Why is SpaceX building the Brownsville Launch Complex?

[fredinno]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/SpaceX_private_launch_site

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/SpaceX_launch_facilities

http://spaceflightnow.com/news/n1310/18spacex/#.VvHEMUZxSrl

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cape_Canaveral_Air_Force_Station_Space_Launch_Complex_17

Really. I get the SpaceX is anticipating even more F9 and FH launches than LC-39A and LC-40 can support (I think they are being optimistic, but hey.) But there is still plenty of space for SpaceX to expand to- most particularly LC-37A, next to the Delta IV complex (now that it's being abandoned, SpaceX can have the entire facility and all the space it wants there to itself), LC-36 (before it was taken over by Blue Origin), LC-17 (demolishing the two existing pads there and building a new, existing facility) or really, any of the old Titan II Launch complexes, like the former Gemini Pad LC-19, which  https://www.google.ca/maps/place/Cape+Canaveral,+FL,+USA/@28.554469,-80.5785675,5302m/data=!3m1!1e3!4m2!3m1!1s0x88e0a5ab39504c9b:0xbb0bb0f57a55d19e

show it is of similar size to LC-40.

I know the Brownsville location is required for MCT, but wouldn't it be better to break ground once SpaceX actually has facilities in place to form things like the 15m diameter tanks required? Not to mention the Texas location is less than optimal, and has a far more restricted launch profile due to the Gulf oil rigs.

[SomeDudeBro]

You have to consider the advantages of having your own complex. SpaceX can do whatever it wants with it without NASA to watch over it.

[Nothalogh]

52 minutes ago, fredinno said:

Gulf oil rigs

Tell them to move

[fredinno]

30 minutes ago, SomeDudeBro said:

You have to consider the advantages of having your own complex. SpaceX can do whatever it wants with it without NASA to watch over it.

Only problem is that the advantages seem minimal. Especially since that'd mean they'd need to move their 2 existing launch complexes to Brownsville if they wanted everything done internally. Seriously, how much money are they going to save? This seems like a relatively high fruit in terms of saving money- pad facilities are not a huge expense, from what I know, and SpaceX will still be subject to the same amount of regulations- only now with less freedom on how/which inclination to launch, and somewhat lower costs from removing the middleman real estate owner.

Seriously, SpaceX is the only company really looking to launch satellites like this, on entirely new land (except Virgin Atlantic, but that's kind of cheating since it uses the same facilities as the suborbital rockets, thus making a lot more sense.

[cantab]

They probably just want as little outside interference as possible. Vertical integration - and I mean the business strategy not the rocket assembly method - seems to be SpaceX's thing.

[sgt_flyer]

at least, they might have a bit less maritime traffic to contend with - oil rigs won't move  must be a bigger problem in florida to have to deal with boat companies - as those lose a bit of revenue when they can't navigate their usual routes each time anyone launches a rocket from the cape.

one other advantage for boca chica, is that it's almost the shortest path to the east coast from hawthorne  - especially when moving oversized loads by road. - allowing to save a bit on transportation.

 

Edited March 23, 2016 by sgt_flyer

[StrandedonEarth]

1 hour ago, fredinno said:

Especially since that'd mean they'd need to move their 2 existing launch complexes to Brownsville if they wanted everything done internally

I don't think they'll be moving anything. It'll be one more place they can use, one more prep hangar. Then they can really pop them up one after another.

[fredinno]

31 minutes ago, StrandedonEarth said:

I don't think they'll be moving anything. It'll be one more place they can use, one more prep hangar. Then they can really pop them up one after another.

No, if they want to use Vertical integration, then they should move all of their launch complexes to private land. Why go to the effort of making an entire launch complex for one pad?

[PB666]

3 hours ago, fredinno said:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/SpaceX_private_launch_site

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/SpaceX_launch_facilities

http://spaceflightnow.com/news/n1310/18spacex/#.VvHEMUZxSrl

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cape_Canaveral_Air_Force_Station_Space_Launch_Complex_17

Really. I get the SpaceX is anticipating even more F9 and FH launches than LC-39A and LC-40 can support (I think they are being optimistic, but hey.) But there is still plenty of space for SpaceX to expand to- most particularly LC-37A, next to the Delta IV complex (now that it's being abandoned, SpaceX can have the entire facility and all the space it wants there to itself), LC-36 (before it was taken over by Blue Origin), LC-17 (demolishing the two existing pads there and building a new, existing facility) or really, any of the old Titan II Launch complexes, like the former Gemini Pad LC-19, which  https://www.google.ca/maps/place/Cape+Canaveral,+FL,+USA/@28.554469,-80.5785675,5302m/data=!3m1!1e3!4m2!3m1!1s0x88e0a5ab39504c9b:0xbb0bb0f57a55d19e

show it is of similar size to LC-40.

I know the Brownsville location is required for MCT, but wouldn't it be better to break ground once SpaceX actually has facilities in place to form things like the 15m diameter tanks required? Not to mention the Texas location is less than optimal, and has a far more restricted launch profile due to the Gulf oil rigs.

Actually is not well known but there is a sort of no-mans land a wedge that goes out from the Rio Grande that claimed by mexico and the US. If you are Mexican and you go there the US will chase you out and vice versa. Been chased before. Because there has not been too much rig development in the region. Basically strait out from the proposed site.

Less than optimal is the fact that the proposed launch pad is right now a brachish marsh. Its elevation is about a meter, the last major storm that blew through their missed boca chica and tore up miles of highway to the north, basically deposited reef dewelling fish in lagunas it created in south padre island. That was allen in 1980, now we are talking about canes that pack 160 to 200 mph winds as major, the surge heights are in the 6 to 12 meter range.

Having said all that I like the site, I think it would be great to go sit on the beach and watch rockets take off. Its just not going to be a heavy launch site for a long time. Plus if they dredge a channel in south bay then the back end is now a great fishing place.

 

 

Edited March 23, 2016 by PB666

[fredinno]

5 minutes ago, PB666 said:

Actually is not well known but there is a sort of no-mans land a wedge that goes out from the Rio Grande that claimed by mexico and the US. If you are Mexican and you go there the US will chase you out and vice versa. Been chased before. Because there has not been too much rig development in the region. Basically strait out from the proposed site.

Less than optimal is the fact that the proposed launch pad is right now a brachish marsh. Its elevation is about a meter, the last major storm that blew through their missed boca chica and tore up miles of highway to the north, basically deposited reef dewelling fish in lagunas it created in south padre island. That was allen in 1980, now we are talking about canes that pack 160 to 200 mph winds as major, the surge heights are in the 6 to 12 meter range.

Having said all that I like the site, I think it would be great to go sit on the beach and watch rockets take off. Its just not going to be a heavy launch site for a long time. Plus if they dredge a channel in south bay then the back end is not a great fishing place.

 

 

Actually, no, the oil rigs, and the continental US north of Brownsville highly limits the launch trajectory:

This is a map of Gulf oil rigs. Vandeberg has a few oil rigs blocking its way, but FAR less than the Gulf.

[55delta]

Why? You noted yourself that SpaceX plans more launches. I hear buzz about a launch 'every few weeks.' Whether it's too aggressive a schedule or not, they'll need more launch pads. Also, they need more launch and integration facilities to go with them. As well, I guess they didn't want to sign more leases, or they wanted facilities that met their own specifications. More launch pads, same number of leases, and whatever facilities they want.

Who knows, maybe they plan to integrate payloads via very slow assembly line?  

[fredinno]

12 minutes ago, 55delta said:

Why? You noted yourself that SpaceX plans more launches. I hear buzz about a launch 'every few weeks.' Whether it's too aggressive a schedule or not, they'll need more launch pads. Also, they need more launch and integration facilities to go with them. As well, I guess they didn't want to sign more leases, or they wanted facilities that met their own specifications. More launch pads, same number of leases, and whatever facilities they want.

Who knows, maybe they plan to integrate payloads via very slow assembly line?  

They can get more pads from existing Cape or even Wallops locations. Plus, real estate is not really cheap in the east coast.

[55delta]

Sure, there are pads that no one is using and I can only speculate on some reasons why they wouldn't lease them. But, if it were me, I won't get a lease on those pads if in any way I had to re-build either (or both) the pad and the facilities to launch what I wanted to. Now, land on the east coast may be expense, but I doubt it's as expensive as demolishing any (or all) parts of the place, then re-building it to suit new needs, while also paying that lease. In many ways, better to start anew on land you'd own for decades to come. Although Wikipedia says something about Brownsville being commercial-only launches, if that means anything.

Also, if they have any plans to get BFR/MCT development underway, SpaceX prefers to do testing at it's own facilities. They did similar with the Grasshopper. But that's just my guess.

Edited March 23, 2016 by 55delta

[fredinno]

1 hour ago, 55delta said:

Sure, there are pads that no one is using and I can only speculate on some reasons why they wouldn't lease them. But, if it were me, I won't get a lease on those pads if in any way I had to re-build either (or both) the pad and the facilities to launch what I wanted to. Now, land on the east coast may be expense, but I doubt it's as expensive as demolishing any (or all) parts of the place, then re-building it to suit new needs, while also paying that lease. In many ways, better to start anew on land you'd own for decades to come. Although Wikipedia says something about Brownsville being commercial-only launches, if that means anything.

Also, if they have any plans to get BFR/MCT development underway, SpaceX prefers to do testing at it's own facilities. They did similar with the Grasshopper. But that's just my guess.

LC-37A is 100% empty, along with the pads on the ICBM row (which are a bit smaller, but still should be able to host Falcon 9- they hosted Atlas III and will host Blue Origin's rockets. Granted, they made this decision back when ULA did not announce they were going to end Delta IV and move to LC-40 for all CC launches, (and SpaceX has bad experiences sharing a pad location, ie Falcon 1) but I think it should have been obvious that if they met their cost goals, then eventually ULA would give up the Delta.

And SpaceX already has its own testing facilities at Texas, elsewhere. MCT is so far away anyways, and SpaceX has done nothing to make it a reality yet. (except but out the Brownsville location necessary)

[55delta]

Well, I'll admit I don't know that much about individual rockets. But let's see...

http://www.spacex.com/falcon9

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Atlas_III

Guess I couldn't find the stats for New Shepard in a five-minute search. Anyway...

So I've found that an Atlas III is 52.8 m (173.2 ft) tall, has a mass of 214,338 kg (472,338 lb), and is 3.05 m (10 ft) in diameter.

On the other hand, a Falcon 9 is 70 m (229.6 ft) tall, has a mass of 541,300 kg (1,194,000 lb), and is 3.7 m (12 ft) in diameter.

I'm lead to believe that New Shepard is also smaller than a Falcon 9 rocket. But I think the point it clear. Unless ICBM row was overbuilt, I wouldn't try to fit a Falcon 9 on those pads.

As for LC-37A, as you mentioned, it's likely at the time that ULA still wanted to use it and SpaceX didn't want to bump elbows during scheduling. Amusing as it would be, There's no one pad anywhere that I know of that could host competitive orbital rocket launches.

[Jovus]

4 hours ago, fredinno said:

Actually, no, the oil rigs, and the continental US north of Brownsville highly limits the launch trajectory:

This is a map of Gulf oil rigs. Vandeberg has a few oil rigs blocking its way, but FAR less than the Gulf.

Obviously the answer is that Elon Musk is diversifying his portfolio into oil-rig corporate insurance and plans to make his money back via premium hikes for the added danger of rocket debris.

[Streetwind]

Reasons cited by SpaceX so far:

- Extra capacity for launches; less "traffic" (both in terms of shipping and in terms of flights)
- More freedom and control due to private ownership, less oversight
- Shorter distance from McGregor, Texas (their testing facility)
- Closer to the equator, allows extra capacity for GEO missions
- More favorable weather (Florida is among the worst possible locations in the entire US to launch rockets from)
- Central component in the (as of yet unannounced) Mars plans

Whether or not you feel that those reasons are justified, I can't say, but it's apparently worth the cash investment for SpaceX

[55delta]

4 minutes ago, Streetwind said:

Reasons cited by SpaceX so far:

- Extra capacity for launches; less "traffic" (both in terms of shipping and in terms of flights)
- More freedom and control due to private ownership, less oversight
- Shorter distance from McGregor, Texas (their testing facility)
- Closer to the equator, allows extra capacity for GEO missions
- More favorable weather (Florida is among the worst possible locations in the entire US to launch rockets from)
- Central component in the (as of yet unannounced) Mars plans

I can see those as being some decent reasons for building their own complex. Thanks for the info.

[fredinno]

2 hours ago, 55delta said:

Well, I'll admit I don't know that much about individual rockets. But let's see...

http://www.spacex.com/falcon9

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Atlas_III

Guess I couldn't find the stats for New Shepard in a five-minute search. Anyway...

So I've found that an Atlas III is 52.8 m (173.2 ft) tall, has a mass of 214,338 kg (472,338 lb), and is 3.05 m (10 ft) in diameter.

On the other hand, a Falcon 9 is 70 m (229.6 ft) tall, has a mass of 541,300 kg (1,194,000 lb), and is 3.7 m (12 ft) in diameter.

I'm lead to believe that New Shepard is also smaller than a Falcon 9 rocket. But I think the point it clear. Unless ICBM row was overbuilt, I wouldn't try to fit a Falcon 9 on those pads.

As for LC-37A, as you mentioned, it's likely at the time that ULA still wanted to use it and SpaceX didn't want to bump elbows during scheduling. Amusing as it would be, There's no one pad anywhere that I know of that could host competitive orbital rocket launches.

Only problem is that LC-36 (a two-pad ICBM complex) was open to SpaceX when they started digging ground on it. LC-36 (as a whole) could fit two Atlas IIs, no way it can't fit a Falcon 9. Now it's too late for that, but now they have the 2-complex LC-37 available to them . Lc-34 was always available, but I didn't mention it because removing the makeshift Apollo 1 memorial there would likely be considered insulting to those who died.

Not to mention, the Atlas V pad at Vandeberg was used for Atlas-Centaurs, to Atlas II/IIIs, and is likely of similar size to the cape counterparts. The only reason they moved was likely to host a proposed Atlas V Heavy, and for higher launch rate capability offered by the VIB+ crawler transporter solution.

Also, they're not hosting New Shepard at LC-36, they're hosting larger EELV-level rockets. Or at least that's the impression I got. 

1 hour ago, Streetwind said:

Reasons cited by SpaceX so far:

- Extra capacity for launches; less "traffic" (both in terms of shipping and in terms of flights)
- More freedom and control due to private ownership, less oversight
- Shorter distance from McGregor, Texas (their testing facility)
- Closer to the equator, allows extra capacity for GEO missions
- More favorable weather (Florida is among the worst possible locations in the entire US to launch rockets from)
- Central component in the (as of yet unannounced) Mars plans

Whether or not you feel that those reasons are justified, I can't say, but it's apparently worth the cash investment for SpaceX

What do they mean less "traffic"? Sure, there might be less traffic in terms of launches, but DEFINATELY not ship traffic. And we know how much that is a pain.... 

[Streetwind]

1 minute ago, fredinno said:

What do they mean less "traffic"?

Unfortunately I, being European, don't know anything about shipping traffic in the Gulf of Mexico. So I can't comment. That's just what I read in terms of official reasons given.

[fredinno]

1 minute ago, Streetwind said:

Unfortunately I, being European, don't know anything about shipping traffic in the Gulf of Mexico. So I can't comment. That's just what I read in terms of official reasons given.

Do you have a source for the SpaceX reasoning?

[PB666]

7 hours ago, fredinno said:

Actually, no, the oil rigs, and the continental US north of Brownsville highly limits the launch trajectory:

This is a map of Gulf oil rigs. Vandeberg has a few oil rigs blocking its way, but FAR less than the Gulf.

But you see how out of the rio grande they sort of north by about 3'. That due to NML, at least in the mid 90s it was still in place. So if you are going for GSO those rigs aren't a problem. If you are servicing the ISS it is, but we have to remember that there are two directives for non equitorial orbits their is the rising and falling, so you can launch to the south and take the lawsuits from Mexico.

[fredinno]

47 minutes ago, PB666 said:

But you see how out of the rio grande they sort of north by about 3'. That due to NML, at least in the mid 90s it was still in place. So if you are going for GSO those rigs aren't a problem. If you are servicing the ISS it is, but we have to remember that there are two directives for non equitorial orbits their is the rising and falling, so you can launch to the south and take the lawsuits from Mexico.

So basically you're limited to launch into orbits going straight out from The Brownsville complex. Freaking Brilliant. 

[Buster Charlie]

I love all the Internet rocket scientist saying what space x should do. I've heard "they should shold just use parachutes ", and "they need a big tube in the drone ship that the rocket can slip into" (seriously). 

So I'm operating from the presumption that Elon Musk has more insight into the internal workings of space X than are available to the public, and that they have a lot of dedicated and specialized smart folks who have looked at "obviously better ideas" people like you chastise them for not doing.

 

Seriously it is hilarious how many people suggest parachutes.

[Dave G]

Why does SpaceX do anything?  Why do they build their own stuff in-house?  Because they want more control?

No. It's all about cost.  Building stuff in-house costs less than using traditional suppliers.  And for the stuff they do buy from suppliers, this gives them great leverage in negotiating contracts.  If the price is too high, they'll build it themselves.  

Same with their private launch site.  SpaceX is betting it will cost significantly less than launching from the cape.  You may disagree with SpaceX on this, but you can be sure SpaceX believes it will cost less.

And then there's this:
AsiaSat CEO says Cape Canaveral has its drawbacks
http://www.spaceflightnow.com/falcon9/012/140906capecanaveral/#.VvKAROIrJhE