-
Want to remove ads? Register an account and login to see fewer ads, and become a Supporting Member to remove almost all ads.
There really aren't. When you list the criteria, it becomes obvious why they chose that site.
They want it as far south as possible to get as much of an assist from the Earth's rotation. For the same reason, it needs to launch to the East.. so the west coast is out of the question.
You also need an area that is unpopulated both around the launch site and then area the rocket flys over. That means launching mostly over water. Since it goes mostly East.... that means no southern coast that would take you over or partially over land, so no Alabama, Mississippi, Louisiana, etc.
So, what you are left with is the bottom half of Texas and coast of Florida. Maybe parts of GA, but I'm not sure.
Pretty limited.
Also, a wildlife area is actually ideal. People forget that's exactly what Cape Canaveral is in FL... there's honestly nothing wrong with Boca Chica as long as they take the right precautions.
Besides, they are only seeking to launch 6-12 times a year. People forget this is just their initial test site, the plan was always to launch most of their rockets offshore.
Last edited:
Because they wanted their own launch site where they could do R&D and construction without having to check with NASA left and right. Companies do this all the time. It's kind of like asking 'why would Boeing want to test their aircraft at a private test facility instead of paying to use a government airport'. When you think of it like that, its obvious really - they don't want to have to schedule around other traffic, pay rent, etc.
Boca Chica is also way more rural than Florida. I've visited the site last October and I think its pretty perfect really. There are some people from the area that oppose the project, but most I met fully supported it.
Also, people seem to forget that they already received approval to launch Falcon 9's and Falcon Heavys from there. Not tentative, full on FAA approval YEARS ago. The Falcon Heavy makes more thrust than the Starship's upper stage does, which is all that's been tested so far.
So, while I do understand wanting to get a new review before launching with a Starship booster, the current testing regime is for a rocket less powerful than the one already approved. The landing of it is different mind you, and I don't think they had been granted the right to 'experiment', but the size of the upper stage they've been testing shouldn't be what concerns folks from a regulatory standpoint.
Fundamentally agree with the perspective, but its worth noting that launch latitude is becoming less and less of a thing, especially if one believes LEO constellations will OBE much of what has historically been done from GEO. Those constellations are basically all launching above 50° inclination, and that large of an angle off "not due east" really mutes the upside of a low latitude pad. That's one of the reasons Rocket Lab is setting up Electron/Neutron shop at Wallops vs the [as you note] more congested Cape.
Its also not super important to have a low inclination LP for lunar/martian missions either, and probably even less so with a Starship based mission that's going to have a ton of tonnes and a ton of rockets (though admittedly I didn't pull out the old orbital dynamics textbook...).
As for other prograde US locations beyond Wallops, GA is trying to open up a spaceport, though it will likely be limited to pretty small vehicles. Kwajelin is kinda on the radar as far as launching rockets in the past few decades (a couple F1's went from there as well as a few Orbital vehicles), though its a bear to get to and certainly isn't suited to high volume. PR and USVI also have generally good locations on the globe, though there's still a transportation problem there too. The range on Kauai goes the wrong way IIRC (and maybe its not an orbital range anyway...?) and it probably would be hard to set up a base camp on any of the Hawaiian islands anyway.
Waxing about it a bit, PR could actually be a great base for an ocean launch (and landing) configuration of starship, especially if Starship/Starlink production were to be moved down there. Right now the shop in Redmond is a bit of a kludge and couldn't really be left to a CM type workforce (but it works really well for their insane iterative approach), and as we all know, BC isn't a high volume site. But...one could imagine iterations slowing down a bit and production becoming much more of a rinse and repeat...which would work really well with a PR labor base.
I was a bit surprised that SpaceX has de-stacked S20. I was already coming to the conclusion that B4/S20 were not going to be the vehicles used for the sub-orbital flight but I thought that since they were stacked and testing the new QDs that they might use them for a wet dress rehearsal. That no longer seems to be the case.
I am still hoping for an all-engine static fire of B4 before it is removed from the OLM.
My guess is that B7/S24 (or S22) will be used for the sub-orbital flight.
I am still hoping for an all-engine static fire of B4 before it is removed from the OLM.
My guess is that B7/S24 (or S22) will be used for the sub-orbital flight.
You're absolutely right, there's no doubt about it. It's not like you NEED to go as far south as possible, but its going to help short of anything of a perfect polar orbit. Moreover, I do think the could have been more flexible with the launch site since its just a test facility and one that would see comparatively little use compared to say the Cape or an offshore platform.
That said, I'm sure SpaceX wanted to do businesses in Texas and they wanted to keep the launch/construction/R&D close to where the engines were being made. That would significantly narrow their options. I don't think there's a chance in hell they'll have something in Hawaii... Elon's just not going to deal with the logistics, not even for a test site.
Pretty well. One would have to not be following the program or not realize how quickly things have progressed to think otherwise. They did all the testing they needed to get to their first launch, have a fully built out construction facility, etc. I think it worked out exceptionally well.
They have been waiting around half a year to see if they can launch. Yea, they started fast but now, seems like bureaucracy is knocking at the door.
dazedNconfuzed
Member
Once orbital site is done at BC, they can get on with building the second one - even before FAA finally relents.
BC does allow for a fully over-water easterly path, routing between south Florida and Cuba. They can build at BC, deliver SS & SH by launch from BC, go south of FL, then reverse and land at CC. Probably cheaper than building a factory at CC or elsewhere (including Demos et al).
Sea platforms have the advantage of easily loading fuel etc directly from delivery ships.
BC does allow for a fully over-water easterly path, routing between south Florida and Cuba. They can build at BC, deliver SS & SH by launch from BC, go south of FL, then reverse and land at CC. Probably cheaper than building a factory at CC or elsewhere (including Demos et al).
Sea platforms have the advantage of easily loading fuel etc directly from delivery ships.
I find that scenario unlikely. Building a Starship factory at KSC can’t be that big a deal and a second factory is going to be needed anyway to fulfill Elon’s goal of building 1,000 Starships over the next few decades. And Elon stated during his recent presentation that SpaceX plans to build a factory in Florida. They’ve already filed for the building permits, as has been discussed in the NSF forums.
The feeling that SpaceX is going to drop BC as a launch site or for anything else is not going to happen. There may be a level of bureaucracy they have to wade through but it will eventually happen. Florida is coming on line for more launches. Neither will allow for the number of launches that Elon wants to do. Three launches a day would be four days of launches at BC. So there will be more than even Florida needed for launches.
To follow up on this:
Here are their factory building plans.
Not only has SpaceX laid the groundwork for building a Starship factory in Florida, they’ve actually started work on the foundation for another “Stage Zero” launch tower there. The foundation appears to match the foundation of the tower at Boca Chica.
Here are their factory building plans.
This kind of progress has got to drive some folks in the aerospace industry mad. We're so use to a factory or launch complex taking years.... as in 3-4 years in some cases... to make an bring online.
The ground reality is Star Ship is not ready to launch. this month of next month. There has been zero static fire testing yet on all the 29 engines together on the Booster. I am sure they will find issues during that testing and that will take a few rounds of iterations to diagnose, fix\ & test. This is a brand new rocket with yet flight unproven engines. Ground static fire testing in itself - I believe - will take several months before things are perfected and it can be launched with a Space ship sitting on top.
So my best guess estimate is NET mid to late summer for the first launch even if the approval came next month.
So my best guess estimate is NET mid to late summer for the first launch even if the approval came next month.
Similar threads
- Article
