3 ms·

> The delay right now is from FAA approval on Boca Chica launches Not true. Musk said they weren't ready to launch yet anyways, and that they expected to be re

> The delay right now is from FAA approval on Boca Chica launches Not true. Musk said they weren't ready to launch yet anyways, and that they expected to be ready around the same time they expected to get FAA clearance. So it's not holding things up yet. And it might never.

ncmncm 5y ago
Launching in the middle of a nature preserve was always going to be a problem. It would not be at all surprising if they did not get approval for anything like the launch cadence from Boca Chica that they had projected, and need to fall back on Florida and ocean platform launches. The delay to get that stuff ready might give them time to actually work out bugs, without them being treated as failures. And, there is little doubt those will work just as well, although standing that stack up on a floating platform will be an impressive achievement. Boca Chica will still be able to do tests. One wonders if they will deliver completed vehicles to the real launch sites by ("test") launching from Boca Chica. I don't think you need a Starship on top to launch the booster, although a cone hat seems advisable.
- consumer451 5y ago
  > One wonders if they will deliver completed vehicles to the real launch sites by ("test") launching from Boca Chica. I don't think you need a Starship on top to launch the booster, although a cone hat seems advisable. I was just trying to imagine a booster delivery flight path. I'm assuming orbital otherwise FAA has appropriate concerns. So north of Cuba, achieve orbital speed for one orbit, de-orbit burn to re-enter aiming past Florida, and then landing burn to get you back over Cape Canaveral? Is it that straight forward? Would that be allowed? Would they need to dog leg to avoid flying over mainland USA?
  - ncmncm 5y ago
    The booster is not orbital, and would not survive the trip home in any case. (Although one wonders if it could go single-stage-to-orbit without SS on top. That would be another first!) A 1100 mile sub-orbital hop past Key West aimed to splash down just short of the Bahamas in case of trouble, then boost north, then brake offshore and fly to 39A. Maybe an unladen Starship could make such a hop by itself. If not, a booster could assist on the first leg and come back.
    - yellowapple 5y ago
      > (Although one wonders if it could go single-stage-to-orbit without SS on top. That would be another first!) On that note, I recall reading somewhere that the top part is at least in theory SSTO-capable without payload.
      - ncmncm 5y ago
        If it could get to orbit, then it ought to be able to get to Florida.
      - simonh 5y ago
        The current iterations are a bit over-engineered. A fully optimised later version that's slimmed down the design might do it without any payload, fins or heat shield. Maybe.
maccam94 5y ago
I think it's likely that SpaceX recognized that FAA approval could take a while, so they started putting more polish into the launch infrastructure, booster, and ship, rather than just trying to iterate on launches as quickly as possible. But that's just a hypothesis from an armchair observer, I'm not sure if they could have rushed launch pad readiness any further. I've also heard rumblings that there may be regulatory issues with the ground storage tanks for fuel/oxidizer that may require changes.

ncmncm 5y ago

Launching in the middle of a nature preserve was always going to be a problem. It would not be at all surprising if they did not get approval for anything like the launch cadence from Boca Chica that they had projected, and need to fall back on Florida and ocean platform launches. The delay to get that stuff ready might give them time to actually work out bugs, without them being treated as failures. And, there is little doubt those will work just as well, although standing that stack up on a floating platform will be an impressive achievement. Boca Chica will still be able to do tests. One wonders if they will deliver completed vehicles to the real launch sites by ("test") launching from Boca Chica. I don't think you need a Starship on top to launch the booster, although a cone hat seems advisable.

consumer451 5y ago
> One wonders if they will deliver completed vehicles to the real launch sites by ("test") launching from Boca Chica. I don't think you need a Starship on top to launch the booster, although a cone hat seems advisable. I was just trying to imagine a booster delivery flight path. I'm assuming orbital otherwise FAA has appropriate concerns. So north of Cuba, achieve orbital speed for one orbit, de-orbit burn to re-enter aiming past Florida, and then landing burn to get you back over Cape Canaveral? Is it that straight forward? Would that be allowed? Would they need to dog leg to avoid flying over mainland USA?
- ncmncm 5y ago
  The booster is not orbital, and would not survive the trip home in any case. (Although one wonders if it could go single-stage-to-orbit without SS on top. That would be another first!) A 1100 mile sub-orbital hop past Key West aimed to splash down just short of the Bahamas in case of trouble, then boost north, then brake offshore and fly to 39A. Maybe an unladen Starship could make such a hop by itself. If not, a booster could assist on the first leg and come back.
  - yellowapple 5y ago
    > (Although one wonders if it could go single-stage-to-orbit without SS on top. That would be another first!) On that note, I recall reading somewhere that the top part is at least in theory SSTO-capable without payload.
    - ncmncm 5y ago
      If it could get to orbit, then it ought to be able to get to Florida.
    - simonh 5y ago
      The current iterations are a bit over-engineered. A fully optimised later version that's slimmed down the design might do it without any payload, fins or heat shield. Maybe.

maccam94 5y ago

I think it's likely that SpaceX recognized that FAA approval could take a while, so they started putting more polish into the launch infrastructure, booster, and ship, rather than just trying to iterate on launches as quickly as possible. But that's just a hypothesis from an armchair observer, I'm not sure if they could have rushed launch pad readiness any further. I've also heard rumblings that there may be regulatory issues with the ground storage tanks for fuel/oxidizer that may require changes.