3 ms·

I 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 offs

I 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 ago
SpaceX 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 ago
  They leased another, yet to be constructed pad, new number, 46 iirc?
  - DocTomoe 5y ago
    LC-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 ago
      LC-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 ago
I 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?

cylinder714 5y ago

SpaceX 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 ago
They leased another, yet to be constructed pad, new number, 46 iirc?
- DocTomoe 5y ago
  LC-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 ago
    LC-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 ago

I 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?