Musk at his word about 1000 ships per synode to Mars, or daily P2P service between multiple starports and you start getting an idea about production volumes.1000 ships at only 50/yr is 20 years, which is already too long...So you'll see that production rate manifest itself somewhere, no fantasy.But my number was "not more than 50/yr by 2024 in BC". Sure, they must eventually get to "a ship a day", but that's total production from all factories, and it won't happen by 2024 or even 2028."A ship a day" was the goal for the US producing liberty ships in WWII. Built in 18 shipyards from 1941 to 1945 at an average of three ships every two days, 2710 of them were built. Big steel ships to a simple standard design. Sound familiar?
SpaceX is building large factories in both locations, and their plans call for more than 50 ships a year.
Quote from: meekGee on 03/06/2022 01:09 amSpaceX is building large factories in both locations, and their plans call for more than 50 ships a year.Right, this is what they need for a full up Mars settlement drive.I am still surprised they build the second factory at full size now. I would expect that best case they need it 2030+.Right now a workshop that could do outfitting of Starship for HLS, for Dear Moon or Mars landing should do. Makes sense, to put the final touches for anything crew in Florida IMO.
Quote from: guckyfan on 03/06/2022 04:20 pmQuote from: meekGee on 03/06/2022 01:09 amSpaceX is building large factories in both locations, and their plans call for more than 50 ships a year.Right, this is what they need for a full up Mars settlement drive.I am still surprised they build the second factory at full size now. I would expect that best case they need it 2030+.Right now a workshop that could do outfitting of Starship for HLS, for Dear Moon or Mars landing should do. Makes sense, to put the final touches for anything crew in Florida IMO.For now they are just building a big empty building. Big empty buildings are cheap. Only when they start outfitting it for maximum production rates things start to get expensive.For all we know they are planning for an output of 1 ship per 3 months, which means outfitting stays affordable(ish).
Quote from: guckyfan on 04/22/2022 06:32 amQuote from: Nomadd on 04/21/2022 09:02 pm There was a plan to move Starships to the Florida pad before that operation shut down. I didn't have enough beer to get the details.They had cradles on site for horizontal transport. Never used because the Cocoa site was closed.Horizontal transport makes Boca Chica to Florida on any large barge trivial.There is no evidence that SpaceX is developing the infrastructure for this. It's not impossible to do it, but if they intend to launch from Florida before the end of 2022, we would expect to see some preparations already, such as cradles for a horizontal transport and testing of the process for lowering an SH and an SS into the horizontal position. We would also expect to see evidence of the plan for moving SH and SS the 16 miles from BC to the nearest dock. There is an entire thread for discussing movement of SH and SS out of BC: https://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=55672.0
Quote from: Nomadd on 04/21/2022 09:02 pm There was a plan to move Starships to the Florida pad before that operation shut down. I didn't have enough beer to get the details.They had cradles on site for horizontal transport. Never used because the Cocoa site was closed.Horizontal transport makes Boca Chica to Florida on any large barge trivial.
There was a plan to move Starships to the Florida pad before that operation shut down. I didn't have enough beer to get the details.
Horizontal transport is not a prerequisite for transport. The proposed move from the Cidco Road site only needed a tipover because it had to fit under existing bridges with a maximum available height, which is not an issue when exiting the Port of Brownsville or traversing from Port Canaveral to the Turning Basin. Vertical transportation has been the case for the last 3 years, with multiple dedicated jigs available. There is an uninterrupted land route from the build site to the port now the South Port Connector Road is completed, and an existing straight-shot route from the Turning Basin to LC-39A at the Cape (Saturn Causeway).Whilst Starship and Super Heavy are tall, they are very light compared to most loads carried by Roll-Lift/Mammoet/etc. Transporting them is not a technical challenge, but a matter of hiring one of the companies who provide this service on a daily basis.
Quote from: edzieba on 04/22/2022 02:17 pmHorizontal transport is not a prerequisite for transport. The proposed move from the Cidco Road site only needed a tipover because it had to fit under existing bridges with a maximum available height, which is not an issue when exiting the Port of Brownsville or traversing from Port Canaveral to the Turning Basin. Vertical transportation has been the case for the last 3 years, with multiple dedicated jigs available. There is an uninterrupted land route from the build site to the port now the South Port Connector Road is completed, and an existing straight-shot route from the Turning Basin to LC-39A at the Cape (Saturn Causeway).Whilst Starship and Super Heavy are tall, they are very light compared to most loads carried by Roll-Lift/Mammoet/etc. Transporting them is not a technical challenge, but a matter of hiring one of the companies who provide this service on a daily basis.I just can't see how vertical transport over long distances by ship would make sense, if infrastructure to take them horizontal is available at the ports.Local transport at Boca Chica and transport by ASDS without infrastructure for going horizontal on the ship are both exceptional border cases. They don't keep Falcon boosters vertical even for local transport at the Cape.
p.10QuoteIf a Super Heavy landing occurred downrange in the Gulf of Mexico or on a floatingplatform, Super Heavy will be delivered by barge to the Port of Brownsville and transportedthe remaining distance to the Boca Chica Launch Site over the roadways. [...]SpaceX will not exceed the maximum of 23Starship Land Landings in the Development Phase and ten in the Operational Phase and forthe Super Heavy Land Landing there will be no landings in the Development Phase and fiveSuper Heavy landings each year (Table 2). p.17QuoteHowever, on a November 1, 2021,conference call, the FAA and SpaceX reported to the Service that the proposed power plantgeneration had been substantially reduced from 250 MW to 15 MW.p.74QuoteOrbital launches would create the largest and hottest plume from the ignitionof all Super Heavy’s 37 Raptor engines.p.129:QuoteSpaceX response: As the efficiency of the Raptor engine increases, the total number ofengines needed to achieve the maximum thrust (74 MN) decreases. So, we can use fewer Raptor2.0 engines to achieve the same maximum thrust of 74 MN. Even with the use of the Raptor 2.0engine, the maximum thrust will not exceed 74 MN, which is the maximum thrust identified inthe BA and PEA. Accordingly, the information noted below does not prompt any changes in theproject description or effects.
If a Super Heavy landing occurred downrange in the Gulf of Mexico or on a floatingplatform, Super Heavy will be delivered by barge to the Port of Brownsville and transportedthe remaining distance to the Boca Chica Launch Site over the roadways. [...]SpaceX will not exceed the maximum of 23Starship Land Landings in the Development Phase and ten in the Operational Phase and forthe Super Heavy Land Landing there will be no landings in the Development Phase and fiveSuper Heavy landings each year (Table 2).
However, on a November 1, 2021,conference call, the FAA and SpaceX reported to the Service that the proposed power plantgeneration had been substantially reduced from 250 MW to 15 MW.
Orbital launches would create the largest and hottest plume from the ignitionof all Super Heavy’s 37 Raptor engines.
SpaceX response: As the efficiency of the Raptor engine increases, the total number ofengines needed to achieve the maximum thrust (74 MN) decreases. So, we can use fewer Raptor2.0 engines to achieve the same maximum thrust of 74 MN. Even with the use of the Raptor 2.0engine, the maximum thrust will not exceed 74 MN, which is the maximum thrust identified inthe BA and PEA. Accordingly, the information noted below does not prompt any changes in theproject description or effects.
Folks keep talking about horizontal transport, but how much less of a PITA is it really to move a 9m cylinder that long on a trailer when it comes to road width, turn radius, bridges/overpasses and overhead lines etc?
That language was provided by SX in October, 2021. It's possible that they have since changed their minds about recovering boosters landed at sea near Boca Chica.
Quote from: alugobi on 05/05/2022 12:58 amThat language was provided by SX in October, 2021. It's possible that they have since changed their minds about recovering boosters landed at sea near Boca Chica.Possible, but it has also not been updated by SpaceX during extended communications with the FWS, and the document as a whole is up to date as of the end of February 2022.
How will those vehicles be moved from BC to Florida? Can they be transported horizontally?
Quote from: Barry Brisco on 06/04/2022 02:51 amHow will those vehicles be moved from BC to Florida? Can they be transported horizontally?There is little to no overhead obstruction on the road between the build site and the port of Brownsville (a single wire crossing near the junction of Highway 4 & Palmetto Hill, IIRC). There isn't any between the Turning Basin and LC-39A at the cape. And there are no height restrictions for the Brownsville inlet or through Port Canaveral. Far easier to just remain vertical the entire way if there is no reason to go horizontal.
Quote from: edzieba on 06/04/2022 08:22 amQuote from: Barry Brisco on 06/04/2022 02:51 amHow will those vehicles be moved from BC to Florida? Can they be transported horizontally?There is little to no overhead obstruction on the road between the build site and the port of Brownsville (a single wire crossing near the junction of Highway 4 & Palmetto Hill, IIRC). There isn't any between the Turning Basin and LC-39A at the cape. And there are no height restrictions for the Brownsville inlet or through Port Canaveral. Far easier to just remain vertical the entire way if there is no reason to go horizontal.From Port Canaveral to the Turning Basin, there are at least two places where powerlines cross the water. I haven't been able to guess the height. If anyone has navigation charts for the area, the information might be on them. That would be the air-draft limit, I think.Edit to add: It's 65 feet of clearance for the powerlines crossing the channel north of the Port Canaveral Lock. So much for vertical transport!
The transporter may move horizontally.
Quote from: tyrred on 06/04/2022 06:32 amThe transporter may move horizontally.I should have been clearer in my question. Can the vehicles tolerate being moved in the horizontal position? Are they structurally capable of being in that orientation and not sustaining damage? I’m not convinced they are.So far they have only been transported in a vertical orientation. Obviously at this time there is no “transporter erector” structure like the one for the F9 which was designed from the start to operate that.If Super Heavy and Starship cannot tolerate a horizontal orientation, then I’m wondering if they could be shipped to Florida while remaining vertical, assuming fair weather and relatively calm seas.
Quote from: darkenfast on 06/04/2022 10:28 amQuote from: edzieba on 06/04/2022 08:22 amQuote from: Barry Brisco on 06/04/2022 02:51 amHow will those vehicles be moved from BC to Florida? Can they be transported horizontally?There is little to no overhead obstruction on the road between the build site and the port of Brownsville (a single wire crossing near the junction of Highway 4 & Palmetto Hill, IIRC). There isn't any between the Turning Basin and LC-39A at the cape. And there are no height restrictions for the Brownsville inlet or through Port Canaveral. Far easier to just remain vertical the entire way if there is no reason to go horizontal.From Port Canaveral to the Turning Basin, there are at least two places where powerlines cross the water. I haven't been able to guess the height. If anyone has navigation charts for the area, the information might be on them. That would be the air-draft limit, I think.Edit to add: It's 65 feet of clearance for the powerlines crossing the channel north of the Port Canaveral Lock. So much for vertical transport! Argh, I'd looked along the dredged route, didn't even think to check inside the port itself! Raising those lines would be a huge pain (though not impossible).
Argh, I'd looked along the dredged route, didn't even think to check inside the port itself! Raising those lines would be a huge pain (though not impossible).
IF they barge the first booster to KSC, what transport ship will they use?
Elon timeline:twitter.com/nasaspaceflight/status/1572565037633667074QuoteNot to get ahead of ourselves, but do you have an estimate for the first booster at 39A? Pending Roberts Road, or can you ship vehicles from Starbase (which some people say isn't possible).https://twitter.com/elonmusk/status/1572568337263243264QuoteProbably Q2 next year, with vehicles initially transferred by boat from Port of Brownsville to the Cape
Not to get ahead of ourselves, but do you have an estimate for the first booster at 39A? Pending Roberts Road, or can you ship vehicles from Starbase (which some people say isn't possible).
Probably Q2 next year, with vehicles initially transferred by boat from Port of Brownsville to the Cape
seems weird that at the pace they are going they would not have the KSC starfactory up and running by then
Saturn V (10m diameter) was transported by barge from Louisiana to Florida. Same type barge used for Saturn V can also be used to transport a Superheavy or a Starship. They can pressurize the tanks with nitrogen for stability and tie them down horizontally for transport. Not impossible. The only thing is they may not install the TPS on the Starships until they get to the Cape to avoid losing any. during transport. Oh, and the SLS core is transported via barge to Florida from Louisiana also. Transporting is not a problem. Powerlines can be ran underground if necessary. That too is not a problem.
Quote from: spacenut on 09/21/2022 01:17 pmSaturn V (10m diameter) was transported by barge from Louisiana to Florida. Same type barge used for Saturn V can also be used to transport a Superheavy or a Starship. They can pressurize the tanks with nitrogen for stability and tie them down horizontally for transport. Not impossible. The only thing is they may not install the TPS on the Starships until they get to the Cape to avoid losing any. during transport. Oh, and the SLS core is transported via barge to Florida from Louisiana also. Transporting is not a problem. Powerlines can be ran underground if necessary. That too is not a problem. They would not be transported horizontally.
Quote from: chrisking0997 on 09/21/2022 01:11 pmseems weird that at the pace they are going they would not have the KSC starfactory up and running by thenMy guess is not wanting to dilute the workforce and being more confident in both the vehicle design and manufacturing processes before starting production at a second site.
They don't have to go to the turning basin. They can offload in the port
Quote from: Jim on 09/21/2022 04:09 pmThey don't have to go to the turning basin. They can offload in the portOK. After it's offloaded at the port, how does it get to Roberts Road or to Pad 39A?
I thought all the large rockets transported by barge horizontal had their fuel and lox tanks pressurized so they wouldn't buckle under tie downs. Vertical would be weird, harder to cover, and across the Gulf would have to be under very good weather.
This hovercraft has about a 200 ton payload. This particular one would probably not work, but to build a couple that would be suitable should be very doable. Slave two of them together and you may be able to carry the booster over virtually any surface, like the swamps around Brownsville, from BC to the port. No road or overhead wire or bridge problems. SX allready uses hovercraft to transport employees that stay further afield:https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zubr-class_LCAC#:~:text=Article,4%20x%20NO10%20superchargers
