Bahamas Ministry to allow SpaceX dronships to land F9 at Exumas

[catdlr]

MINISTRY OF TOURISM, INVESTMENTS & AVIATION SECURES HISTORIC AGREEMENT WITH SPACEX TO PROPEL BAHAMAS INTO THE SPACE TECHNOLOGY & TOURISM FRONTIER
[Feb 16]

SpaceX, a pioneer in space exploration, is currently finalizing mission designs where one of the company’s autonomous drone ships will serve as a Falcon 9 landing location east of The Exumas, offering a spectacle that will be visible only in The Bahamas. This unique opportunity sets the stage for tourists to witness awe-inspiring space events from cruise ships, resorts, and various tourist hotspots, solidifying The Bahamas' position as a key player in the emerging space tourism industry.

SOURCE

In the attached Google Maps the red circle is Exumas, so the landing zone would be the area east of that (in orange).  Currently, Starlink launches from the Cape have to do a right dog leg to avoid a Bahamas flyover.  With this agreement, a flyover would allow a straight ground track (and possibly save fuel by eliminating the Delta-V?)

[Asteroza]

Will this in theory mean calmer seas more often for an ASDS landing there, and faster transit back, increasing launch availability?

[catdlr]

Will this in theory mean calmer seas more often for an ASDS landing there, and faster transit back, increasing launch availability?

Just a theory, slightly further away means long travel time, but calmer waters allow for safer landing conditions and faster travel return time.  As for increased launch cadence, SpaceX is still limited to two drone ships, and the need to perform RTLS is still needed when drone availability is limited.  The RTLS cost them a few fewer Starlinks Sats, but the Delta-V saving may allow some added Starlinks Sats.  I'll wait for the members with the math skills to do the calculations on this.

Another theory suggests that the fleet heads towards the Bahamas at Exumas and uses a single barge to transport multiple boosters back to Port Canaveral before returning to Exumas. This approach is similar to the one used on the West Coast where a single drone ship docks at Long Beach and heads out for another landing, while a separate barge collects a couple of boosters and then departs for VSFB. The boosters are then dropped off at their port and the barge returns for more.

[sdsds]

Tourism - what a great spin on close-off-shore landings!

[Stan-1967]

Do boats have to stay outside the orange delineated area?  If not, how close to the ASDS barge can they approach?  Am I correct in thinking the Bahamas government has all authority to regulate the waters & airways that are territorial to the Bahamas? 

Watching from hotels or any of islands/beaches seems like it will not be impressive.  Landings will be at least 20-60 km away.   

I am guessing somewhere in the agreement the Bahamas is going to regulate this somehow, & also indemnify SpaceX.

[meekGee]

So is there a fast transit ship that has to make an appearance soon?

[lrk]

I wonder if they have been looking into landing on an island in the Bahamas?  Would reduce operating costs and launch constraints on sea state.  Although doing so would still require boosters to be shipped back to Florida, so savings might be small.

[zubenelgenubi]

Cross-post; ASDS landing here did not happen:

Cross-post; launch NET May 1, launch trajectory to the southeast; ASDS landing amidst the Bahamian islands in Exuma Sound the Tongue of the Ocean:

Starlink 4-15 permit request finally showed up, and the drone ship location is a bit interesting.
0598-EX-ST-2022

Since this was filed after the permits for higher numbered flights, I'm wondering if it's the rideshare for Spaceflight.

[crandles57]

possibly save fuel by eliminating the Delta-V?)

Probably fill it up anyway so more a case of providing more margin and/or greater possible mass?

[catdlr]

The first use of the new landing zone has been noted.  I'll update you with a map when made available.

https://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=45440.msg2569679#msg2569679

Four Starlinks from Florida using the new landing area...

0293-EX-ST-2024  Mission 2210 Starlink Group 7-28/Exuma trajectory
0294-EX-ST-2024  Mission 2211 Starlink Group 7-29/Exuma trajectory
0295-EX-ST-2024  Mission 2109 Starlink Group 8-4/Exuma trajectory
0296-EX-ST-2024  Mission 2212 Starlink Group 7-30/Exuma trajectory

[raptorx2]

Will this in theory mean calmer seas more often for an ASDS landing there, and faster transit back, increasing launch availability?

Just a theory, slightly further away means long travel time, but calmer waters allow for safer landing conditions and faster travel return time.  As for increased launch cadence, SpaceX is still limited to two drone ships, and the need to perform RTLS is still needed when drone availability is limited.  The RTLS cost them a few fewer Starlinks Sats, but the Delta-V saving may allow some added Starlinks Sats.  I'll wait for the members with the math skills to do the calculations on this.

Another theory suggests that the fleet heads towards the Bahamas at Exumas and uses a single barge to transport multiple boosters back to Port Canaveral before returning to Exumas. This approach is similar to the one used on the West Coast where a single drone ship docks at Long Beach and heads out for another landing, while a separate barge collects a couple of boosters and then departs for VSFB. The boosters are then dropped off at their port and the barge returns for more.

Yes, I expect that Musk has already acquired one of these islands near the landing area that has a preexisting harbor.  Build a resort with an airstrip. Base one of the ASDS locally at this location and then transfer to a cargo ship for the trip back to the Eastern Range. (as you point out like on the West Coast)  Then the ASDS is only 15 miles from the landing zone. This increases cadence dramatically.

[meekGee]

Will this in theory mean calmer seas more often for an ASDS landing there, and faster transit back, increasing launch availability?

Just a theory, slightly further away means long travel time, but calmer waters allow for safer landing conditions and faster travel return time.  As for increased launch cadence, SpaceX is still limited to two drone ships, and the need to perform RTLS is still needed when drone availability is limited.  The RTLS cost them a few fewer Starlinks Sats, but the Delta-V saving may allow some added Starlinks Sats.  I'll wait for the members with the math skills to do the calculations on this.

Another theory suggests that the fleet heads towards the Bahamas at Exumas and uses a single barge to transport multiple boosters back to Port Canaveral before returning to Exumas. This approach is similar to the one used on the West Coast where a single drone ship docks at Long Beach and heads out for another landing, while a separate barge collects a couple of boosters and then departs for VSFB. The boosters are then dropped off at their port and the barge returns for more.

Yes, I expect that Musk has already acquired one of these islands near the landing area that has a preexisting harbor.  Build a resort with an airstrip. Base one of the ASDS locally at this location and then transfer to a cargo ship for the trip back to the Eastern Range. (as you point out like on the West Coast)  Then the ASDS is only 15 miles from the landing zone. This increases cadence dramatically.

Why land on a barge and not on shore?

[catdlr]

Will this in theory mean calmer seas more often for an ASDS landing there, and faster transit back, increasing launch availability?

Just a theory, slightly further away means long travel time, but calmer waters allow for safer landing conditions and faster travel return time.  As for increased launch cadence, SpaceX is still limited to two drone ships, and the need to perform RTLS is still needed when drone availability is limited.  The RTLS cost them a few fewer Starlinks Sats, but the Delta-V saving may allow some added Starlinks Sats.  I'll wait for the members with the math skills to do the calculations on this.

Another theory suggests that the fleet heads towards the Bahamas at Exumas and uses a single barge to transport multiple boosters back to Port Canaveral before returning to Exumas. This approach is similar to the one used on the West Coast where a single drone ship docks at Long Beach and heads out for another landing, while a separate barge collects a couple of boosters and then departs for VSFB. The boosters are then dropped off at their port and the barge returns for more.

Yes, I expect that Musk has already acquired one of these islands near the landing area that has a preexisting harbor.  Build a resort with an airstrip. Base one of the ASDS locally at this location and then transfer to a cargo ship for the trip back to the Eastern Range. (as you point out like on the West Coast)  Then the ASDS is only 15 miles from the landing zone. This increases cadence dramatically.

You would hope but maybe not.  I need to do some digging to see what port is available.  Already four launches are using the new landing zone (they didn't wait long to start using the agreement).  I suspect the initial landing will use the same routine with the fleet returning to Port Cavernal.  SpaceX just purchased and offloaded a second crane at that port. So having a port in the Bahamas would require yet another crane.

[alugobi]

Yes, I expect that Musk has already acquired one of these islands near the landing area that has a preexisting harbor. 

What?

[catdlr]

Yes, I expect that Musk has already acquired one of these islands near the landing area that has a preexisting harbor. 

What?

Yea, What?

Speculation hell.

As promised above I look at all the islands and the only candidates for a preexisting harbor are one at Freeport and 2 at Nassau.  The commercial port at Nassau is perfect, about as large are Port Canaveral. There are numerous small ports for pleasure crafts and yachts in the target area but would have to purchase land for off-load/load ops and dredge out a harbor, build a dock, etc.

If SpaceX intends to offload cores and farings onto a separate barge that ferries them back to Port Canaveral (and that's highly speculative) it would be this one at Nassau.
 
Don't hold me to this, I'm only providing current dock facilities possibilities

GOOGLE MAP TAG

[DistantTemple]

Snip...

SpaceX just purchased and offloaded a second crane at that port. So having a port in the Bahamas would require yet another crane.

I'm sure the new crane and the existing on that SX uses so frequently are both the property of Port Canaveral See also https://www.portcanaveral.com/mhc-2
No one seems to have said this - but Blue Origin is moving into Port Canaveral right next to SX. Maybe they too expect a harbor crane to be available. (Although the brand new crane above the words "Port Canaveral" in this tweet is BO's) https://twitter.com/SpaceOffshore/status/1714004168359198811

[Asteroza]

Will this in theory mean calmer seas more often for an ASDS landing there, and faster transit back, increasing launch availability?

Just a theory, slightly further away means long travel time, but calmer waters allow for safer landing conditions and faster travel return time.  As for increased launch cadence, SpaceX is still limited to two drone ships, and the need to perform RTLS is still needed when drone availability is limited.  The RTLS cost them a few fewer Starlinks Sats, but the Delta-V saving may allow some added Starlinks Sats.  I'll wait for the members with the math skills to do the calculations on this.

Another theory suggests that the fleet heads towards the Bahamas at Exumas and uses a single barge to transport multiple boosters back to Port Canaveral before returning to Exumas. This approach is similar to the one used on the West Coast where a single drone ship docks at Long Beach and heads out for another landing, while a separate barge collects a couple of boosters and then departs for VSFB. The boosters are then dropped off at their port and the barge returns for more.

Yes, I expect that Musk has already acquired one of these islands near the landing area that has a preexisting harbor.  Build a resort with an airstrip. Base one of the ASDS locally at this location and then transfer to a cargo ship for the trip back to the Eastern Range. (as you point out like on the West Coast)  Then the ASDS is only 15 miles from the landing zone. This increases cadence dramatically.

Why land on a barge and not on shore?

For armchair rubberneckers who would like to explore the options, a google maps link to the area

https://www.google.com/maps/place/24%C2%B018'56.6%22N+76%C2%B010'36.6%22W/@24.4235032,-76.5651606,214210m/data=!3m1!1e3!4m4!3m3!8m2!3d24.315719!4d-76.17684?entry=ttu

Not a lot of great options for land landing point that also has a decent harbor for barge access and the roads to a wharf, while having the landing point be reasonably isolated.


There is a former airstrip near Freetown

https://www.google.com/maps/place/24%C2%B047'20.6%22N+76%C2%B018'28.5%22W/@24.7876853,-76.3387612,13349m/data=!3m1!1e3!4m4!3m3!8m2!3d24.789062!4d-76.307927?entry=ttu

That has a harbor north of it by a decent access road with a wharf where a barge could dock

https://www.google.com/maps/place/24%C2%B050'07.8%22N+76%C2%B020'32.2%22W/@24.8269521,-76.3544733,9997m/data=!3m1!1e3!4m4!3m3!8m2!3d24.835511!4d-76.342278?entry=ttu

but also what looks like a barge hideaway just south of the harbor that could be used

https://www.google.com/maps/place/24%C2%B049'45.6%22N+76%C2%B020'38.0%22W/@24.827248,-76.3474028,2163m/data=!3m1!1e3!4m4!3m3!8m2!3d24.829333!4d-76.343874?entry=ttu


The Freetown area is closer than Nassau to allow faster cycle time, but no crane. The airstrip is almost but not quite clear of the inhabited area of the harbor from a trajectory perspective.

[catdlr]

No one seems to have said this - but Blue Origin is moving into Port Canaveral right next to SX. Maybe they too expect a harbor crane to be available. (Although the brand new crane above the words "Port Canaveral" in this tweet is BO's)

Yes it has, in the Blue Origin thread, it started when that Twitter post was made last October.

https://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=41146.msg2534739#msg2534739

Load testing:
https://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=41146.msg2536668#msg2536668

Breakover equipment
https://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=41146.msg2547190#msg2547190
https://twitter.com/SpaceOffshore/status/1729232959616491908

[acsawdey]

I think a big question I have is whether there will be idiot boaters out for the F9 landings in the same way there were for the first Crew Dragon splashdown along the gulf coast. Landing far offshore in the Atlantic has a way of keeping the riff-raff out. This location is 14-18 miles from various islands all around it.

[catdlr]

I think a big question I have is whether there will be idiot boaters out for the F9 landings in the same way there were for the first Crew Dragon splashdown along the gulf coast. Landing far offshore in the Atlantic has a way of keeping the riff-raff out. This location is 14-18 miles from various islands all around it.

That's what mariner notices are for.

[redneck]

Will this in theory mean calmer seas more often for an ASDS landing there, and faster transit back, increasing launch availability?

Just a theory, slightly further away means long travel time, but calmer waters allow for safer landing conditions and faster travel return time.  As for increased launch cadence, SpaceX is still limited to two drone ships, and the need to perform RTLS is still needed when drone availability is limited.  The RTLS cost them a few fewer Starlinks Sats, but the Delta-V saving may allow some added Starlinks Sats.  I'll wait for the members with the math skills to do the calculations on this.

Another theory suggests that the fleet heads towards the Bahamas at Exumas and uses a single barge to transport multiple boosters back to Port Canaveral before returning to Exumas. This approach is similar to the one used on the West Coast where a single drone ship docks at Long Beach and heads out for another landing, while a separate barge collects a couple of boosters and then departs for VSFB. The boosters are then dropped off at their port and the barge returns for more.

Yes, I expect that Musk has already acquired one of these islands near the landing area that has a preexisting harbor.  Build a resort with an airstrip. Base one of the ASDS locally at this location and then transfer to a cargo ship for the trip back to the Eastern Range. (as you point out like on the West Coast)  Then the ASDS is only 15 miles from the landing zone. This increases cadence dramatically.

Why land on a barge and not on shore?

Possibly to avoid being locked to a single location vulnerable to political winds as in the nonsense at Chica?? If the locals begin a form of obstruction, move to another jurisdiction. More difficult after building infrastructure ashore.

[meekGee]

Will this in theory mean calmer seas more often for an ASDS landing there, and faster transit back, increasing launch availability?

Just a theory, slightly further away means long travel time, but calmer waters allow for safer landing conditions and faster travel return time.  As for increased launch cadence, SpaceX is still limited to two drone ships, and the need to perform RTLS is still needed when drone availability is limited.  The RTLS cost them a few fewer Starlinks Sats, but the Delta-V saving may allow some added Starlinks Sats.  I'll wait for the members with the math skills to do the calculations on this.

Another theory suggests that the fleet heads towards the Bahamas at Exumas and uses a single barge to transport multiple boosters back to Port Canaveral before returning to Exumas. This approach is similar to the one used on the West Coast where a single drone ship docks at Long Beach and heads out for another landing, while a separate barge collects a couple of boosters and then departs for VSFB. The boosters are then dropped off at their port and the barge returns for more.

Yes, I expect that Musk has already acquired one of these islands near the landing area that has a preexisting harbor.  Build a resort with an airstrip. Base one of the ASDS locally at this location and then transfer to a cargo ship for the trip back to the Eastern Range. (as you point out like on the West Coast)  Then the ASDS is only 15 miles from the landing zone. This increases cadence dramatically.

Why land on a barge and not on shore?

Possibly to avoid being locked to a single location vulnerable to political winds as in the nonsense at Chica?? If the locals begin a form of obstruction, move to another jurisdiction. More difficult after building infrastructure ashore.

You can always fall back to a barge, especially if the particular launch trajectory is not close enough to the landing port...

But I'm guessing the dogleg required to reach a common landing point, usually, is a lot less than a full boostback.

Handling OTOH is much simplified, as is turn around time.

[Alexphysics]

Not sure why a lot of thought is being put on something so simple. Group 7 and 8 launches go to 53 degree inclination, if they didn't have this agreement in place then the droneship would have to go where Group 6 landings occur which means a massive dogleg around Bahamas and therefore less satellites that can be launched.

SpaceX is obviously interested on launching as many satellites as they can, that's precisely why they only did a few Group 6 launches from Vandenberg and then abandoned it and went with Group 7/8 as those can be reached from there with little to no dogleg needed at all. Same thing from Florida with Group 6 launches. There's a slight dogleg but it's not a massive one so that's why they're currently having these missions in that arrangement but with this agreement they can also do Group 7/8 launches from the Cape and not perform doglegs at all.

I assume that this could also potentially shift the landing location of Group 6 missions later on to a bit closer to Bahamas to completely avoid that slight dogleg maneuver they do. Again, it's a small one but it's somewhat there. They're always squeezing more performance out of Falcon 9 so if they don't have to waste it on doglegs and whatnot then that means more satellites per launch.

[wannamoonbase]

Downrange land landings would be pretty cool to watch.  Don't know what that means for ITAR regulations and controls.

I'm not sure it buys much for them if they still need to get them onto and off a transport ship.  It's still adding another ship to the SpaceX navy, so why not just make it another ASDS?

Will be interesting to see develop.

[raptorx2]

Well if you read the Press Release.  It sounds more like SpaceX will create something like a SpaceXland on one of the Islands near the landing zone.  So, in theory, The ASDS would be based out of "SpaceXland" going forward and boosters transferred to some sort of "fastbarge" for transit back to Cape. All the operations would be viewable by the visitors to SpaceXland.

""NASSAU, The Bahamas (16 Feb. 2024) — The Ministry of Tourism, Investments & Aviation (MOTIA) is delighted to announce the successful negotiation and execution of a groundbreaking Letter of Agreement (LOA) with SpaceX (Space Exploration Technologies Corp.), marking a revolutionary leap for The Bahamas into the realm of space tourism.

SpaceX, a pioneer in space exploration, is currently finalizing mission designs where one of the company’s autonomous droneships will serve as a Falcon 9 landing location east of The Exumas, offering a spectacle that will be visible only in The Bahamas. This unique opportunity sets the stage for tourists to witness awe-inspiring space events from cruise ships, resorts, and various tourist hotspots, solidifying The Bahamas' position as a key player in the emerging space tourism industry.

In tandem with the LOA, SpaceX has committed to supporting the creation of a space installation or exhibit showcasing recognizable hardware and a SpaceX spacesuit. This exhibit, the only one outside the United States, is expected to draw significant attention and attendance from both Bahamian citizens and international tourists.[/b]"

[steveleach]

Downrange land landings would be pretty cool to watch.  Don't know what that means for ITAR regulations and controls.

I'm not sure it buys much for them if they still need to get them onto and off a transport ship.  It's still adding another ship to the SpaceX navy, so why not just make it another ASDS?

Will be interesting to see develop.

I can imagine a few reasons why a dedicated transport ship might make sense.

* It doesn't need to be tough enough to support a rocket landing on it
* It doesn't need to be able to stay flat and stable enough for a landing
* It doesn't need to operate autonomously
* A single ship can take multiple boosters
* A transport ship can be designed to travel significantly faster than a barge
* You can probably use the deeper hull of a ship to support the boosters better
* You can build cranes onto the ships themselves for loading/unloading boosters

Also, there are probably existing ships on the market that are not far off what they'd need, whereas I don't think anyone is selling autonomous barges.

[catdlr]

Need to review what Alex posted back, this may be for a short duration of a set of Starlinks that have this specific inclination.  It may be useful for a few other launches in the future.  The need for anything other than getting permission to land on barges is all we can anticipate for now.  Will just have to keep our eyes open for news from the island to indicate any further development than was reported.

[alugobi]

Well if you read the Press Release.  It sounds more like SpaceX will create something like a SpaceXland on one of the Islands near the landing zone.  So, in theory, The ASDS would be based out of "SpaceXland" going forward and boosters transferred to some sort of "fastbarge" for transit back to Cape.

Based there?  I don't understand that at all from that PR.  They're going to give them some spacecraft and suit googaws in something like a museum it appears. 

But landing the barge there?  I don't think so.  The boosters will land off shore within view, but, I suspect, still over the horizon.  And then the barge gets towed back to Florida as always.

[raptorx2]

Need to review what Alex posted back, this may be for a short duration of a set of Starlinks that have this specific inclination.  It may be useful for a few other launches in the future.  The need for anything other than getting permission to land on barges is all we can anticipate for now.  Will just have to keep our eyes open for news from the island to indicate any further development than was reported.

From what I have read.  There will be 840 D2D's in the first phase, then a follow on 840 in the second phase.

So 1680 D2D satellites going to 53 degrees. Divide that by an unknown D2D quantity per launch.  20? = 84 launches.
All Group 1 V1.0 and Group 4 V1.5  launches were to 53 degrees.  There has been a lot of discussion on how they make it to 140 launches in 2024, given the refurbishment time on the Western Range, and SLC-6 not available until mid-2025. 

Then only two ASDS ships on the Eastern Range supporting two launch pads (-RTLS).  Keeping a ASDS in the Bahamas in close proximity to the landing sight with facilities to transfer to a fast transport ship would increase cadence.  Plus, it would not strand the support ships/personal at sea for days due to an Abort/Delay.  IMO

[catdlr]

this may be for a short duration of a set of Starlinks that have this specific inclination.

From what I have read.  There will be 840 D2D's in the first phase, then a follow on 840 in the second phase.

So 1680 D2D satellites going to 53 degrees. Divide that by an unknown D2D quantity per launch.  20? = 84 launches.
All Group 1 V1.0 and Group 4 V1.5  launches were to 53 degrees.  There has been a lot of discussion on how they make it to 140 launches in 2024, given the refurbishment time on the Western Range, and SLC-6 not available until mid-2025. 

Then only two ASDS ships on the Eastern Range supporting two launch pads (-RTLS).  Keeping a ASDS in the Bahamas in close proximity to the landing sight with facilities to transfer to a fast transport ship would increase cadence.  Plus, it would not stand the support ships/personnel at sea for days due to an Abort/Delay.  IMO

Thanks raptorx2 for doing the numbers, that changes the dynamics.

[acsawdey]

I think a big question I have is whether there will be idiot boaters out for the F9 landings in the same way there were for the first Crew Dragon splashdown along the gulf coast. Landing far offshore in the Atlantic has a way of keeping the riff-raff out. This location is 14-18 miles from various islands all around it.

That's what mariner notices are for.

My point is, notices didn't prevent the Crew-1 situation. Will the lessons learned from that be picked up by a different nation's coast guard?

[catdlr]

https://twitter.com/TurkeyBeaver/status/1760411209587937562

Mega exciting to see the announcement of the letter of agreement between
@SpaceX
 and the Bahamas! This will enable falcon to land in Bahamian territorial waters and hopefully provide awesome droneship landing viewing opportunities. A huge shout out to @arbowe and @opmthebahamas for making it happen and also for visiting HQ on Monday!!!

News Release

[catdlr]

Comments from Alex:

https://twitter.com/Alexphysics13/status/1760413312548733161

This announcement came right as the company has started to file FCC permits for Starlink launches from the Cape using this new landing location in the middle of the Bahamas. Would be interesting to see if this could lead to other future agreements of the same sort🤔

These missions are essentially Starlink missions that go to the 53 degree shell of the Starlink Gen 2 constellation. To reach this orbital inclination without this special landing location would mean performing a dogleg around Bahamas that would reduce Falcon 9's performance

For this reason, these mission are currently only carried out from Vandenberg where there's only a teeny tiny dogleg. But now with this new landing location it means Falcon 9 can avoid having to perform a dogleg and go straight to 53 degrees in one go without losing performance.

[catdlr]

For reference, the map below denotes all the past StarLink landings off the northern side of the Bahama islands

Source

[catdlr]

Now that SpaceX can launch at 53 degrees inclinations these would be the approximate landing locations for southern and northern trajectories. Thanks to OneSpeed for providing the map.

https://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=45440.msg2570013#msg2570013

[TrevorMonty]

 

Then only two ASDS ships on the Eastern Range supporting two launch pads (-RTLS).  Keeping a ASDS in the Bahamas in close proximity to the landing sight with facilities to transfer to a fast transport ship would increase cadence.  Plus, it would not strand the support ships/personal at sea for days due to an Abort/Delay.  IMO

Killing time in the Bahamas between missions. Its a tough job but somebody has to do it.

[raptorx2]

It appears, that out of an abundance of caution.  SpaceX filed parallel Northbound trajectory Experimental Launch Communications Applications for the 5 flights they filed yesterday for the Southern Exuma trajectory.  7-28, 7-29, 7-30, 8-4, 8-5. 

As everyone knows, SpaceX applied yesterday to the FCC to permit launching into the 340km 53°, 345km 46°, 350km 38°, 360km 96.9° shells.  If/When approved, I would suspect West Coast pad will loft Starlinks to the 96.9° shell, while 39A/40 will perform the "Group 7, Group8" 53° shells.  No 70° shells in Gen.2

[raptorx2]

?  Since the ASDS ships will be operating in Bahamian Territorial Waters some of the time.  Could SpaceX test their Gateways in Motion on the ASDS ships under Bahamian Authority, since the FCC has not acted on their US application?

[raptorx2]

?  Since the ASDS ships will be operating in Bahamian Territorial Waters some of the time.  Could SpaceX test their Gateways in Motion on the ASDS ships under Bahamian Authority, since the FCC has not acted on their US application?

Update:  The FCC approved SpaceX Experimental Authority to operate "Gateways in Motion" in US Territorial Waters on 2/29/2024.

RE: Bahamas/Exuma

Quote for an interview with Elon Musk in 1999.

"I can buy one of the islands in Bahamas and turn it into my personal fiefdom. I’m much more interested in trying to build and create a new company,"

https://bigthink.com/the-future/elon-musk-interview-1999/

Sounds like buying an Island in the Bahamas has always been on his "Bucket List".

[matthewkantar]

?  Since the ASDS ships will be operating in Bahamian Territorial Waters some of the time.  Could SpaceX test their Gateways in Motion on the ASDS ships under Bahamian Authority, since the FCC has not acted on their US application?

Update:  The FCC approved SpaceX Experimental Authority to operate "Gateways in Motion" in US Territorial Waters on 2/29/2024.

RE: Bahamas/Exuma

Quote for an interview with Elon Musk in 1999.

"I can buy one of the islands in Bahamas and turn it into my personal fiefdom. I’m much more interested in trying to build and create a new company,"

https://bigthink.com/the-future/elon-musk-interview-1999/

Sounds like buying an Island in the Bahamas has always been on his "Bucket List".

Really? I didn’t listen to the interview, but from the quote it sounds like he is more interested in starting new companies than owning real estate.

[raptorx2]

Will this in theory mean calmer seas more often for an ASDS landing there, and faster transit back, increasing launch availability?

Just a theory, slightly further away means long travel time, but calmer waters allow for safer landing conditions and faster travel return time.  As for increased launch cadence, SpaceX is still limited to two drone ships, and the need to perform RTLS is still needed when drone availability is limited.  The RTLS cost them a few fewer Starlinks Sats, but the Delta-V saving may allow some added Starlinks Sats.  I'll wait for the members with the math skills to do the calculations on this.

Another theory suggests that the fleet heads towards the Bahamas at Exumas and uses a single barge to transport multiple boosters back to Port Canaveral before returning to Exumas. This approach is similar to the one used on the West Coast where a single drone ship docks at Long Beach and heads out for another landing, while a separate barge collects a couple of boosters and then departs for VSFB. The boosters are then dropped off at their port and the barge returns for more.

Yes, I expect that Musk has already acquired one of these islands near the landing area that has a preexisting harbor.  Build a resort with an airstrip. Base one of the ASDS locally at this location and then transfer to a cargo ship for the trip back to the Eastern Range. (as you point out like on the West Coast)  Then the ASDS is only 15 miles from the landing zone. This increases cadence dramatically.

Why land on a barge and not on shore?

For armchair rubberneckers who would like to explore the options, a google maps link to the area

https://www.google.com/maps/place/24%C2%B018'56.6%22N+76%C2%B010'36.6%22W/@24.4235032,-76.5651606,214210m/data=!3m1!1e3!4m4!3m3!8m2!3d24.315719!4d-76.17684?entry=ttu

Not a lot of great options for land landing point that also has a decent harbor for barge access and the roads to a wharf, while having the landing point be reasonably isolated.


There is a former airstrip near Freetown

https://www.google.com/maps/place/24%C2%B047'20.6%22N+76%C2%B018'28.5%22W/@24.7876853,-76.3387612,13349m/data=!3m1!1e3!4m4!3m3!8m2!3d24.789062!4d-76.307927?entry=ttu

That has a harbor north of it by a decent access road with a wharf where a barge could dock

https://www.google.com/maps/place/24%C2%B050'07.8%22N+76%C2%B020'32.2%22W/@24.8269521,-76.3544733,9997m/data=!3m1!1e3!4m4!3m3!8m2!3d24.835511!4d-76.342278?entry=ttu

but also what looks like a barge hideaway just south of the harbor that could be used

https://www.google.com/maps/place/24%C2%B049'45.6%22N+76%C2%B020'38.0%22W/@24.827248,-76.3474028,2163m/data=!3m1!1e3!4m4!3m3!8m2!3d24.829333!4d-76.343874?entry=ttu


The Freetown area is closer than Nassau to allow faster cycle time, but no crane. The airstrip is almost but not quite clear of the inhabited area of the harbor from a trajectory perspective.

Norman's Cay looks ideal.

Nice Harbor
4,700ft Commercial Airport allowing direct flights from Miami.
Accommodations / Cottages

Right on the North End of the Exumas.

[raptorx2]

Norman's Cay looks ideal.

Nice Harbor
4,700ft Commercial Airport allowing direct flights from Miami.
Accommodations / Cottages

Right on the North End of the Exumas.

According to this article, it appears that the runway and Harbor (Southern End of Norman's Cay) is owned by the Bahamian Govt.   The rest is owned by a developer that want to build a resort and private residences.

This seem to (on the surface) tie into the statements made by the Bahamian Officials.

May 21, 2019
http://www.tribune242.com/news/2019/may/21/land-transfer-enable-serious-development-normans-c/

[catdlr]

Norman's Cay looks ideal.

Nice Harbor
4,700ft Commercial Airport allowing direct flights from Miami.
Accommodations / Cottages

Right on the North End of the Exumas.

According to this article, it appears that the runway and Harbor (Southern End of Norman's Cay) is owned by the Bahamian Govt.   The rest is owned by a developer that want to build a resort and private residences.

This seem to (on the surface) tie into the statements made by the Bahamian Officials.

May 21, 2019
http://www.tribune242.com/news/2019/may/21/land-transfer-enable-serious-development-normans-c/

Good job raptorx2 for both posts.  Continue to keep your eyes open for any other news.   Best, Tony

[DistantTemple]

Norman's Cay looks ideal.

Nice Harbor
4,700ft Commercial Airport allowing direct flights from Miami.
Accommodations / Cottages

Right on the North End of the Exumas.

According to this article, it appears that the runway and Harbor (Southern End of Norman's Cay) is owned by the Bahamian Govt.   The rest is owned by a developer that want to build a resort and private residences.

This seem to (on the surface) tie into the statements made by the Bahamian Officials.

May 21, 2019
http://www.tribune242.com/news/2019/may/21/land-transfer-enable-serious-development-normans-c/

Good job raptorx2 for both posts.  Continue to keep your eyes open for any other news.   Best, Tony

This is not a show-stopper, but the channel to that harbor marina is 50 ft 130 ft (EDIT) wide, and OCISLU is 150 ft wide!
SX would been to build a new harbor, or at least a wharf, and probably a breakwater.
Edited 6Mar corrected width. (no clearance)

[DistantTemple]

If SpaceX is also looking ahead to facilities that could be used for Starship, then they could make a considerable investment in developing their own facilities.
There are uninhabited islands in Exuma!

[raptorx2]

This is not a show-stopper, but the channel to that harbor marina is 50 ft wide, and OCISLU is 150 ft wide!
SX would been to build a new harbor, or at least a wharf, and probably a breakwater.

Here is perhaps a different perspective on the width of the channel??

[raptorx2]

If SpaceX is also looking ahead to facilities that could be used for Starship, then they could make a considerable investment in developing their own facilities.
There are uninhabited islands in Exuma!

If you are going to built facilities for Starship. Perhaps one a bit closer to equator?

I have always been a fan of the Northwest Coast of Guyana. Just up the road from the European French Guinea launch facility.

Guyana is undergoing rapid GDP Growth and Development.

Considerably shorter from Brownsville to Guyana,  than the ESA to French Guinea.
Plenty of room to build manufacturing and launch facilities.

[Jim]

If you are going to built facilities for Starship. Perhaps one a bit closer to equator?

I have always been a fan of the Northwest Coast of Guyana. Just up the road from the European French Guinea launch facility.

Guyana is undergoing rapid GDP Growth and Development.

Considerably shorter from Brownsville to Guyana,  than the ESA to French Guinea.
Plenty of room to build manufacturing and launch facilities.

Not worth the little extra performance and the complication.

[TrevorMonty]

Where is the huge quantities of liquid methane and oxygen going to come from. If shipping in need to build expensive port facilities and a means of getting cryo liquids to launch site. 

[DanClemmensen]

Where is the huge quantities of liquid methane and oxygen going to come from. If shipping in need to build expensive port facilities and a means of getting cryo liquids to launch site.

While I don't think the idea makes sense, the fuel is not a huge problem. They would need to build a LOX+Liquid Nitrogen plant, but LNG is shipped in massive quantities around the world.

[alugobi]

I don't recall that the agreement with the Bahamas to land F9 boosters in Bahamian waters has any language at all about anything SX ever making landfall on the territory of the country.

[raptorx2]

If you are going to built facilities for Starship. Perhaps one a bit closer to equator?

I have always been a fan of the Northwest Coast of Guyana. Just up the road from the European French Guinea launch facility.

Guyana is undergoing rapid GDP Growth and Development.

Considerably shorter from Brownsville to Guyana,  than the ESA to French Guinea.
Plenty of room to build manufacturing and launch facilities.

Not worth the little extra performance and the complication.

Extra complication??  You mean more complication than the EPA, FAA, 1,000's of Federal / State regulations in place at Boca or Canaveral.

If your going to Mars.  You need to build Massive launch facilities in a location that is more "flexible" we might call it.

As far as I have seen.  SpaceX is always interested in a little extra performance, perhaps especially here given the need for on-orbit refueling?

[raptorx2]

Where is the huge quantities of liquid methane and oxygen going to come from. If shipping in need to build expensive port facilities and a means of getting cryo liquids to launch site.

https://guyanachronicle.com/2023/08/22/new-port-facility-supporting-economic-development-in-region-three/

New port facility supporting economic development in Region Three
Staff Reporter
By Staff Reporter
|  August 22, 2023

"LOCAL firm, GAICO, is now offering oil-and-gas support services, with the completion of its port facility and laydown yard at Nismes, West Bank Demerara.  snip

A 12-inch pipeline, which will stretch some 200 km from offshore, will be used to transport natural gas from the Liza Phase One and Liza Phase Two Floating, Production, Storage, and Offloading (FPSO) vessels offshore to the power plant and Natural Gas Liquids (NGL) facility which is being constructed at Wales, West Bank Demerara."

https://guyanachronicle.com/2023/08/22/new-port-facility-supporting-economic-development-in-region-three/

[raptorx2]

I don't recall that the agreement with the Bahamas to land F9 boosters in Bahamian waters has any language at all about anything SX ever making landfall on the territory of the country.

Not sure anyone outside of the Bahamian Govt. and SpaceX have ever actually seen the details of the agreement?

Bahamian Customs officials are already located at this site for Marine Traffic at port.

[alugobi]

Not sure anyone outside of the Bahamian Govt. and SpaceX have ever actually seen the details of the agreement?

Bahamian Customs officials are already located at this site for Marine Traffic at port.

I don't think it follows from that that SX intends to port there. 

[deltaV]

If you are going to built facilities for Starship. Perhaps one a bit closer to equator?

Starship is designed primarily for Mars and Starlink. The inclination of a low Earth parking orbit used to leave for Mars must be at least the declination of the departure asymptote and those declinations are typically a few dozen degrees. Starlink launches also have significant inclinations. So SpaceX won't launch many missions to the low inclination orbits that launch sites near the equator have an advantage at. I therefore don't think SpaceX will go to the considerable trouble of making an international launch site near the equator for the relatively rare launches to GTO or GEO that could benefit. And GTO and GEO missions may not actually benefit since Starship is bigger than needed for them even from a US launch site.

[gongora]

This thread is starting to stray a bit.

[catdlr]

This thread is starting to stray a bit.

Thanks gongora,

Please keep this thread for F9 booster recovery when needed, the barge at F9, and tow the rocket back to Port Canaveral. Currently, there are no credible reports or requirements for establishing a base or harbor. However, it should be noted that the launch path and the need for the Bahamas are specific for a Group of Starlinks, and once completed SpaceX will go on a launch at a different inclination and may no longer need this area.

Discussion on Starship, launch, and recovery, there are appropriate threads for that discussion.

[Zed_Noir]

.....However, it should be noted that the launch path and the need for the Bahamas are specific for a Group of Starlinks, and once completed SpaceX will go on a launch at a different inclination and may no longer need this area.
<snip>

Disagree. As that specific group of Starlink comsats will need constant replenishment to retain bandwidth capacity. Using the Bahamas launch path regularly at low flight rate makes regulatory issues easier to deal with if that particular orbital  inclination is needed for some future launches.

[catdlr]

.....However, it should be noted that the launch path and the need for the Bahamas are specific for a Group of Starlinks, and once completed SpaceX will go on a launch at a different inclination and may no longer need this area.
<snip>

Disagree. As that specific group of Starlink comsats will need constant replenishment to retain bandwidth capacity. Using the Bahamas launch path regularly at low flight rate makes regulatory issues easier to deal with if that particular orbital  inclination is needed for some future launches.

Yes, I agree, I was thinking initially, but replenishment is ongoing,  good point.  Best, Tony.

[raptorx2]

.....However, it should be noted that the launch path and the need for the Bahamas are specific for a Group of Starlinks, and once completed SpaceX will go on a launch at a different inclination and may no longer need this area.
<snip>

Disagree. As that specific group of Starlink comsats will need constant replenishment to retain bandwidth capacity. Using the Bahamas launch path regularly at low flight rate makes regulatory issues easier to deal with if that particular orbital  inclination is needed for some future launches.

Yes, I agree, I was thinking initially, but replenishment is ongoing,  good point.  Best, Tony.

Nearly all of the V1.0's (~1500) launched to 53 degrees, Gen 1. with a five year expected life.  Some will be 5 years old late this year.

Pethpas we will see a near-term pause in Eastern Range Group 6 (43degree) launches, with emphasis on Group 7 Group 8 (53 degrees) from the Eastern Range?  Given that we have had ~41 launches of Group 6 (6-1, and 6-2 never raised) as of this moment with ~22.1 satellites per payload.  Brings them to ~860 V2.0 minis in the Gen. 2 43 degree shell.   In D2D documents, SpaceX has stated that the first complete D2D shell will encompass ~840 satellites.

SpaceX has not filed for an Experimental Launch Communications  license for Group 6 for over a month.  (Currently authorized for up to 6-46 with 6-47 pending).  All applications since the beginning of Feb.  have been for 53 degree inclinations (Group 7/ Group8).

With LC39A now in the loop. They will likely quickly expire the remaining Group 6 launch authorizations. Leaving only Group 7/ Group 8 authorizations.

[raptorx2]

A little recent data on "turnaround" of back to back ASDS (ASOG) missions.

Launch Feb. 25 (6-39) SLC-40
ASOG departs Feb. 20 2:40PM
ASOG  returns Feb 28 9:11AM

Launch (6-41) SLC-40
ASOG departs Feb. 29 6:28PM
ASOG returns  Mar. 7 12PM

Next scheduled mission for ASOG March 13 

So average turnaround for a back to back ASDS for Group 6 flights currently (~8 days) departure to return, not including ~1 1/2 days in port for offloading.  So ~10 day turnaround while pad turnaround for SLC-40 is around 4-5 days..  (39A?)

This is about the same turnaround for the Western Range with only 1 ASDS.   So in a scenario which is now approaching where they can launch back to back from both 39A and 40.  Pad turn around is not the limiting factor.  It's the time delta of the ASDS boats transiting to/from landing site.

So given this information. Launching Starlink flights Back to Back to Back at both 39A and 40 would yield only 6 Starlink flights per month from the Eastern Range due to the transit times.  (Obviously they could launch some RTLS missions (CRS) etc between these Back to Back Starlink Launches to increase pad utilization.

The Western Range would also be limited to these ASDS transit times, so at best, 3 Starlink launches per month.

All in, best case scenario, that would be 9 Starlink launches per month ( no delays) or ~ 205   V2.0minis (which would not include reconfiguring 39A for FalconHeavy (six weeks roundtrip) in the summer or commercial launches non RTLS launches from both the Western or Eastern Range. . 

Recently, Kiko Dontchev @TurkeyBeaver VP of Launch @ SpaceX stated on X, that they are working hard to get the D2D constellation on-orbit by the end of August.

According to FCC filings, this would require the launch of ~840 D2D payloads by the end of August.

Also we don't have an exact number of D2D payloads per launch.  But, given the data from the first six D2D satellites launched in January.  They appear heavier than the V2.0 Minis to some unknown degree.

A bit of a puzzle, but my money is that one ASDS will be "quasi-permanently" stationed in Bahamian Waters, and one of the support ships will be based in the Bahamas during this period for faring recovery.   There is just too much time lost in the ASDS transition back and forth to make this timetable. IMO

[raptorx2]

Is SpaceX going "International"?
SpaceX Careers seeks:
 COUNSEL, LAUNCH AND RECOVERY OPERATIONS:

SpaceX is looking for an experienced attorney to take primary responsibility for solving the company’s legal challenges related to the launch and recovery of its Falcon, Dragon, and Starship vehicles, including obtaining relevant licensing and ensuring compliance with U.S., foreign, and international laws. Legal areas include but are not limited to export controls, marine operations and safety, hazardous materials, and international maritime law.

⚫️Provide expert advice, training, and guidance concerning U.S. federal requirements related to export controls, marine operations and safety, hazardous materials, and similar legal requirements in certain foreign jurisdictions.

⚫️Prepare and manage certain regulatory licenses and permits, including for exports and imports.

⚫️Provide expert advice and guidance concerning the requirements and obligations for handling export-controlled commodities, material, software, technical data, and defense services under the International Traffic and Arms Regulations (ITAR) and Export Administrations Regulations (EAR).

https://boards.greenhouse.io/spacex/jobs/7259806002?gh_jid=7259806002