SpaceX Chooses Boca Chica in Brownsville Texas for new launch site.

In case you missed it, on Monday Aug. 4th there was an announcement published in the Brownsville Herald stating that SpaceX had chosen the Boca Chica beach area as the site of what will be its newest commercial launch complex.

http://www.brownsvilleherald.com/new...a4bcf6878.html

A short quote from the story:

"According to the Federal Register, SpaceX proposes to build a vertical launch area and control center to support 12 commercial launches per year. The vehicles launched include the Falcon 9, Falcon Heavy and smaller reusable, suborbital launch vehicles."

You view the proposed site via Google Maps by following this link:

https://www.google.com/maps/place/Bo...a 89c928dfab5

Note the long Port Isabel channel, ideal for ferrying booster stages to the site. I suppose via freighter or box container ship from Hawthorne/Long-Beach via the Panama Canal and back up to Brownsville to Port Isabel.

Dave

David Spain wrote:

You view the proposed site via Google Maps by following this link:

https://www.google.com/maps/place/Bo...a 89c928dfab5

Note the long Port Isabel channel, ideal for ferrying booster stages
to the site. I suppose via freighter or box container ship from
Hawthorne/Long-Beach via the Panama Canal and back up to Brownsville
to Port Isabel.

If/when stages get too big for land travel, sure why not. Don't F9
stages presently travel by land?

rick jones
--
It is not a question of half full or empty - the glass has a leak.
The real question is "Can it be patched?"
these opinions are mine, all mine; HP might not want them anyway...
feel free to post, OR email to rick.jones2 in hp.com but NOT BOTH...

In article ,
says...

David Spain wrote:

You view the proposed site via Google Maps by following this link:

https://www.google.com/maps/place/Bo...a 89c928dfab5

Note the long Port Isabel channel, ideal for ferrying booster stages
to the site. I suppose via freighter or box container ship from
Hawthorne/Long-Beach via the Panama Canal and back up to Brownsville
to Port Isabel.

If/when stages get too big for land travel, sure why not. Don't F9
stages presently travel by land?

Yes, I do believe that Falcon 9 stages travel by truck over land. That
is one reason why Falcon 9 is so tall and skinny.

See picture he
http://tinyurl.com/lrm3b2k

It makes a lot of sense to design the stages to travel by truck, because
it's pretty much the best choice when you take into account cost and
schedule. They are transported from California (manufacturing) to Texas
(for testing) and then either back to California (Vandenberg) or Florida
(Cape Canaveral Air Force Station).

This is yet another reason why SpaceX launches are so cheap when
compared to the usual suspects who do choose to make larger stages that
have to be transported by barge or over-sized (expensive) transport
aircraft. When you focus on cost for *every* part of your supply and
operations chain, you make choices like this which are not traditionally
made by a "performance uber alles" type of aerospace engineer.

All of that said, SpaceX does have plans for larger launch vehicles
(Mars transportation) and these will be much larger in diameter than
Falcon 9 and Falcon Heavy, so they most certainly had this in mind when
choosing their presumably long term launch sites.

Jeff
--
"the perennial claim that hypersonic airbreathing propulsion would
magically make space launch cheaper is nonsense -- LOX is much cheaper
than advanced airbreathing engines, and so are the tanks to put it in
and the extra thrust to carry it." - Henry Spencer

On Sunday, August 10, 2014 12:16:02 PM UTC-4, Jeff Findley wrote:
All of that said, SpaceX does have plans for larger launch vehicles
(Mars transportation) and these will be much larger in diameter than
Falcon 9 and Falcon Heavy, so they most certainly had this in mind when
choosing their presumably long term launch sites.

Jeff

This is what I was thinking primary when I mentioned this. If measured solely on a per-mile cost basis per booster, shipping overland will surely be cheaper.

OTOH when shipping multiple boosters (including F9's) at a time, the economics of container shipping vs direct overland becomes more interesting. At the stated flight rate in the article I would doubt that to become a significant factor at least as far as F9's are concerned. If the majority of those 12 launches per year become F9H's or goes up in any significant way. Or we get to the (what 5m dia?) Falcon XX it also gets interesting. Hence having a nearby coastal waterway for shipping may have been an important factor.

However, I'm also sure that having a large body of uninhabited water along your flight trajectory as well has having a latitude closer to the equator were more important factors in the decision.

Dave

BTW, I expect you'll also see a widening along certain parts of Route 4.
And maybe a new Route 4a?

;-)

Dave

Accommodations on South Padre Island look very tourist friendly for SpaceX gawkers. Just sayin...

Dave

"David Spain" wrote in message
...

In case you missed it, on Monday Aug. 4th there was an announcement
published in the Brownsville Herald stating that SpaceX had chosen the Boca
Chica beach area as the site of what will be its newest commercial launch
complex.

http://www.brownsvilleherald.com/new...a4bcf6878.html

A short quote from the story:

"According to the Federal Register, SpaceX proposes to build a vertical
launch area and control center to support 12 commercial launches per year.
The vehicles launched include the Falcon 9, Falcon Heavy and smaller
reusable, suborbital launch vehicles."

You view the proposed site via Google Maps by following this link:

https://www.google.com/maps/place/Bo...a 89c928dfab5

Note the long Port Isabel channel, ideal for ferrying booster stages to the
site. I suppose via freighter or box container ship from
Hawthorne/Long-Beach via the Panama Canal and back up to Brownsville to
Port Isabel.

Dave


What's the down-range of the 1st Stage?

Wonder if it's economical to fly from Texas and land in Florida and gain
some payload?

--
Greg D. Moore http://greenmountainsoftware.wordpress.com/
CEO QuiCR: Quick, Crowdsourced Responses. http://www.quicr.net

On Tuesday, August 19, 2014 9:01:28 PM UTC-4, Greg (Strider) Moore wrote:
What's the down-range of the 1st Stage?

Interesting. I don't know. But there is a rumor circulating that SpaceX is contemplating reactivation of LC-13 at the Cape as a booster return landing pad.
See "Future Uses" section of article he

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cape_Ca...nch_Complex_13

There is some discussion of this issue over at NasaSpaceFlight.com in this thread (see reply #5):

http://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/ind...?topic=31452.0

It would seem this is practical only on certain trajectories, but most likely not the majority of ones that will fly from Boca Chica. IIRC the majority of expect booster recoveries will be return to launch site since this is the most economical approach to reuse. Of course TX-FL allows reuse of booster at FL complex. But I'm also thinking SpaceX will have to establish a good track record of F9 recoveries before FAA will allow return trajectories that cross over populated areas of FL.

Sorry Greg, all this is just common sense, I don't have a lot of technical expertise to give you. Maybe over in that other forum.

Dave