Why is SpaceX building the Brownsville Launch Complex?

[fredinno]

8 minutes ago, Buster Charlie said:

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.

I'm just asking. Is it wrong to be critical and question?

[kerbiloid]

16 minutes ago, Buster Charlie said:

Seriously it is hilarious how many people suggest parachutes.

But they already have parachutes...

Aren't that NASA conditions: "every launch - a new Dragon, landing - by parachutes."

Edited March 23, 2016 by kerbiloid

[Buster Charlie]

21 minutes ago, fredinno said:

I'm just asking. Is it wrong to be critical and question?

I wasn't specifically criticizing you,  I don't think your question is stupid, it's not like you suggested cutting a hole in the barge "for the rocket to slide into"(seriously). 

 

I'm just saying sometimes there is info the layperson can't even speculate at because the info is not available. I'm going on the assumption this is a privately owned ego project for Elon Musk and he's not going to deliberately tank the company.

So as to the how wise it is your do this, I'm not sure anyone outside of space x really can say for sure without sounding like those TV news reporters who make up stuff to fill air time.

 

 

15 minutes ago, kerbiloid said:

But they already have parachutes...

Aren't that NASA conditions: "every launch - a new Dragon, landing - by parachutes."

I'm talking about Falcon 9 first stage landing, not the Dragonly.

 

Quick Wikipedia says 9,300 pounds dry weight for dragon , I think the estimated landing mass of the first stage is around 55,000 lbs or so.

Someone did a hilarious breakdown on slowing it down by parachutes, it gets out of hand real fast because you need to slow it down enough it won't collapse on impact. Which is why the souyuz has SRB to cushion the parachute landings.

 

But specifically,  I've done some fairly good reading in the subject,  and found a lot of my assumptions were wrong and I don't think I'm stupid for asking quesitons. I however never said anything like "man space x is stupid, just use parachutes". 

 

Which again nobody here has said that, but I've read a lot of comments like that and it makes me shake my head and cry with sadness.

Edited March 23, 2016 by Buster Charlie

[lugge]

44 minutes ago, fredinno said:

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

Well, I guess SpaceX has thought about their launch site.

This is a multibillion-dollar-decision, one does not simply make such a decision in 5 minutes.

When they came to the conclusion there is some benefit... well, I guess there is.

Streetwind has mentioned some:

4 hours ago, Streetwind said:

- 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 guess this is for their long-term-plans.

Elon has huge plans with Mars. I'm not saying he 's gonna see his plans come true.

But wheter he succeeds or not: he's trying and he needs the infrastructure for this.

[Buster Charlie]

Let's put this another way. Why is NASA spread all over the US? Is it because Florida is the best spot for launches, Texas is the best spot for mission Control, we'll  do a little in bit Mississippi? 

Anyone who knows anything about politics knows the corrupt  horse trading that leads to these deicisions. 

 

Now in the case of SpaceX,  they're constrained by cost more than NASA, but they're not  crippled by being seen as a jobs program for Congress.  So maybe Texas gave them a sweetheart  deal, but ultimately they would  choose the best launch site location they could afford.

 

[Streetwind]

3 hours ago, fredinno said:

Do you have a source for the SpaceX reasoning?

Not really, no. The whole hubbub about Boca Chica Beach went down years ago, and I don't really remember where I read what. News articles, interview videos, forum and reddit posts... lots of potential sources.

However, because I agree that data is better than blanket statements, I went and googled marine traffic in the Gulf of Mexico. That turned up pictures like this and this. Then, I went and pulled up the Eastern Range's mandated ship traffic exclusion zone for a random SpaceX launch with barge recovery from CCAFS (it was perhaps a CRS mission). If you compare that general area in front of Florida's east cost with the one in front of Boca Chica Beach (which sits pretty much exactly on the border to Mexico at this resolution), the conclusion looks pretty obvious to me - especially if, for the latter, you consider a launch azimuth that takes the vehicle between Cuba and the Florida Keys, or between Cuba and the Yucatan peninsula. To me, these maps indicate that there is vastly less marine traffic to consider for the Gulf site compared to Florida.

I hope that will do as a stand-in for a direct source.

[PB666]

1 hour ago, Dave G said:

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

 

"

SpaceX announced in August it had selected a site in Brownsville, Texas, to construct a commercial launch facility independent of Air Force and NASA, which own the property at Cape Canaveral Air Force Station and Kennedy Space Center.

"

Not in Brownsville. Its actually closer to port Isabel and SPI. But then when it comes to international space politics who needs to be accurate.

[PB666]

7 minutes ago, Streetwind said:

Not really, no. The whole hubbub about Boca Chica Beach went down years ago, and I don't really remember where I read what. News articles, interview videos, forum and reddit posts... lots of potential sources.

However, because I agree that data is better than blanket statements, I went and googled marine traffic in the Gulf of Mexico. That turned up pictures like this and this. Then, I went and pulled up the Eastern Range's mandated ship traffic exclusion zone for a random SpaceX launch with barge recovery from CCAFS (it was perhaps a CRS mission). If you compare that general area in front of Florida's east cost with the one in front of Boca Chica Beach (which sits pretty much exactly on the border to Mexico at this resolution), the conclusion looks pretty obvious to me - especially if, for the latter, you consider a launch azimuth that takes the vehicle between Cuba and the Florida Keys, or between Cuba and the Yucatan peninsula. To me, these maps indicate that there is vastly less marine traffic to consider for the Gulf site compared to Florida.

I hope that will do as a stand-in for a direct source.

Seriously, you wanna buy land on the east coast for a mission control facility. At the time Johnson Space center was planned you could actually buy land in West Texas for 50cents per acre (with the mineral rights). NASA is on a veritable swamp that has been drained (bayous that have been opened up), before it was built you could go on the property and pull crawfish out of the holes in the ground. There is still alot of land around NASA one could develope even though huge upper middle class neighborhoods have been built. That part of Texas needs only one thing (two) to go from swamp to space age facility.  Electricity and Air conditioning. Think about when air conditioning became popular in the south.

I think a bigger problem for Space X's Boca Chica Village, Cameron county site (Just to be accurate) is the environmental impact since it is building into protected areas and park lands. The impact studies at the fed and state level are going to be killers. If they had built it along the Brownsville ship channel closer to the industrial area across from hwy 24 I think they would have less impact to deal with because these areas are not part of the wetlands proper. To create a pad they are going to need to bring in alot of fill, that is for certain, they need to raise the base elevation to about 10ft above sea level to avoid just normal 5 year flood events.  Just to make a point, even though its very unlikely a major flood on the rio grande/bravo could place the facility de-facto in Mexico, so they prolly need to wall off the south side.

 

[55delta]

Well, I feel silly. I forgot two other reasons why SpaceX wants it's own facility. First, they will want more landing pads. If I recall, there is one rocket landing pad and that's because SpaceX built it. So they likely want landing pads for RTLS launches, Dragon V2 landings, not to mention a dedicated dock for unloading landing barges.

The second reason I can think of is SpaceX's commercial crew program. If SpaceX is recruiting and training astronauts, they'll need their own facilities. All other training facilities not only belong to someone else, but are in constant use by someone else.

That's what I can figure, anyway. 

[kunok]

They have a facility for 400 rocket engines at year when they only are using something like 100 at year, and there isn't enough launch market for the falcon9 and heavy to use 400 engines even without reusability, and they claim they will reuse the first stage (so less use of engines). They may being oversizing also their launch sites.

In every company there are decisions without sense or for the wrong reasons. The "I want one for myself instead of using the others" is a common one. Time will say if it's finally made and if it was a good investment.

[StrandedonEarth]

It is cheaper (in the long term) to plan for the long term and build overcapacity from the start, rather than have to upgrade later. The engine production line can probably produce 400 a year running around the clock, but for current demand one shift can supply the need. That's the usual way industry increases production capacity: add another shift on equipment that would otherwise be sitting idle overnight.

Edited March 23, 2016 by StrandedonEarth

[Nibb31]

1 hour ago, 55delta said:

Dragon V2 landings, not to mention a dedicated dock for unloading landing barges.

Dragon V2 won't be doing powered landings until the end of the Commercial Crew program at best. The five SpaceX pads at KSC are more than enough.

1 hour ago, 55delta said:

The second reason I can think of is SpaceX's commercial crew program. If SpaceX is recruiting and training astronauts, they'll need their own facilities. All other training facilities not only belong to someone else, but are in constant use by someone else.

What has Commercial Crew got to do with in-house astronauts? Commercial Crew will only be flying NASA astronauts to the ISS.

SpaceX is a launch provider, not a space agency. NASA pays them to fly NASA astronauts.

[KSK]

8 hours ago, fredinno said:

I'm just asking. Is it wrong to be critical and question?

It's never wrong to question, although sometimes it's best to question in the privacy of your own head. Being critical without being aware of all the relevant facts (as we're almost certainly doing here) isn't wrong but it is a) largely pointless and b) dumb.

[max_creative]

Well, there's the falcon heavy. And then the falcon X and falcon XX. And then there's NASA not yelling at you when you blow up your shared launch pad.

[fredinno]

 

9 hours ago, Buster Charlie said:

Let's put this another way. Why is NASA spread all over the US? Is it because Florida is the best spot for launches, Texas is the best spot for mission Control, we'll  do a little in bit Mississippi? 

Anyone who knows anything about politics knows the corrupt  horse trading that leads to these deicisions. 

 

Now in the case of SpaceX,  they're constrained by cost more than NASA, but they're not  crippled by being seen as a jobs program for Congress.  So maybe Texas gave them a sweetheart  deal, but ultimately they would  choose the best launch site location they could afford.

 

It's spread out because of pork, but also because it allows you to get skilled employees all over the country.

1 hour ago, KSK said:

It's never wrong to question, although sometimes it's best to question in the privacy of your own head. Being critical without being aware of all the relevant facts (as we're almost certainly doing here) isn't wrong but it is a) largely pointless and b) dumb.

Well, Iooked on Google, and I couldn't find anything, so I came here.

1 hour ago, max_creative said:

Well, there's the falcon heavy. And then the falcon X and falcon XX. And then there's NASA not yelling at you when you blow up your shared launch pad.

Well, you shouldn't blow up your launch pad in the first place, because you'll lose a lot of money doing that....

And the Falcon X, XX has been cancelled (replaced by MCT, but TBH, it'll be quite some time until it is built), and F9H can run perfectly fine from LC-39A.

[PB666]

1 hour ago, max_creative said:

Well, there's the falcon heavy. And then the falcon X and falcon XX. And then there's NASA not yelling at you when you blow up your shared launch pad.

Yeah, try moving that down boca-chica beach access segment. First they have to have portage and a launch facility then we can talk about heavies. You know that the distance between South Bay and Mexico in places can be measured off in meters. lol, Yes it can be done. OP is right in one sense, to make this a KSC replacement $ite alot of development will need to be done.

[fredinno]

2 hours ago, kunok said:

They have a facility for 400 rocket engines at year when they only are using something like 100 at year, and there isn't enough launch market for the falcon9 and heavy to use 400 engines even without reusability, and they claim they will reuse the first stage (so less use of engines). They may being oversizing also their launch sites.

In every company there are decisions without sense or for the wrong reasons. The "I want one for myself instead of using the others" is a common one. Time will say if it's finally made and if it was a good investment.

SpaceX should be careful- it has an history of overoptimism. I have a feeling all the extra capacity being built will go to waste for the next few decades, and SpaceX is just doing its usual thing of being way too optimistic for its own good.

But hey, I'm not running SpaceX.

[PB666]

1 minute ago, fredinno said:

SpaceX should be careful- it has an history of overoptimism. I have a feeling all the extra capacity being built will go to waste for the next few decades, and SpaceX is just doing its usual thing of being way too optimistic for its own good.

But hey, I'm not running SpaceX.

If space X is overcapacity then they just Do more at boca-chica and let someone else you kennedy.

[fredinno]

1 minute ago, PB666 said:

Yeah, try moving that down boca-chica beach access segment. First they have to have portage and a launch facility then we can talk about heavies. You know that the distance between South Bay and Mexico in places can be measured off in meters. lol, Yes it can be done. OP is right in one sense, to make this a KSC replacement $ite alot of development will need to be done.

Also, SpaceX seems to be betting on a LOT of GSO missions (rather than inclination-diverse LEO orbits), as Brownsville is very inclination limited.

Last time a company did this, it resulted in the Delta IV. Time will tell if this will bite SpaceX in the butt. I think it will.

[Kerbart]

I don't see why it's a problem to open a launch pad that seems limited to GSO (I don't know if it truly is). After all they still have the Cape Canavarel pad, which gets more capacity for inclined orbits this way.

[55delta]

43 minutes ago, fredinno said:

But hey, I'm not running SpaceX.

You know, I think you just told me the problem with asking why SpaceX does most things. We just don't know what things they know and no one here is going to ask Elon Musk (or his PR rep) for an answer.

Well, I'm done here. Best of luck.

[max_creative]

47 minutes ago, fredinno said:

SpaceX should be careful- it has an history of overoptimism. I have a feeling all the extra capacity being built will go to waste for the next few decades, and SpaceX is just doing its usual thing of being way too optimistic for its own good.

But hey, I'm not running SpaceX.

"Oh well at least the pieces were bigger this time"  yeah they are kinda over optimistic.

[Streetwind]

I honestly prefer Elon Musk as overly optimistic to a fault, and a firm believer that mankind has a bright future ahead.

I mean, he does make jokes about volcano lairs, has an unhealthy fascination with large missiles, and the skill to rack up immense personal wealth and influence in short timeframes. And he's not afraid to put as many as 120 hours per week, every week, into furthering his plans. I'd rather not see him be the supervillain who's convinced that we deserve nothing but death and destruction for what we do to the planet and each other...

[J.Random]

I see two possibilities: either they plan to put an orca whale to the Moon, or there's not much difference between repurposing some old launchpad and building their own.

[fredinno]

46 minutes ago, Kerbart said:

I don't see why it's a problem to open a launch pad that seems limited to GSO (I don't know if it truly is). After all they still have the Cape Canavarel pad, which gets more capacity for inclined orbits this way.

It is limited to GSO. There's Mexican airspace south, and Continental US and oil rigs north, so they can only launch straight east.

It's a problem because SpaceX is betting on the stable (but stagnant) GSO market, which is the only market this thing is going to be good for due to its limited inclination. Ariane 6 could push SpaceX's price advantage off, leaving Brownsville underused.

10 minutes ago, J.Random said:

I see two possibilities: either they plan to put an orca whale to the Moon, or there's not much difference between repurposing some old launchpad and building their own.

Building on top of LC-36 is actually equivilent to building a new launch pad- all the launch towers etc. have been removed by the govenrment. There may be concrete structures left as a base, or maybe a blockhouse, but it's pretty much a clean space right now.

On Brownsville, they likely need to go through more regulations, (it's currently untouched wetland), new landing pads, etc, making this really seem more or a hassle, in my opinion.

Lc-37A would work too, but that was shared with ULA when SpaceX made it's decision.