SpaceX reveals the grand extent of its starport plans in South Texas(arstechnica.com)
arstechnica.com
SpaceX reveals the grand extent of its starport plans in South Texas
https://arstechnica.com/science/2021/03/spacex-reveals-the-grand-extent-of-its-starport-plans-in-south-texas/
90 comments
I know this is a digression, but can you expand on the checkpoints a bit? Are there actually random roadblocks within 100 miles of the border where you get stopped and need to provide proof of residency or citizenship?
Just curious as a Canadian.
Just curious as a Canadian.
Yeah, it's a thing. They're primarily in the 100 miles of the southern border, and generally you only get stopped if you have brown skin if you're worried about being a Canadian in the US.
Check out the term "constitution free zone" if you want to learn more.
Check out the term "constitution free zone" if you want to learn more.
I spend a lot of time near the TX/Mexico border. Everyone gets stopped, you get asked a couple questions and that's it. I haven't been required to show ID or anything like that. They do a walk around your car with a dog and then wave you through.
By stopped, I meant a situation where they don't just wave you through the checkpoint.
The dog they use around the car is to let them harass certain people based on what the dog handler thinks of them. https://health.ucdavis.edu/welcome/features/2010-2011/02/201...
The dog they use around the car is to let them harass certain people based on what the dog handler thinks of them. https://health.ucdavis.edu/welcome/features/2010-2011/02/201...
> you only get stopped if you have brown skin
Maybe, though I think it's fair to point out a large number of CPB agents on the border also have brown skin, if for no other reason than they need a huge percentage of native Spanish speakers.
Maybe, though I think it's fair to point out a large number of CPB agents on the border also have brown skin, if for no other reason than they need a huge percentage of native Spanish speakers.
You can be racist and of the same race. You just see yourself as "one of the few good ones" and internally hate yourself a bit.
This is the general law enforcement mindset, a classist superiority complex that overcomes even one's own racial identity.
Also they have these in southern arizona. If you go to Tucson, you'll see them. And you see people driving past them sometimes. They are of questionable legality in practice, but I never was brave enough not to stop. There were endless stories of people refusing to stop & talk to the these border guards, and then there were strange legal arguments in court where the federal govt seemed like they didn't really want the cases to go to trial for not stopping, and I though it was because of the fear they'd lose the court case and set a precident.
They can make life hard for you, search your car for drugs or illegals, harass you for your citizenship details. A scourge on our country - a true "show me you papers" place. I heard from non-white friends that they were a little afraid of being harassed. It was a living embodiment of unfair policing.
They can make life hard for you, search your car for drugs or illegals, harass you for your citizenship details. A scourge on our country - a true "show me you papers" place. I heard from non-white friends that they were a little afraid of being harassed. It was a living embodiment of unfair policing.
> Are there actually random roadblocks within 100 miles of the border where you get stopped
Yes, there's a combination of established locations and "surprise" locations where Border Patrol stops every car on the interstate.
> you...need to provide proof of residency or citizenship?
I don't think they can legally make you produce this unless they have reasonable suspension of a crime. Every time I've been through they have you roll down your window and ask if everyone in the car is a US citizen. Usually there are dogs on both sides of your vehicle while you're asked. I've never had any trouble or had to produce my license.
In this conversation, I only bring it up because I assume when most people see a large police presence, they're nervous that (a) there's probably a reason to need that many police, and (b) what if the police mistakenly believe I'm a criminal? It's just not a pleasant environment, even though I haven't ever been personally hassled at a checkpoint.
Yes, there's a combination of established locations and "surprise" locations where Border Patrol stops every car on the interstate.
> you...need to provide proof of residency or citizenship?
I don't think they can legally make you produce this unless they have reasonable suspension of a crime. Every time I've been through they have you roll down your window and ask if everyone in the car is a US citizen. Usually there are dogs on both sides of your vehicle while you're asked. I've never had any trouble or had to produce my license.
In this conversation, I only bring it up because I assume when most people see a large police presence, they're nervous that (a) there's probably a reason to need that many police, and (b) what if the police mistakenly believe I'm a criminal? It's just not a pleasant environment, even though I haven't ever been personally hassled at a checkpoint.
As a Canadian that is also a US permanent resident, yes, ICE and CBP have broad authority to set up checkpoints pretty much wherever they please. "100 miles" includes the coastline. They also can do warrant-free detention, and there have been cases of US citizens detained, sometimes for over a week IIRC, over nothing more than suspicion on the part of the ICE officer than the person in question wasn't actually a citizen.
Where it gets dicey is that they can stop you, but constitutionally they can't force you to produce documentation or detain you. But not many people actually know that, or can stomach saying no to federal officers, and so in practice they can.
It is a part of US law that has a great deal of grey area. The policy was retained under Obama and Trump expanded it although not really by very much. In general the abuses seem to be limited but that's not a great deal of consolation.
Where it gets dicey is that they can stop you, but constitutionally they can't force you to produce documentation or detain you. But not many people actually know that, or can stomach saying no to federal officers, and so in practice they can.
It is a part of US law that has a great deal of grey area. The policy was retained under Obama and Trump expanded it although not really by very much. In general the abuses seem to be limited but that's not a great deal of consolation.
South Padre may be 4 miles away as the crow flies, but it's a one hour drive due to the lack of bridges over the Brownsville harbour.
If the spaceport grows enough maybe they would fund a bridge or ferry!
Ferry +1!
It looks like a commercial harbor/causeway for largish oil/gas ships, so the bridge might be a ways off.
It looks like a commercial harbor/causeway for largish oil/gas ships, so the bridge might be a ways off.
How about Boring old tunnel?
One of Elon main points was that you can't have all these ships built in clean rooms by PhDs.
You need a large number of workers, who can weld, move stuff around install stuff onto the rocket.
The most difficult to produce things, like the engine will be delivered.
There will still be a lot of engineers required, but maybe not as much as you would traditionally think.
There is also already a fair amount of heavy industry there so, its not like they are going to some total backwater.
You need a large number of workers, who can weld, move stuff around install stuff onto the rocket.
The most difficult to produce things, like the engine will be delivered.
There will still be a lot of engineers required, but maybe not as much as you would traditionally think.
There is also already a fair amount of heavy industry there so, its not like they are going to some total backwater.
Not sure about checkpoints, but gmaps shows it is 4 hour drive to San Antonio.
Fly them from somewhere else?
It's probably all construction crews and heavy machinery operators at Boca Chica. Any engineers, or other high maintenance types, likely fly in for test launches and then fly right back out.
They might be high maintenance but maybe they remember the last engineers that stayed behind at a SpaceX outpost...
https://www.businessinsider.com/spacex-rocket-engineers-isla...
https://www.businessinsider.com/spacex-rocket-engineers-isla...
[deleted]
u/RGVaerial on r/SpaceXLounge has overlayed these plans onto an aerial photo [1]. It looks a lot smaller than one might expect.
[1] https://www.reddit.com/r/SpaceXLounge/comments/lzf9z7/propos...
[1] https://www.reddit.com/r/SpaceXLounge/comments/lzf9z7/propos...
If you add the massive Starship+SuperHeavy in for scale, it looks even smaller.
https://twitter.com/Caspar_Stanley/status/136834862870895001...
https://twitter.com/Caspar_Stanley/status/136834862870895001...
It looks like those cylinders are representing the launch towers, a few meters taller than the stacked Starship sitting on the launch mount.
Hmm can they stack and fuel and launch multiple in parallel if the pads are so close?
I think everything is a backup with the possible exception of the landing pads. You may need to land the Starship before the booster has been cleared from the other landing pad. In fact, the second landing pad is one of the new items in this iteration.
Basically, I think they want to keep up the testing cadence without having to delay things due to maintenance. They say in one of the applications that there will be no more than about 10-12 orbital launches from Boca Chica per year.
Basically, I think they want to keep up the testing cadence without having to delay things due to maintenance. They say in one of the applications that there will be no more than about 10-12 orbital launches from Boca Chica per year.
I would say no, but I also was very skeptical about them launching and landing SN9 with SN10 just a stone's throw away, so what do I know.
At Kennedy Space Center, LC39A and LC39B are about 3 km (2 miles) apart. So if one Saturn V blew up, the other pad wouldn't be destroyed. I don't know what would happen if another one was on the pad.
To me it looks like the pads are only a few hundred meters apart. It seems like an explosion on one pad could easily damage a rocket on another one.
So I don't think this can be a high flight rate facility.
So I don't think this can be a high flight rate facility.
SpaceX just trademarked Starbase
https://uspto.report/TM/90556104
STARBASE™ trademark registration is intended to cover the categories of launch services, namely, launching the payloads of others into space.
As mentioned at the bottom of the article it’s super cool he’s trying to rename the entire area into a city.
Additional source: https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2021-03-02/musk-floa...
Additional source: https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2021-03-02/musk-floa...
[deleted]
And why not?
At the rate SpaceX is moving at, they may have the world's largest orbital launch system by the end of the year. That's not even "Elon-time" anymore, it's totally within reason that they could have their first orbital Starship launch this year.
When Starship becomes commercially viable, things are going to change fast for the space industry. And that little Starbase in Boca Chica is going to be a busy place.
(And in the meantime, we get to watch all the explody tests, which is excellent entertainment!)
At the rate SpaceX is moving at, they may have the world's largest orbital launch system by the end of the year. That's not even "Elon-time" anymore, it's totally within reason that they could have their first orbital Starship launch this year.
When Starship becomes commercially viable, things are going to change fast for the space industry. And that little Starbase in Boca Chica is going to be a busy place.
(And in the meantime, we get to watch all the explody tests, which is excellent entertainment!)
To be fair, "Elon time" for the first orbital Starship launch was 2020. Shotwell was saying that she would bet yes on an orbital Starship in 2021.
I think "Shotwell" time is generally much closer to 1:1 time than Elon time.
But I agree, Starship has a fairly plausible path to being orbital by the end of the year.
I think "Shotwell" time is generally much closer to 1:1 time than Elon time.
But I agree, Starship has a fairly plausible path to being orbital by the end of the year.
I'm generally inclined to give people a break on missing 2020 deadlines.
Sure, but Starship wasn't going to be orbital in 2020 even without the pandemic.
It was a wildly unrealistic estimate to begin with that characterizes "Elon time" as a concept. Starship development has been blindly fast, and even still is a maybe on getting to orbit this year.
I just don't think the pandemic pushed their timeline back significantly. I could be wrong, but that's my take from the outside looking in
It was a wildly unrealistic estimate to begin with that characterizes "Elon time" as a concept. Starship development has been blindly fast, and even still is a maybe on getting to orbit this year.
I just don't think the pandemic pushed their timeline back significantly. I could be wrong, but that's my take from the outside looking in
Sometimes Elon time is spot on even if it is very optimistic. There was an interview with him in 2008 saying he thought Tesla could deliver 500,000 vehicles a year by 2020 and they basically made that even with the pandemic.
My hot take was that they skydiver maneuver and landing flip would be the hardest part for starship. They've actually done that part perfectly three times now, but haven't fully nailed the landing bit.
My hot take was that they skydiver maneuver and landing flip would be the hardest part for starship. They've actually done that part perfectly three times now, but haven't fully nailed the landing bit.
Indeed. Before the first test flight, I was skeptical whether they can control the aerodynamic flight with those flaps. While they demonstrated their capabilities to control a rocket with the engines with the F9.
But the one thing that seems to be rock stable is the aerodynamic control in the belly-down flight phase. The only issues were with the soft landing phase and that was related to fuel and engine problems. So I am absolutely not worried that SpaceX is going to figure that out soon.
For me, there is only one big thing left to show: whether a starship with heat tiling can withstand the reentry.
But the one thing that seems to be rock stable is the aerodynamic control in the belly-down flight phase. The only issues were with the soft landing phase and that was related to fuel and engine problems. So I am absolutely not worried that SpaceX is going to figure that out soon.
For me, there is only one big thing left to show: whether a starship with heat tiling can withstand the reentry.
> My hot take was that they skydiver maneuver and landing flip would be the hardest part for starship.
I mostly agree with this.
I put both the landing flip maneuver and the heat-shield system on about the same level of difficulty for Starship.
I think they've worked through the hinkiest bits of the landing flip with SN10 (though with some raptor relight stability being potentially a long-ish tail of improving).
I'm curious to see how their heat-shielding mechanism works out. If they can built a heat shield system that works for orbital re-entry and is rapidly refurbishable, I'll be very happy that Starship will be able to meet the extreme goals SpaceX has created for it.
I mostly agree with this.
I put both the landing flip maneuver and the heat-shield system on about the same level of difficulty for Starship.
I think they've worked through the hinkiest bits of the landing flip with SN10 (though with some raptor relight stability being potentially a long-ish tail of improving).
I'm curious to see how their heat-shielding mechanism works out. If they can built a heat shield system that works for orbital re-entry and is rapidly refurbishable, I'll be very happy that Starship will be able to meet the extreme goals SpaceX has created for it.
Surprisingly the delay actually happened because of the structures. Not the landing. It took them way longer then anybody thought to produce the large tanks.
If you look at timeline when they started in Boca, they thought they could do hops way sooner.
If you look at timeline when they started in Boca, they thought they could do hops way sooner.
To be pedantic, it actually seems pretty likely the first stage could have reached LEO. There were no issues at all on ascent, and it has the fuel capacity. At one point Elon was talking about possibly testing this.
But they decided not to do this, because their first priority was to get it to land, and they don't envision LEO launches using only the first stage. That will be in conjunction with the much larger second stage.
But they decided not to do this, because their first priority was to get it to land, and they don't envision LEO launches using only the first stage. That will be in conjunction with the much larger second stage.
> and they don't envision LEO launches using only the first stage.
The bragging rights of being the first to achieve SSTO seem too tempting for Musk to ignore.
The bragging rights of being the first to achieve SSTO seem too tempting for Musk to ignore.
> At one point Elon was talking about possibly testing this.
I hadn't heard about that. I know he's said that the Starship is theoretically _capable_ of SSTO w/ no payload, but I don't recall any suggestion from him that he'd test it.
Elon says a lot of things though, and I probably just missed it somewhere. Any chance you know where/when he said it?
I hadn't heard about that. I know he's said that the Starship is theoretically _capable_ of SSTO w/ no payload, but I don't recall any suggestion from him that he'd test it.
Elon says a lot of things though, and I probably just missed it somewhere. Any chance you know where/when he said it?
Nah, you're right. That's the quote I see, and probably all he said: https://twitter.com/elonmusk/status/1076613555091234816. Sounds like it's capable, and the plan on Moon and Mars, but not on Earth.
Must have been others speculating on the Starship test plans.
Must have been others speculating on the Starship test plans.
> At the rate SpaceX is moving at, they may have the world's largest orbital launch system by the end of the year.
Bit late for that. Falcon Heavy is already the world largest orbital lanunch system.
Actually, it will be the world largest orbital system ever. And on of the biggest flying machines in human history. Easily the most powerful.
Bit late for that. Falcon Heavy is already the world largest orbital lanunch system.
Actually, it will be the world largest orbital system ever. And on of the biggest flying machines in human history. Easily the most powerful.
There's no indication that they are building any sort of structure to "catch" the first stage booster at the landing site.
edit: It was pointed out that the integration tower to the very bottom is a likely candidate.
This seems right as the proposed launch layout is slightly larger given the larger size of the booster.
edit: It was pointed out that the integration tower to the very bottom is a likely candidate.
This seems right as the proposed launch layout is slightly larger given the larger size of the booster.
There is the "Integration Tower" structure at the south side next to the new orbital launch pad. If the plan is to catch and re-fly then that would make sense.
Oh excellent, thank you very much, that looks like it. I don't know why I was thinking there would be a "landing circle" there. Exciting, this is probably the next most fascinating development to watch other than the orbital piece.
Everything else is exciting to watch as well, it's just that in terms of "things that are completely novel", these two things (catching the booster, starship coming back from orbital launch), are at the top of my list. I can't wait to see the first stage go off with its full complement of engines as well. That's going to be straight up incredible.
Everything else is exciting to watch as well, it's just that in terms of "things that are completely novel", these two things (catching the booster, starship coming back from orbital launch), are at the top of my list. I can't wait to see the first stage go off with its full complement of engines as well. That's going to be straight up incredible.
I think the first structure designed to catch boosters will be away from the launch mounts. The primary advantage of catching is eliminating the mass of the legs. Quick relaunch capability is just a bonus and primarily useful at offshore launch sites.
It's possible they would build the "integration tower" first, perfect the catch, and only then build the launch mount.
Why would they? It lands under thrust like the Falcons, with two major differences:
1. it goes back to its launch area rather than merely going down as the Falcons do (why the Falcons need to land on a ship)
2. it's too heavy to get enough air resistance by falling vertically like the Falcons, so it does this amazing belly flop with a "flip and burn" at the last moment
1. it goes back to its launch area rather than merely going down as the Falcons do (why the Falcons need to land on a ship)
2. it's too heavy to get enough air resistance by falling vertically like the Falcons, so it does this amazing belly flop with a "flip and burn" at the last moment
You are talking about Starship (second stage). Super Heavy (first stage booster) will not do belly flop and will use special "catching" structure, its details are unknown as of today.
I believe that need for the belly flop isn't due to weight but is needed for the higher reentry speeds the upper stage. The current F9 reentry speeds are nothing like what is needed for orbital speeds not to mention from Moon/Mars.
If you are already doing a belly flop for reentry, you might as well do it all the way down to minimize the landing fuel penalty. For unmanned flights you can do it really late even if they crash at a low rate. I would expect manned flights to be less aggressive, especially near term.
If you are already doing a belly flop for reentry, you might as well do it all the way down to minimize the landing fuel penalty. For unmanned flights you can do it really late even if they crash at a low rate. I would expect manned flights to be less aggressive, especially near term.
Quick question - since it's South Texas and I can see the Gulf of Mexico in the screenshot... isn't that a little close to the water? Not just maybe global warming + sea level rises but storm surge from hurricanes.
Or is that not a concern? Anyone with more knowledge on the topic could share?
Or is that not a concern? Anyone with more knowledge on the topic could share?
Closeness to the water is a requirement so that if a rocket fails it doesn't land on people. And you don't want to launch to the West so that you can take advantage of the Earth's rotation rather than fighting it. (Launch sites on the West coast are for polar orbits which launch either North or South).
Given those requirements, there's no location that isn't vulnerable to hurricanes. Boca Chica actually doesn't get many hurricanes compared to Florida or further North on the Texas coast.
Given those requirements, there's no location that isn't vulnerable to hurricanes. Boca Chica actually doesn't get many hurricanes compared to Florida or further North on the Texas coast.
> Closeness to the water is a requirement so that if a rocket fails it doesn't land on people.
Not if you're Russia/China.
https://www.cnbc.com/2019/11/26/chinese-rocket-crushes-house...
Not if you're Russia/China.
https://www.cnbc.com/2019/11/26/chinese-rocket-crushes-house...
China is moving away from that as well. China did this because of the threat of capitalist invasion but the realize its dumb.
Russia is a bit different and they couldn't really move it further east because it would be to far from their industrial centers. They had a hell of a time transporting the Buran system to launch already.
Russia is a bit different and they couldn't really move it further east because it would be to far from their industrial centers. They had a hell of a time transporting the Buran system to launch already.
Thanks a lot, Bryan. I know/knew some of those things (like being close to water in general) - I guess I was concerned about how close it appeared to be :)
Can you launch over the great lakes? Or a desert? Also, what about the east coast? Sure, there was Sandy, but it was nothing compared to what happens in the gulf with regularity. Part of my hunch is that the regulatory environment is favorable in nowhere, TX to bring in potentially polluting industry. No chance Elon could have had a launch site built on the tip of Montauk, for example, although he probably would have loved the press of him self driving from the city to there.
Launching closer to the equator is easier.
https://space.stackexchange.com/questions/36283/negative-imp...
https://space.stackexchange.com/questions/36283/negative-imp...
A desert would be excellent. We lost a Space Shuttle due to humid Florida air leading to condensation, ice, a heavy torn-off chunk of foam, a fractured wing edge, and heat-induced structural failure.
Southern Arizona would work, especially at high altitude. We used to do that, but moved to Florida after Mexico complained about debris crossing the border.
Southern Arizona would work, especially at high altitude. We used to do that, but moved to Florida after Mexico complained about debris crossing the border.
You want to launch east to get a boost from earth's rotation, and as close to the equator as possible. Even ignoring that, the great lakes are not big enough for sufficient safety area (if that sounds preposterous, consider that Cuba, that is a thousand miles away from their launch site, actually limits available inclinations from Boca Chica), and there are no deserts in the Americas that don't have cities between them and the east coast.
I get that people want to work the political angle here, but Boca Chica was definitely the best remaining place to launch rockets from continental US, no arguments from regulatory environment needed.
I get that people want to work the political angle here, but Boca Chica was definitely the best remaining place to launch rockets from continental US, no arguments from regulatory environment needed.
I have to imagine one of the reasons you wouldn't launch of the Great Lakes is the absolute insane weather we get up here.
I imagine the weather at Baikonur Kazakhstan and Vostochny Siberia is no better, and the Russians launch from there.
Yea I'm not entirely sure. I see that Baikonur doesn't get a lot of precipitation, but that doesn't explain Amur Oblast which looks comparable to a place like Cleveland in terms of temperature and precipitation.
I have to imagine that even if weather wasn't a concern (again no idea here just enjoying the discussion) - it would cost pretty much the same to build and launch from the Gulf Coast, so long as you don't get hurricane-d, and you can launch year-round (can you launch in snow?).
I have to imagine that even if weather wasn't a concern (again no idea here just enjoying the discussion) - it would cost pretty much the same to build and launch from the Gulf Coast, so long as you don't get hurricane-d, and you can launch year-round (can you launch in snow?).
I think they would have to fly out between Florida and Cuba on orbital flights so a little more restricted than Cape Canaveral.
By design, launch pads (and landing pads) will be more compatible with varying sea level than most other structures.
Pads are generally flooded with water on every launch, starting shortly before the engines ignite. The water deluge system absorbs some of the energy of the rocket exhaust -- this reduces damage to both the pad and the rocket (from reflected sound).
Pads are generally flooded with water on every launch, starting shortly before the engines ignite. The water deluge system absorbs some of the energy of the rocket exhaust -- this reduces damage to both the pad and the rocket (from reflected sound).
"What is striking about this architectural drawing is its compact nature, largely because SpaceX has limited land to work with at the facility and must include stormwater ponds to mitigate against flooding."
Not sure it is any worse than KSC in terms of proximity to danger water.
Being on the cost is also nice because eventually they'll ship/fly the ships to the converted oil rig launch facilities.
Being on the cost is also nice because eventually they'll ship/fly the ships to the converted oil rig launch facilities.
fun fact, KSC is also a huge nature preserve. ...and there are alligators EVERYWHERE. Last time i was there (many years ago) they were basically as common as squirrels. Actually, i wouldn't surprised if they allowed hunters these days.
I'm thinking maybe the solution would be simple as they'll just need to raise the platform and other areas by building up. The mostly empty land is not used for anything and allows for explosions without causing harm to people, they can be under water (maybe). You can raise the roads going to the platform too.
Yeah, it’s a real concern (at high tide, the area around it is flooded), but SpaceX has traditionally addressed such things with a “we’ll just rebuild or adapt if/when that happens.” They built a huge, thin-gauge horizontal assembly building right on the old crawlerway at LC39A in Florida right by the launch pad. It could well be destroyed if a fully Fueled Falcon Heavy (or Starship) explodes or if a Cat 5 hurricane gives it a direct hit. Unlike the more hardened historic VAB that NASA uses. But SpaceX built it quickly and cheaply and it has stood for most of a decade already, so it seems to have been a fairly good decision so far.
They will truck in thousands of load of soil to build it up. The production site is probably in greater danger of flooding at the moment.
It would be cool if they built a full-scale prototype of their proposed methane/oxygen propellant plant near the launch site. It would be harder to pull CO2 out of the atmosphere on Earth than on Mars, but on the other hand solar power is much more abundant here.
If they do that, it'll probably be a couple of miles away at the old natural gas well site they own. That's where they're putting an oxygen purification stack.
I think that plant is just for oxygen and nitrogen (plus the bonus argon for the welders.) Somebody did a calculation that showed that the number of truckloads of methane needed to power the plant was substantially less then the number of truckloads of oxygen that would otherwise be needed.
They might also pull out some krypton for Starlink and Xenon for ion thrusters on other satellites.
AFAICT, thescriptkiddie is talking about an electrolysis plant to create hydrogen, and then a Sabatier plant to create methane from that hydrogen and atmospheric CO2 from the air liquidation stack.
This would not make sense economically, but they have two good reasons for doing this.
1: using a carbon-neutral fuel would be on-message for Elon Musk and would mitigate a major criticism of frequent spaceflight.
2: They're going to have to do something similar on Mars to create fuel for the return flight home. So doing it at scale on Earth first may help them debug the process before trying to do it on Mars.
AFAICT, thescriptkiddie is talking about an electrolysis plant to create hydrogen, and then a Sabatier plant to create methane from that hydrogen and atmospheric CO2 from the air liquidation stack.
This would not make sense economically, but they have two good reasons for doing this.
1: using a carbon-neutral fuel would be on-message for Elon Musk and would mitigate a major criticism of frequent spaceflight.
2: They're going to have to do something similar on Mars to create fuel for the return flight home. So doing it at scale on Earth first may help them debug the process before trying to do it on Mars.
Whatever they use on Mars will need to be lightweight and designed for the application. I can see them building some prototypes, but putting them in the middle of an active launch site seems overly risky. The current distillation plant under construction is second hand and much too large and heavy for being sent to Mars.
Do you really want a fuel plant next to a launch site?
Why not? The fuel is next to the launch site, before they put it into the rocket.
It can be protected from exploding rockets by berms, concrete, etc. It isn't as if an exploding rocket is a shaped charge; the force of an explosion would go up and out and be easily deflected.
It can be protected from exploding rockets by berms, concrete, etc. It isn't as if an exploding rocket is a shaped charge; the force of an explosion would go up and out and be easily deflected.
Assuming nothing landed on top of tanks
I wonder if Elon settled on Texas due to the local regulatory environment not really caring about the local ecology. The current site is built on a sensitive wetland literally in a state park. No clue how Elon managed that one, but it probably wouldn't have been kosher in a blue state. Local TX officials probably saw how the political capital of bringing 'space jobs' to the middle of nowhere outweighed local flora and fauna who obviously aren't going to be voting in elections.
When launching rockets, you generally want two things:
1. Open ocean east from your site, because launching to the east adds velocity - this is the direction in which the Earth rotates, so free speed for you; and ocean is better than land, because no one lives on the ocean and the nearby waters can be closed during launches. If you launch over the sea and anything goes wrong with your rocket during ascent, at least it won't crash on anybody's head and home.
(Russians can afford launching over land, because the steppe is thinly populated and they had no qualms removing the nomads from around Baikonur.)
2. To be as close to equator as possible, because the boost that you get from Earth's rotation is multiplied by cosine of your latitude.
================================================
That is why the French are so happy to have French Guyana. In the contiguous U.S., you only have two states that are suitable: Florida and Texas, both pretty far south and with open sea east of them. That is why the Kennedy Space Center is in Florida.
But real estate in Florida is more expensive than that in Texas and building a new cosmic base there would not only cost money, but bring hassle with the locals because it means sonic booms in the proximity of cities and villages.
Boca Chica is ideally suited for this purpose, fairly cheap land and not much population to speak of.
1. Open ocean east from your site, because launching to the east adds velocity - this is the direction in which the Earth rotates, so free speed for you; and ocean is better than land, because no one lives on the ocean and the nearby waters can be closed during launches. If you launch over the sea and anything goes wrong with your rocket during ascent, at least it won't crash on anybody's head and home.
(Russians can afford launching over land, because the steppe is thinly populated and they had no qualms removing the nomads from around Baikonur.)
2. To be as close to equator as possible, because the boost that you get from Earth's rotation is multiplied by cosine of your latitude.
================================================
That is why the French are so happy to have French Guyana. In the contiguous U.S., you only have two states that are suitable: Florida and Texas, both pretty far south and with open sea east of them. That is why the Kennedy Space Center is in Florida.
But real estate in Florida is more expensive than that in Texas and building a new cosmic base there would not only cost money, but bring hassle with the locals because it means sonic booms in the proximity of cities and villages.
Boca Chica is ideally suited for this purpose, fairly cheap land and not much population to speak of.
> political capital of bringing 'space jobs' to the middle of nowhere
Middle of nowhere is a non charitable as well as non accurate characterization of the area. South Texas and Brownsville are huge in the oil and gas industry. The number and quality of industrial, large structure welders available made the area very intriguing from that perspective alone I wager.
In fact the facility as it exists today is actually quite benign; you should visit if you haven't. It's literally right off the road down there. You can almost touch Starhopper through the fence.
Middle of nowhere is a non charitable as well as non accurate characterization of the area. South Texas and Brownsville are huge in the oil and gas industry. The number and quality of industrial, large structure welders available made the area very intriguing from that perspective alone I wager.
In fact the facility as it exists today is actually quite benign; you should visit if you haven't. It's literally right off the road down there. You can almost touch Starhopper through the fence.
Canaveral is evidence that sensitive wetland in a state park is a great place to build a rocket launch facility. Rocket launch pads have huge keep out zones, and those zones are monitored a lot more closely and effectively than any other state park. Poaching sea turtles from Boca Chica would not be a safe activity.
I'm sure it's a factor, but they are also situated at the lowest possible latitude in the lower 48 states (it's right on the Mexican border), which is important for orbital launch efficiency.
Like Washington, Oregon, Michigan or NY?
Isn't the latitude the most important characteristic?
Isn't the latitude the most important characteristic?
Latitude, and having open ocean to the east. If you want to stay in the lower 48, there really aren't any options other than Florida and Texas, there are no good places left in Florida with sufficient safety areas without having to uproot tens of thousands of people.
I know a lot of folks who haven't been to Brownsville will reflexively think that's a racist comment or something, but it isn't. The area is extremely poor with police/border checkpoints everywhere, the land is ugly, the humidity is horrible, and the mosquitoes are worse.