5 ms·
Ask HN: Why does SpaceX want to launch Starship from Texas instead of Florida?
- cyberpanther 5y agoBecause they own the facility? Otherwise, they have extra cost of going through a government facility with extra regulations and oversight.
- DocTomoe 5y agoI am fairly convinced there will be Canaveral launch capability for Starship eventually - I cannot see the US government having any part of a moonshot done offsite. For all other Starship operations, not having to coordinate with NASA and direct competitors (remember that conspiracy theory involving an ULA sniper? [1]) is a plus. [1] https://www.washingtonpost.com/business/economy/implication-of-sabotage-adds-intrigue-to-spacex-investigation/2016/09/30/5bb60514-874c-11e6-a3ef-f35afb41797f_story.html https://www.washingtonpost.com/business/economy/implication-...
- cylinder714 5y agoSpaceX started work on Pad 39A back in December: https://spaceexplored.com/2021/12/03/starship-orbital-pad-construction-at-lc-39a-has-begun/ https://spaceexplored.com/2021/12/03/starship-orbital-pad-co...
- verdverm 5y agoThey leased another, yet to be constructed pad, new number, 46 iirc?
- DocTomoe 5y agoLC-46 has been around for decades (seriously, very few people have any idea how many launch pads there are at KSC and CAB), 46 is scheduled to support Astra launches this year. IIRC, the pads were numbered by their construction order, I remember a plan outlining the location of a (unbuilt?) LC-56 from the 1960s... [1], suggesting that LCs up to that number were planned at least. [1] http://heroicrelics.org/info/ksc/ccafs-maps/nasa-utilization-1962.jpg http://heroicrelics.org/info/ksc/ccafs-maps/nasa-utilization...
- verdverm 5y agoLC-49 is the correct number. Yeah, the pads are numbered by construction order. NasaSpaceFlight talked about this recently and how confusing it can be driving by them.
- simonblack 5y agoI cannot see the US government having any part of a moonshot done offsite. That doesn't necessarily follow. Very often it's more economic to start a new site from scratch, rather than have the costs of demolition on top of the costs of building. In not so long a time, much of Florida will be affected by sea-level rise. Why not move while it's easier, rather than build something twice?
- BitwiseFool 5y agoThey own the facility, which means that they are fully in control of the scheduling, they do not need to lease the launchpad and support facilities at Cape Canaveral, and they also get a slight boost from launching closer to the equator. They literally picked the southernmost spot as they could in the continental United States. Lastly, given that Boca Chica was little more than a tiny retiree town, placing the facility there means they can buy up and develop all the land around it far more easily than picking some other coastal town.
- cylinder714 5y agoIn any case, SpaceX signed a 20-year lease in April 2014: https://www.nasa.gov/press/2014/april/nasa-signs-agreement-with-spacex-for-use-of-historic-launch-pad/ https://www.nasa.gov/press/2014/april/nasa-signs-agreement-w...