3 ms·

No, this would be crushing regardless. Even if Blue Origin had dozens of rockets ready to go, they can't fly without without the pad, which will take around a

No, this would be crushing regardless. Even if Blue Origin had dozens of rockets ready to go, they can't fly without without the pad, which will take around a year to repair (based on previous examples).

baq 5mo ago
Yeah exactly. Blowing up the rocket is the easy part. Reliably blowing up rockets on a high cadence is hard.
servo_sausage 5mo ago
If one pad is the bottleneck, and the goal is to ramp up to be a spacex competitor, then build more than one... Falcon has shown the playbook, and the demand for launch... The goal should be 2-4 launch sites in the medium term; with a second site very early to avoid exactly this.
- pbrum 5mo ago
  I was going to say this too. And since we're at it: does anyone know how many launch pads the Chinese private space companies have, combined?
- lunar_mycroft 5mo ago
  Until recently, SpaceX only acquired new pads because they needed a completely new launch site (SLC-4 in Vandenberg) or needed to launch a vehicle that their existing pad(s) didn't support (Falcon Heavy for LC-39A, Starship for Pad A in Boca Chica/Starbase). Currently, Blue Origin's only orbital launch vehicle is New Glenn, and their Vandenberg pad is still under construction.
  - mr_toad 5mo ago
    Waiting until you need something and don’t have an easy replacement is how you end up with delays and bottlenecks.
    - lunar_mycroft 5mo ago
      Launch pads are not something you just buy on a whim to keep around just in case you need them. They're very expensive pieces of infrastructure that you only acquire when you have an actual, known need. That's how every launch provider that I know of behaves, including SpaceX.
      - somenameforme 5mo ago
        I don't disagree at all, but I'm quite curious where the cost actually comes from. Even including all the harnessing and other hardware, it doesn't seem like something that should be a bank-breaker when we're casually talking about vehicles worth tens of millions of dollars blowing up, if not being discarded after a single launch.
        NetMageSCW 5mo ago
        If you’re NASA, the cost comes from a cost+ contract with an incompetent vendor. If your Blue Origin, the cost comes from each launch complex being essentially bespoke and built on-site. If you’re SpaceX, you plan ahead to use lego construction, mass produce the pieces, the tanks, etc in a factory setting, and assemble the pieces on-site for much less and much faster.
        VectorLock 5mo ago
        I'm guessing its a combination of needing to acquire a massive amount of land among a limited number of candidate locations and then layering logistical constraints on top of that.
      - NetMageSCW 5mo ago
        Actually SpaceX is in the process of building multiple Starship launch pads in multiple locations with only an expected theoretical need.
        lunar_mycroft 5mo ago
        SpaceX is "in the process" of a lot of things, not all of which pan out. So far the cases that have actually started serious construction are in Cape Canaveral, and will absolutely be necessary assuming Starship becomes operational (because the number of launches SpaceX is allowed to do from Starbase is limited).
  - servo_sausage 5mo ago
    Except that they are a competitor trying to catch up; it's not enough to follow what spacex did. They need to target where spacex will be when their own product is mature.
m4rtink 5mo ago
This was an issue already in the Soviet times, with a couple cases of early rocket explosions destroying the pad and causing long delays, including one spectacular N1 explosion leveling its pad and needing lengthy expensive rebuild. As a result they went to extensive lengths to avoid pad damage, including never terminating rocket thrust in the first (IIRC) 60 seconds of flight. Better let the rocket crash into something nearby than to explode at the pad.
- bradyd 5mo ago
  [dead]
- mrandish 5mo ago
  > As a result they went to extensive lengths to avoid pad damage, including never terminating rocket thrust in the first (IIRC) 60 seconds of flight. I was pondering this very thing. Was there a way to learn the same info as this static fire that didn't risk all the pad infrastructure? I get that the tower, fueling systems, deluge, etc all have to work together in a real launch but given the immense schedule and dollar cost of losing the pad, how much less valid would bifurcated tests be? Like each sub-system is tested in-place on the pad without firing the rocket and then static firing itself is done on a more expendable test pad? Maybe even a test pad that's only designed to only survive long enough to get the necessary data before melting and losing the rocket. Or alternatively, as you mentioned, when it's time to test full fuel load, skip the "static" part and do everything possible to get the rocket up and away ASAP.
  - GMoromisato 5mo ago
    The alternative is you don't find out about a problem until it destroys a customer payload. That's better than losing the launch pad, but it depends on the actual probability of each event happening. What if a static fire reduces your chance of losing a customer payload from 20% to 0.2%, but increases your chance of losing the pad from 1% to 2%? And note: If they had skipped a static fire and gone straight for a launch, they would have lost the pad anyway, since the explosion happened at ignition.

baq 5mo ago

Yeah exactly. Blowing up the rocket is the easy part. Reliably blowing up rockets on a high cadence is hard.

servo_sausage 5mo ago

If one pad is the bottleneck, and the goal is to ramp up to be a spacex competitor, then build more than one... Falcon has shown the playbook, and the demand for launch... The goal should be 2-4 launch sites in the medium term; with a second site very early to avoid exactly this.

pbrum 5mo ago
I was going to say this too. And since we're at it: does anyone know how many launch pads the Chinese private space companies have, combined?
lunar_mycroft 5mo ago
Until recently, SpaceX only acquired new pads because they needed a completely new launch site (SLC-4 in Vandenberg) or needed to launch a vehicle that their existing pad(s) didn't support (Falcon Heavy for LC-39A, Starship for Pad A in Boca Chica/Starbase). Currently, Blue Origin's only orbital launch vehicle is New Glenn, and their Vandenberg pad is still under construction.
- mr_toad 5mo ago
  Waiting until you need something and don’t have an easy replacement is how you end up with delays and bottlenecks.
  - lunar_mycroft 5mo ago
    Launch pads are not something you just buy on a whim to keep around just in case you need them. They're very expensive pieces of infrastructure that you only acquire when you have an actual, known need. That's how every launch provider that I know of behaves, including SpaceX.
    - somenameforme 5mo ago
      I don't disagree at all, but I'm quite curious where the cost actually comes from. Even including all the harnessing and other hardware, it doesn't seem like something that should be a bank-breaker when we're casually talking about vehicles worth tens of millions of dollars blowing up, if not being discarded after a single launch.
      - NetMageSCW 5mo ago
        If you’re NASA, the cost comes from a cost+ contract with an incompetent vendor. If your Blue Origin, the cost comes from each launch complex being essentially bespoke and built on-site. If you’re SpaceX, you plan ahead to use lego construction, mass produce the pieces, the tanks, etc in a factory setting, and assemble the pieces on-site for much less and much faster.
      - VectorLock 5mo ago
        I'm guessing its a combination of needing to acquire a massive amount of land among a limited number of candidate locations and then layering logistical constraints on top of that.
    - NetMageSCW 5mo ago
      Actually SpaceX is in the process of building multiple Starship launch pads in multiple locations with only an expected theoretical need.
      - lunar_mycroft 5mo ago
        SpaceX is "in the process" of a lot of things, not all of which pan out. So far the cases that have actually started serious construction are in Cape Canaveral, and will absolutely be necessary assuming Starship becomes operational (because the number of launches SpaceX is allowed to do from Starbase is limited).
- servo_sausage 5mo ago
  Except that they are a competitor trying to catch up; it's not enough to follow what spacex did. They need to target where spacex will be when their own product is mature.

m4rtink 5mo ago

This was an issue already in the Soviet times, with a couple cases of early rocket explosions destroying the pad and causing long delays, including one spectacular N1 explosion leveling its pad and needing lengthy expensive rebuild. As a result they went to extensive lengths to avoid pad damage, including never terminating rocket thrust in the first (IIRC) 60 seconds of flight. Better let the rocket crash into something nearby than to explode at the pad.

bradyd 5mo ago
[dead]
mrandish 5mo ago
> As a result they went to extensive lengths to avoid pad damage, including never terminating rocket thrust in the first (IIRC) 60 seconds of flight. I was pondering this very thing. Was there a way to learn the same info as this static fire that didn't risk all the pad infrastructure? I get that the tower, fueling systems, deluge, etc all have to work together in a real launch but given the immense schedule and dollar cost of losing the pad, how much less valid would bifurcated tests be? Like each sub-system is tested in-place on the pad without firing the rocket and then static firing itself is done on a more expendable test pad? Maybe even a test pad that's only designed to only survive long enough to get the necessary data before melting and losing the rocket. Or alternatively, as you mentioned, when it's time to test full fuel load, skip the "static" part and do everything possible to get the rocket up and away ASAP.
- GMoromisato 5mo ago
  The alternative is you don't find out about a problem until it destroys a customer payload. That's better than losing the launch pad, but it depends on the actual probability of each event happening. What if a static fire reduces your chance of losing a customer payload from 20% to 0.2%, but increases your chance of losing the pad from 1% to 2%? And note: If they had skipped a static fire and gone straight for a launch, they would have lost the pad anyway, since the explosion happened at ignition.