7 ms·
I'm sure they have their reasons, but it seems a bit odd to do it there instead of in Brownsville TX, where they already have facilities, and its on the same si
by headcanon 9y ago
I'm sure they have their reasons, but it seems a bit odd to do it there instead of in Brownsville TX, where they already have facilities, and its on the same side of the continent as Florida, meaning they don't have to ship them across the Panama Canal.
Its possible that their rocket-building expertise resides in LA and they want to keep it close to home, and shipping the rockets isn't as much a concern.
- nbadg 9y agoI wouldn't exclude the possibility that the eventual plan is to do both -- or to manufacture the BFR (the rocket part) in one location, and the BFS (the spaceship part) in the other. The article does mention that the LA location is intended to be able to receive (and presumably service) recovered vehicles, which would make a lot of sense for droneship landing after a Vandenberg launch. At any rate, I personally haven't heard any speculation about them moving BFS testing outside of Texas, but /r/spacex might very well be the most reliable way to find out (unless you're a SpaceX employee!)
- mkempe 9y agoIs the BFR also expected to land on droneships?
- mikeash 9y agoNo, the plan is for it to always return to the launch site.
- sq_ 9y agoTo add to this, SpaceX has said at some point that they are planning to land the BFR directly back on the launch clamps to remove the need for landing legs.
- nerpderp83 9y agoSounds like a nice option and a scary default.
- sq_ 9y agoWhen Elon (I think it was him) was talking about it, he seemed pretty confident that they could do it effectively. They already land the Falcon 9s on a relatively small area; with a bit of extra maneuvering capability right before touchdown, along with the Raptor engine's deep throttling ability, it should be entirely possible to do pinpoint landings.
- mikeash 9y agoShipping is less of a concern for a fully reusable system. Instead of shipping a giant rocket for every launch, you ship it once and use it for dozens or hundreds of launches.
- isostatic 9y agoLaunch it from LA and land it in Florida for the test flight?
- ravar 9y agoIf the rocket can be used without limit this almost makes perfect sense.
- wongarsu 9y agoIf you launch to the west this might be viable. The government wouldn't be particular thrilled about test flights over land (or any flight over land), but for a test flight you would want something longer than a jump across the continent anyway.
- dangerbird2 9y agoRockets rarely launch at a retrograde (western) orbit because you have to overcome the earth’s rotation to reach orbital velocity, rather than the speed boost you get from launching with the earth’s rotation. IIRC, satellites launching from Vandenberg AFB in California take a polar orbit.
- telchar 9y agoOTOH if they're just trying to get from California to Florida they don't need full orbital velocity.
- wongarsu 9y agoEven if they went all the way up to the ISS's orbit (which would be useless both because it's a test flight and because they would be going the wrong direction), the difference between going in a western or eastern orbit is a ~10% difference in delta-v requirements. Normally that's an enormous difference, but if you can just decrease the size of the test payload at will it shouldn't matter much beyond spending a few thousand dollars more on fuel.
- _ph_ 9y agoAs far as I know, all SpaceX rockets so far have been made in their Hawthorne facilites and the new ones are just 20 minutes away. So they can either just move workers to the new facilities or at least keep the staff of both in close contact. Also Elon usually is either in Freemont or in Hawthorne, her certainly doesn't want to add more travel to his schedules.
- stetrain 9y agoAs I understand it basically all of their existing engineering staff works at their Hawthorn, CA complex, so this is the closest location to that which will allow them to ship by water. So far their prototype giant carbon fiber tanks have been manufactured at a partner's facility in Washington state so this should allow them to receive those shipments pretty easily. https://www.goskagit.com/news/local_news/spacex-fuel-tank-leaves-anacortes-for-testing/article_6434b83f-3e5a-5f34-bc2b-3a797303e8f1.html https://www.goskagit.com/news/local_news/spacex-fuel-tank-le...
- simonh 9y agoFor now yes, but it looks like SpaceX are considering doing at least some manufacturing in Texas in the long run. https://www.teslarati.com/spacex-mars-rocket-factory-south-texas-coast/ https://www.teslarati.com/spacex-mars-rocket-factory-south-t...
- stetrain 9y agoYep, I think it makes sense to do initial development close to their main engineering workforce, but later final assembly and refurbishment could happen closer to the launch sites.
- adenadel 9y agoWow, so strange to see my hometown's newspaper on HN.
- panzagl 9y agoI would take it to mean they anticipate more launches from Vandenberg.
- avs733 9y agoWhich has constraints on both see and land routes into it. There are (afaik) no options to unload sea freight at vafb. And the roads to vafb are not great.
- dasmoth 9y agoThere is a harbour at VAFB. It’s the only way Delta IV boosters can get there. Was originally build for the shuttle, I believe. Whether it’s big enough for BFR, I’m less certain... Edit: https://spaceflightnow.com/2014/11/09/delta-mariner-drops-anchor-at-vandenberg-to-drop-off-rocket/ https://spaceflightnow.com/2014/11/09/delta-mariner-drops-an...
- avs733 9y agoWell I stand corrected! Thank you!
- deleted 9y ago[deleted]
- sq_ 9y agoBased on the info in the r/spacex thread where all of this was first posted, it seems like this facility is mostly for developing the prototypes of the BFR/BFS before the vehicle goes into full production. My guess is that your second thought about their rocket building expertise being in LA caused them to choose LA for the prototyping and that a BFR/BFS factory at Boca Chica or Cape Canaveral is still a distinct possibility.