Welcome to Tesla Motors Club
Discuss Tesla's Model S, Model 3, Model X, Model Y, Cybertruck, Roadster and More.
Register

Starbase: Boca Chica/Brownsville SpaceX Site

This site may earn commission on affiliate links.
Yeah, it would not have taken much longer to do the rocket eq (for those interested, the 3,414 v_e number is g*Isp (9.80665 * 348 (MVAC FT)). Good point that there is much less impact when looking at the second stage burn requirements.

I calculated the velocity using the WGS84 ellipsoid (6,378,137.0 m for semi-major axis, 6,356,752 m for semi-minor, 40,075 km circumference at equator, why the 40,745? Not that it matters much in delta v)
I don't remember where I got 40745. Perhaps mistyped it. Your velocity calculation is more accurate. I should have used:

cos(28.44667 degree)*earthradius_equatorial *2*pi/ (23 hour + 56 minute) = 408.96461 m / s
cos(25.9969 degree)*earthradius_equatorial *2*pi / (23 hour + 56 minute) = 418.06098 m / s
dv= 9.1 m/s

I didn't because 'help earth' did not give me 'earthradius_equatorial'. Somebody should fix this...
 
  • Like
Reactions: SwTslaGrl
Quote from article: “We are told that the 632 kW solar array is now almost completed and that they are combining it with a Tesla Powerpack system”.

That’s not a very large system, but I’m sure it will be expanded over time. It’s a start.

Good sign there aren't many scratch and dent units? :p

Seriously though, the 5 (four pointing toward camera, one sideways) green switch gear cabinets seem to foretell much future expansion.
 
Picture from University of Texas Rio Grande Valley (UTGRV). Which will be sharing use of the Ground Radar Tracking Antennae, already installed near the launch site. When SpaceX is not using the Radars, rather than go idle for most of the time, UTGRV will use them for science research.
BocaRadar.jpg
 
  • Informative
  • Like
Reactions: GSP, Ulmo and mongo
It certainly puts my measly 12.42kW system to shame ;)
You are in better position than me to estimate how much energy that generates daily? 3 MWh? 4 MWh?

I think construction site does not need much electricity. Radar does. 3 MWh would fully charge more than 30 Teslas or produce 50 kg methane (guessing 25% efficiency).
 
Tesla delivers a Powerpack system to SpaceX’s new spaceport in Texas

I could have told you the area had poor "soil" by looking at the satellite image: oceans, bays, sand, swamps, bushes (i.e., no vegetation that stands up past shrub level, which basically just sits on the ground and doesn't ever stand up, because it can't); almost no real land. So, building out there is like building oil platforms in the ocean: lots of piers and probably some sort of accommodation for shifting seas and sands underneath ("soils", using their ignorant sounding nomenclature). Also, there's some aspects of it that are like building a boat, lest the sand and seas swallow you whole (the sand or seas goes into you, sinking you; if you have a boat-like bowl under the buildings with pumps to move blown sand and water back out of the bowl, then the buildings will continue to "float" above the sand and seas; of course, the building would have to be made sea worthy).

You essentially have to "sail" your boat (building) to the desired destination (right where you're at relative to more solid land structures, I suppose, in this need to be right next to a contentious border and have property rights drawn on certain property lines, which from that point of view, would be considered "stationary", but I doubt the winds, oceans, seas and beaches see it that way).

If you are ever in an area that has no trees, you have to ask yourself: why? There's a reason for that. It means they can't grow there for some reason. The reason is clear: there is no solid land that can withstand holding an upright structure with nothing more than roots as anchors. Also look around at how many humans live there, build structures there, and ask yourself the same question. You will come up with the same conclusion. Look at the roads and the sink holes formed by rain. If you happen to see cows, ask a local farmer what they do every time they see their cows. You will probably hear them say "count them". That's because I'm guessing a certain # are eaten by sink holes all the time.

That SpaceX facility will have all sorts of sink holes to hide bodies in, and they could just blame it on "the people over there" over the border a few miles away. I wouldn't want to work there, unless security was very tight and they counted their employees regularly to make sure none of them disappeared into sink holes or anyplace else, and stopped anyone from disappearing.

It's a great place to put things that no one wants to live near, like big rockets. Also, if you can figure out a way to get solar to "stand still" (i.e., sail, float, constantly correct its position (using an obvious method I'm going to censor because I want to do it), etc.) long enough to last 3 decades, it can use up some of that damned useless land area and provide us clean energy.

Salt. Anti-salt construction and practices necessary.

I just got a Google Street View image:
Screen Shot 2018-01-26 at 11.56.37 PM.png
It makes me feel like I'm sinking and will drown: there is no up. In fact, the road itself is merely a bunch of imported dirt, with the surrounding areas all just swamp, sand, sea.
 
Last edited:
I just got a Google Street View image:
View attachment 276111
It makes me feel like I'm sinking and will drown: there is no up. In fact, the road itself is merely a bunch of imported dirt, with the surrounding areas all just swamp, sand, sea.
I just realized that road was probably built by military, which is why the dirt looks so expensive. I honestly have no idea how expensive road building is, and what was necessary in that section. But I wouldn't trust that road to stick around during any type of ocean moving weather events.
 
  • Funny
Reactions: SW2Fiddler
Tesla delivers a Powerpack system to SpaceX’s new spaceport in Texas

I could have told you the area had poor "soil" by looking at the satellite image: oceans, bays, sand, swamps, bushes (i.e., no vegetation that stands up past shrub level, which basically just sits on the ground and doesn't ever stand up, because it can't); almost no real land. So, building out there is like building oil platforms in the ocean: lots of piers and probably some sort of accommodation for shifting seas and sands underneath ("soils", using their ignorant sounding nomenclature). Also, there's some aspects of it that are like building a boat, lest the sand and seas swallow you whole (the sand or seas goes into you, sinking you; if you have a boat-like bowl under the buildings with pumps to move blown sand and water back out of the bowl, then the buildings will continue to "float" above the sand and seas; of course, the building would have to be made sea worthy).

You essentially have to "sail" your boat (building) to the desired destination (right where you're at relative to more solid land structures, I suppose, in this need to be right next to a contentious border and have property rights drawn on certain property lines, which from that point of view, would be considered "stationary", but I doubt the winds, oceans, seas and beaches see it that way).

If you are ever in an area that has no trees, you have to ask yourself: why? There's a reason for that. It means they can't grow there for some reason. The reason is clear: there is no solid land that can withstand holding an upright structure with nothing more than roots as anchors. Also look around at how many humans live there, build structures there, and ask yourself the same question. You will come up with the same conclusion. Look at the roads and the sink holes formed by rain. If you happen to see cows, ask a local farmer what they do every time they see their cows. You will probably hear them say "count them". That's because I'm guessing a certain # are eaten by sink holes all the time.

That SpaceX facility will have all sorts of sink holes to hide bodies in, and they could just blame it on "the people over there" over the border a few miles away. I wouldn't want to work there, unless security was very tight and they counted their employees regularly to make sure none of them disappeared into sink holes or anyplace else, and stopped anyone from disappearing.

It's a great place to put things that no one wants to live near, like big rockets. Also, if you can figure out a way to get solar to "stand still" (i.e., sail, float, constantly correct its position (using an obvious method I'm going to censor because I want to do it), etc.) long enough to last 3 decades, it can use up some of that damned useless land area and provide us clean energy.

Salt. Anti-salt construction and practices necessary.

I just got a Google Street View image:
View attachment 276111
It makes me feel like I'm sinking and will drown: there is no up. In fact, the road itself is merely a bunch of imported dirt, with the surrounding areas all just swamp, sand, sea.

Why the post about KSC/ Cape Canaveral? ;)

When you need to own all the over fly land between your facility and the ocean, there aren't a lot of choices.
Boca Chica does not appear to have limestone/ karat formations so fast forming sinkholes should not be a problem. It does have evaporative (salt and gypsum) formations which can form subsidence holes.
For stability, you can do a lot with piers and post-stressed concrete waffle foundations (for example One Shell Square, NOLA). Just remember to protect your cables.
 
  • Like
  • Helpful
Reactions: SW2Fiddler and GSP
That SpaceX facility will have all sorts of sink holes
I could have told you the area had poor "soil" by looking at the satellite image: oceans, bays, sand, swamps, bushes (i.e., no vegetation that stands up past shrub level, which basically just sits on the ground and doesn't ever stand up, because it can't); almost no real land. So, building out there is like building oil platforms in the ocean
Please describe your professional qualifications and experience in soil analysis, geology, large scale commercial construction, and building rocket launch pads. Once I know that I can better evaluate your statements regarding SpaceX making a poor site selection.
I honestly have no idea how expensive road building is...
Thank you for your honesty.
 
Please describe your professional qualifications and experience in soil analysis, geology, large scale commercial construction, and building rocket launch pads. Once I know that I can better evaluate your statements regarding SpaceX making a poor site selection.
Thank you for your honesty.
For Boca Chica both claims are probably true: It is difficult land to build on. It is best available land for SpaceX on continental US.

I'm not expert, but if it were easy to build on, it would have been build already.

Unrelated to Boca Chica: We do have land easy to build on, but no trees can grow on: Granite without cracks.
 
I'm not expert, but if it were easy to build on, it would have been build already.
Your statement contradicts itself.

There are millions of acres of land just in the US that are suitable for large scale commercial construction but are not built on, for a variety of reasons. The nature of the geology is one factor among many others.

I have yet to see anyone with the appropriate professional qualifications post their opinion, based on specific knowledge of the area in question, as to the building suitability of the land SpaceX owns in Boca Chica.

What I have seen so far is uninformed speculation. It should be labeled as such. Do that, and feel free to speculate. Continue to make statements unsupported by fact and professional qualifications and I will continue to point that out.
 
Your statement contradicts itself.

There are millions of acres of land just in the US that are suitable for large scale commercial construction but are not built on, for a variety of reasons. The nature of the geology is one factor among many others.

I have yet to see anyone with the appropriate professional qualifications post their opinion, based on specific knowledge of the area in question, as to the building suitability of the land SpaceX owns in Boca Chica.

What I have seen so far is uninformed speculation. It should be labeled as such. Do that, and feel free to speculate. Continue to make statements unsupported by fact and professional qualifications and I will continue to point that out.
There certainly are millions of acres of land just in the US that are suitable and available for large scale commercial construction. Most rockets are launched to east. During launch there should not be humans in (100?) miles to east of launch site and nobody in miles in other directions. How many such places are there?

Launch site should also be as close to equator as possible. There is only one place left.

Google maps show about 40 houses about 2.5 km west from SpaceX site. Do they have to evacuate those? If not, there will be good launch observation site.

Rocket Launch: February 6, 2018 | SpaceX Falcon Heavy Inaugural Flight

FEEL THE HEAT LAUNCH VIEWING SOLD OUT
Where: Apollo/Saturn V Center, approximately 3.9 miles/6.27 kilometers from launch pad
 
  • Like
Reactions: Grendal
Picture from University of Texas Rio Grande Valley (UTGRV). Which will be sharing use of the Ground Radar Tracking Antennae, already installed near the launch site. When SpaceX is not using the Radars, rather than go idle for most of the time, UTGRV will use them for science research.
View attachment 275499
Studying google.maps: Houses behind antennas are Boca Chica Village, Texas - Wikipedia

Those houses will not be expensive problem for SpaceX.
 
So I have a sorta related question. SpaceX spends a lot of effort with developing landing capabilities on the drone ship. The flight path goes east. Can they land the first stage rockets in Florida instead if they take off from Boca Chica, or is it too far away? All I could find was that the drone ship was "several hundred miles" out in the Atlantic for the Falcon Heavy launch, and it is about 1000 miles to Florida. Judging by the seas that the drone ship was in, it would have been a difficult feat to land there.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Grendal