12 ms·
SpaceX acquires former oil rigs to serve as floating Starship spaceports
- simonh 6y agoThere's confidence for you. I suppose at this point with Starship, failure is not an option.
- ryanmercer 6y agoThey could still make use of them without Starship. Payloads could be delivered via ship, crane to lift and install, launch. If they get it working with one, they can get it working with most, and then they can create launch sites off the coast of many countries.
- Tepix 6y agoHere's a video (not by SpaceX) showing what these spaceports may look like one day https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VtAC6s4PYj8 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VtAC6s4PYj8 "SpaceX Starship sea launch concept" by SpaceXvision There's also an official video by SpaceX showing a sea platform at 0:25minutes: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zqE-ultsWt0 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zqE-ultsWt0
- loceng 6y agoThe coolest part? They will scale it up to have hundreads of platforms, clustered fairly close likely, so they'll be able to continuously launch 1,000 Starships as Elon's stated goal.
- jacquesm 6y agoThey will eh?
- loceng 6y agoMaybe not, I got excited when imagining it. The ocean is the easiest place to be away from people, and then you're not wasting land. P.S. Wasn't me that downvoted you, I don't downvote anything.
- jacquesm 6y agoNo problem, couldn't care less about the downvotes. Yes, it is an impressive thing to imagine. But the scale you are talking about is not something that I expect to see in a very long time, if ever. The degree of international cooperation that would require just isn't on the books in the present climate, and Musk has a habit of throwing grand visions with unspecified or wildly optimistic time-tables out there. He's our generation's Howard Hughes, genius but flawed. That doesn't mean he isn't moving the needle forward in a very meaningful way but at the same time I don't believe every word he says.
- loceng 6y agoNaw, the moment SpaceX starts capturing astroids or mining on Mars there's a whole new world, literally, worth of economic value unlocked. There are other defensive strategic reasons to have many launch pads as well. They're creating a manufacturing line for Starships to be able to "mass" produce them. Elon gets exponentials, and he'll build whatever technology or follow whatever strategy he figures out that's needed to make what he's doing self-sustaining. There's plenty of opportunity to tap and revenue streams, profits, he can direct towards SpaceX if needed.
- stuaxo 6y agoImagine the pollution around there. It'll just be full of smoke and smog, with the light and sound from the rockets as they launch.
- loceng 6y agoMaybe they will have to space them out a fair amount then to help reduce that, allowing the area current to Hell, maybe they can build a catch system surrounding the launch pad and vacuum in to capture the pollution. You just need big or many motors - probably could use Tesla's motors? Maybe what they can capture at the level of the landing pad is moot though...
- pixl97 6y agoEh, the Starship rocket doesn't really make smog itself. High levels of liquid nitrogen may if it interacts with organics from sea spray. With all that said, oceans tend to be pretty windy around 90% of the time so things that cause air to be still on land are much more rare in most parts of the ocean.
- totalZero 6y agoLaunch is going to be one of the most inefficient parts of the burn, both due to the required impulse and also due to the thermal state change of the engines. I wouldn't be so quick to hand-wave this away.
- mpweiher 6y agoOne of the reasons for moving to methane is that it burns clean, dramatically reducing soot, and thus smoke. AFAIK, this is primarily so you can reuse the engine without major cleaning/refurbishment, but it should also significantly reduce pollution. Noise, on the other hand... ¯\_(ツ)_/¯
- baking 6y agoAlso, you can make methane on mars.
- 6y ago
- mam2 6y agoAnyone has an input on how the salt of the water could impact the rockets on reusability ? I've been wondering since they catch the rockets in the ocean
- garydevenay 6y agoStarship will use 304L stainless steel due to it's good performance at cryogenic temps. 304L just so happens to be the best kind of stainless steel for salt water exposure. Not sure if any other steps will need to be taken for greater protection (for the ceramic heat shielding etc).
- qayxc 6y agoI'd be more concerned about the engines than the hull.
- ceejayoz 6y agoThey seem to have managed it with the Falcon 9s.
- garydevenay 6y agoEngine out redundancy is built in (as with Falcon 9)— hull redundancy typically isn't.
- qayxc 6y agoThe hull isn't affected that much by being exposed to salty sea air and salt water spray, is what I mean by that. Engines are more sensitive in that regard (think salt crusts, etc.).
- varjag 6y agoMarine grade is 316L. 304L main advantage is lower cost.
- scotty79 6y agoHow much does used up oil rig cost?
- trollied 6y agoThe owners filed for bankruptcy. The linked article states: "The two rigs sold for $3.5 million each".
- rmm 6y agoA steal. Given what the going rates for rental of these things are.
- trollied 6y agoI do wonder what they're worth purely for the steel scrap value.
- steerablesafe 6y agoIt wouldn't surprise me if they worth negative value in that regard.
- mschuster91 6y agoDepends where you scrap 'em. There are massive improvised "ship breaking" yards e.g. in Bangladesh.
- RobertKerans 6y agoYes, but you need to get them there, even then it's going to be negative money so owners would want subsidies. So for example, as the North Sea fields die, the Cromarty Firth in North East Scotland is getting rigs at an increasing pace, they just mothball them in the firth in the hope they can get a refit or sell them, but they rarely seem to be able to do either these days (there's a set of jack up legs that have been there for at least 15 years for example). Nobody's buying them for scrap and paying to drag them halfway across the world any more (there was a suggestion money was going to get pumped into a breaking yard down the coast in England, at Middlesbrough, but looks like wasn't financially viable). Financial incentives aren't there, so it's easier to just find a coastal location to moor them that's cheap, where they rot. There's no cash value in them, it's usage that makes money and that ain't happening a lot now, the owners of the ones Musk's bought will have bitten his hand off. Edit: for clarity, it's a massive financial bet building a platform -- they have specific purposes and take a long time to plan and build, but the deployment environment (physical/political/economic) is volatile relative the build timespan. That doesn't matter in boomtime, any hits are absorbable, but it is not boomtime. The above Scottish example, a fair % of the rigs in the firth at any one time are "new" (as in unused). They get kept in hopes of refits, not scrapped; it's too expensive to scrap.
- christkv 6y agoReminds me of Sea-Launch https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sea_Launch https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sea_Launch
- Kaibeezy 6y agoDidn’t realize oil rigs float. Some do. Found this WP even more interesting than the OP. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Oil_platform https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Oil_platform
- tobmlt 6y agoHeck yeah they do. For anyone else interested who hasn’t seen it, check out “types” in the wiki article linked above for a nice picture of some variations in common use. Fun stuff to compute the wave induced motions of... The math is very similar to a circuit analysis (linear time invariant systems). But the properties of your “circuit” (your boat, craft, platform, whatever) are solved by hydrodynamics to account for the shape dependence, environment dependence, etc. and depending what you want to know - done in the time domain or frequency domain as well.
- michaelscott 6y agoOil rigs are super fascinating from an engineering perspective. Ironically, outside of space the ocean is probably the most inhospitable environment for man-made structures to be built where we still want them. Anybody wanting to build platforms/cities/anything else in the ocean would probably do well to start by looking oil rig construction.
- Chris2048 6y ago> Anybody wanting to build platforms/cities/anything else in the ocean For anyone interested I think the term is "Seasteading" And for the SV crowd, a little pie-in-the-sky: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Blueseed https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Blueseed
- bnralt 6y agoThat's an interesting point. The article says that the rigs were bought for $3.5 million each. At that price, it seems pretty obtainable for people interested in creating a floating city at sea to buy a few as a starting point.
- 6y ago
- janpot 6y agoThey also plan to catch the first stage using the launch tower instead of landing them on the platform. There's some fan-art around, but I can't wait to see some SpaceX originated concept designs of this.
- lmilcin 6y agoPoor fish or marine mammals that will get killed due to blast noise.
- Mountain_Skies 6y agoAt least it's not the Sea Dragon rocket.
- detritus 6y agoNot sure why you were downvoted - given how well sound travels in a medium like sea-water, and given how incredibly loud rockets are it's going to make life hell for sealife within a very large radius/volume. I'm a huge fan of what SpaceX is doing, but to simply ignore environmental impact here would be quite blinkered.
- abledon 6y agoiirc, they use a large sound barrier around the blast area in the ocean. the 'fence' is a giant fence of bubbles rising to the top, and the bubbles act as a sonic barrier.
- pmontra 6y agoThe passenger experience would be: 1. Get to the SpaceX terminal somewhere (maybe a major airport because of connecting flights), security checks, check in luggage and board an helicopter. 2. Fly to the launch platform. 3. Disembark, get up to Starship. 4. Many Gs of acceleration. 5. Fall to destination. 6. Many Gs of deceleration. 7. Disembark, board the helicopter. 8. Fly to the airport, immigration checks, collect luggage. 9. Leave the airport. The two helicopter hops cost time, maybe not much more than some long rides on airport buses. The acceleration and deceleration will be exciting but maybe not everybody fit to fly can withstand them. I guess it's not for everybody.
- 3327 6y agoPotentially burn in atmosphere twice.
- inglor_cz 6y agoIt is my impression that suborbital jumps are much, much slower than a launch to the orbit and return from the orbit. That would mean that a Starship decelerating to the destination would not create a classic "ball of fire" in front of it and risk a burnup. Returning 1st stages of Falcon 9 do not require thermal protection either.
- peeters 6y agoI don't think they're as different in energy as you're thinking. "Suborbital" ranges from throwing a baseball 100ft to going almost into orbit, and going halfway around the earth is just shy of a circular orbit. It would be different if you were doing a short hop, but Starship is impractical for short hops.
- ragebol 6y ago> I guess it's not for everybody. Neither will the ticket price be, I guess. At least at first.
- d_silin 6y agoJust FYI, you can expect launch and reentry Gs <3, which a healthy adult can handle no problem. Instead of helicopter, ferry can do. Overall the process will be not dramatically different from modern airport experience.
- mrgroucho 6y agoI understand the Martian connection, but I'm not sure that Fear and Panic are the best choices of name for interplanetary departure terminals...
- Gustomaximus 6y agoFrom article: "The super heavy lift launch vehicle will have a large blast danger area and pose noise concerns if launched frequently near populated areas." Why a sea platform vs a remote area? It can't be that hard to find a few remote areas and significantly cheaper being on land? Any other reason to do this? Ability to move? Stay within range of key cities where remote areas are harder to find?
- wil421 6y agoDo they have to clean up a crash if it happens in the ocean or let most of it sink? I’d imagine a crash on land would require significant cleanup.
- codercotton 6y agoThe US doesn't fly rockets over land due to population - I'm sure this is probably law, but I don't know specifically. It's also easier to clear launch zones in water vs land, as vessels have maritime transponders (not sure of law or terminology here). Your last point is probably the most important - being close to cities but far enough away to not bother folks is the dance.
- eloff 6y agoWhere they're launching now is fairly remote, and they bought out anyone who lived nearby. I wonder if it's really about that. Presumably if you could launch at the equator it would be a little cheaper to get to space, but having floating platforms that far away might eat up those benefits and more. I'm very curious about the reasoning behind this.
- m4rtink 6y agoSea Launch did ride a semi submersible platform to the equator for every launch. But indeed, it was not profitable in the end.
- baking 6y agoI think it is really the number and frequency of orbital launches required for refueling that is the concern right now. SpaceX would love to get approval for unlimited orbital flights from Boca Chica, but it is four miles away from South Padre Island and it would probably require a massive deluge system and huge water storage to get approval for that. The can also launch from Kennedy, but they are trying to keep all three options on the table for now. The reality is that they bought the platforms for cheap, but haven't made any renovations yet so for now it may just be a backup plan.
- ghaff 6y agoThis has actually been done previously. The former Ocean Odyssey (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Odyssey_(launch_platform) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Odyssey_(launch_platform) was used as a launch platform for a time after it was damaged by a blowout. (I had a very small part in the original drilling rig design.) Semi-submersible rigs, of which this is an example, basically flood ballast tanks in lower pontoons to sink lower in the water for stability and then use typically 8 anchors to keep the rig in place. You can also use dynamic positioning although I think that was only used on drillships when I was involved.
- iandanforth 6y agoCan you say a bit more about the anchors? I have in mind just large pieces of metal dragging on the ocean floor but I'm sure that's not representative.
- dogma1138 6y agoOffshore anchors aren’t that different than what you imagine https://www.franklinoffshore.com.au/news/offshore-anchors-purpose-types/ https://www.franklinoffshore.com.au/news/offshore-anchors-pu... They are designed to lodge and get partially buried in the sea floor soil. Some oil rigs might be anchored more permanently to submerged concrete blocks or very heavy metal anchors, you basically drop them off a ship then when the rig moves into place you have divers connect the anchor cables to the previously submerged anchors. Some also use steering engines for station keeping but that is usually for smaller exploration and mobile rigs.
- ghaff 6y ago>Some also use steering engines for station keeping but that is usually for smaller exploration and mobile rigs. Yeah, I'm just familiar with exploration rigs. I was actually trying to remember if the Ocean Odyssey, which ended up being used by Sea Launch, for a launch platform, had dynamic positioning or not. I think it may have but I left before it launched and wasn't involved in that aspect of its design.
- heshiebee 6y agoThis has become boring. Time to send up a school teacher.
- heshiebee 6y agoGuys, this was a joke. But if downvoting helps you get through your day I’m humbled to take part.
- pulkitsh1234 6y agoReading the title I thought this oil rigs will be floating in space, i.e. some kind of pitstop in space.
- Gravityloss 6y agoRockets have very high mass ratios. A fully fueled rocket is by mass almost all propellant. This is counterintuitive, other vehicles do not have that. Rockets also have very high thrust to weight ratios. One of the effects is that flying an almost-empty rocket is really easy. When landing, the Falcon 9 first stage actually has too much thrust to even hover stably with one ninth of engines running and that at only partial thrust. So an empty rocket flying doesn't produce nearly as much noise or pressure waves. So, you could do it like this: 1. The light, almost unfueled rocket stands at airfield 2. People board the light rocket 3. The light rocket flies a short hop to an oil rig (20 km or so). Only one rocket engine needed for takeoff and landing. 4. The light almost empty rocket is fully fueled at the oil rig. It becomes a heavy fully fueled rocket. People stay inside. 5. Heavy fully fueled rocket takes off with all engines blasting with massive noise. 6. Most propellant is expended during acceleration. Heavy fully fueled rocket becomes light almost empty rocket. 7. The light almost empty rocket lands at destination airport with one engine. 8. People offboard 9. Goto 1.
- deleted 6y ago[deleted]
- nwah1 6y agoSeems more practical to use conventional transport to go to and from the rig, such as a helicopter. A crash with a rocket is both more likely and more devastating, and thus should happen away from population centers. Even if the return trip is less noisy. Also rockets pollute, which is another reason to keep them far away from people.
- inetknght 6y ago> Also rockets pollute, which is another reason to keep them far away from people. Some rocket engines use oxygen & hydrogen fuels which, after combustion, turn into water. I'm not sure I'd count water as pollution.
- Azrael3000 6y agoThe last point you make is only partially true. The Starship is using Methane and Oxygen and produces mostly CO2 and Water as output. Since they plan to produce propellant using the Sabatier process using renewable energy you get a nearly closed cycle. There's a fantastic video by EverydayAstronaut on Youtube about this topic.
- snake_plissken 6y agoWow, acquiring a semi-submersible drilling rig (in use for 12 years it seems, came into service 2008) for $3.5 million? It cost $312 dollars to build. I get there are a lot of environmental concerns with these kinds of things but this just seems like a steal.
- Azrael3000 6y agoApparently it was sold as part of a liquidation, that's why it was so cheap.
- baking 6y agoIf it had more value to someone else, they would have bid for it.
- jessriedel 6y agoThe market for off-shore oil drilling has collapsed, as it can't currently compete with on-shore (e.g., shale). So most of them are now only worth their scrap value, which isn't trivial but from which you also need to subtract scrapping cost. It's not surprising to me that a $300M piece of machinery has <$10M of metal scrap value, and you loose half in the scrapping process. Your $30,000 dollar car is only worth about $200 as scrap.
- dr-detroit 6y agoThe "spaceports" are a total loss but he can deduct that from his taxes plus receive BILLIONS more in subsidies because its "green".
- LargoLasskhyfv 6y agoMakes me wonder if he ever thinks about https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sea_Dragon_(rocket) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sea_Dragon_(rocket)?
- InitEnabler 6y agoHow does one find & aquire a unused oil rig?