Starship now stacked on launchpad
In preparation for a final wet dress rehearsal countdown followed by its first launch, Starship has now been stacked on top of Superheavy at SpaceX’s launchpad at Boca Chica, Texas.
The picture to the right is a screen capture from a short video Elon Musk posted on Twitter. SpaceX had also tweeted that its “Team is working towards a launch rehearsal next week [April 10-11] followed by Starship’s first integrated flight test ~week later pending regulatory approval.”
At this time the FAA has still not issued the launch license. By announcing its plan to launch the week of April 17th, Musk and SpaceX puts pressure the government bureaucracy to get a move on.
The support of my readers through the years has given me the freedom and ability to analyze objectively the ongoing renaissance in space, as well as the cultural changes -- for good or ill -- that are happening across America. Four years ago, just before the 2020 election I wrote that Joe Biden's mental health was suspect. Only in the past two weeks has the mainstream media decided to recognize that basic fact.
Fourteen years ago I wrote that SLS and Orion were a bad ideas, a waste of money, would be years behind schedule, and better replaced by commercial private enterprise. Even today NASA and Congress refuses to recognize this reality.
In 2020 when the world panicked over COVID I wrote that the panic was unnecessary, that the virus was apparently simply a variation of the flu, that masks were not simply pointless but if worn incorrectly were a health threat, that the lockdowns were a disaster and did nothing to stop the spread of COVID. Only in the past year have some of our so-called experts in the health field have begun to recognize these facts.
Your help allows me to do this kind of intelligent analysis. I take no advertising or sponsors, so my reporting isn't influenced by donations by established space or drug companies. Instead, I rely entirely on donations and subscriptions from my readers, which gives me the freedom to write what I think, unencumbered by outside influences.
Please consider supporting my work here at Behind the Black.
You can support me either by giving a one-time contribution or a regular subscription. There are five ways of doing so:
1. Zelle: This is the only internet method that charges no fees. All you have to do is use the Zelle link at your internet bank and give my name and email address (zimmerman at nasw dot org). What you donate is what I get.
2. Patreon: Go to my website there and pick one of five monthly subscription amounts, or by making a one-time donation.
3. A Paypal Donation:
5. Donate by check, payable to Robert Zimmerman and mailed to
Behind The Black
c/o Robert Zimmerman
P.O.Box 1262
Cortaro, AZ 85652
You can also support me by buying one of my books, as noted in the boxes interspersed throughout the webpage or shown in the menu above. And if you buy the books through the ebookit links, I get a larger cut and I get it sooner.
In preparation for a final wet dress rehearsal countdown followed by its first launch, Starship has now been stacked on top of Superheavy at SpaceX’s launchpad at Boca Chica, Texas.
The picture to the right is a screen capture from a short video Elon Musk posted on Twitter. SpaceX had also tweeted that its “Team is working towards a launch rehearsal next week [April 10-11] followed by Starship’s first integrated flight test ~week later pending regulatory approval.”
At this time the FAA has still not issued the launch license. By announcing its plan to launch the week of April 17th, Musk and SpaceX puts pressure the government bureaucracy to get a move on.
The support of my readers through the years has given me the freedom and ability to analyze objectively the ongoing renaissance in space, as well as the cultural changes -- for good or ill -- that are happening across America. Four years ago, just before the 2020 election I wrote that Joe Biden's mental health was suspect. Only in the past two weeks has the mainstream media decided to recognize that basic fact.
Fourteen years ago I wrote that SLS and Orion were a bad ideas, a waste of money, would be years behind schedule, and better replaced by commercial private enterprise. Even today NASA and Congress refuses to recognize this reality.
In 2020 when the world panicked over COVID I wrote that the panic was unnecessary, that the virus was apparently simply a variation of the flu, that masks were not simply pointless but if worn incorrectly were a health threat, that the lockdowns were a disaster and did nothing to stop the spread of COVID. Only in the past year have some of our so-called experts in the health field have begun to recognize these facts.
Your help allows me to do this kind of intelligent analysis. I take no advertising or sponsors, so my reporting isn't influenced by donations by established space or drug companies. Instead, I rely entirely on donations and subscriptions from my readers, which gives me the freedom to write what I think, unencumbered by outside influences.
Please consider supporting my work here at Behind the Black.
You can support me either by giving a one-time contribution or a regular subscription. There are five ways of doing so:
1. Zelle: This is the only internet method that charges no fees. All you have to do is use the Zelle link at your internet bank and give my name and email address (zimmerman at nasw dot org). What you donate is what I get.
2. Patreon: Go to my website there and pick one of five monthly subscription amounts, or by making a one-time donation.
3. A Paypal Donation:
5. Donate by check, payable to Robert Zimmerman and mailed to
Behind The Black
c/o Robert Zimmerman
P.O.Box 1262
Cortaro, AZ 85652
You can also support me by buying one of my books, as noted in the boxes interspersed throughout the webpage or shown in the menu above. And if you buy the books through the ebookit links, I get a larger cut and I get it sooner.
Kick the tires and light the fires!
Surely the FAA has communicated to the Americans it works for why there’s no launch license? Because bad non-orange man doesn’t support our censorship and we have the mentality of deranged petulant children isn’t a reason.
Here’s my plan in still no FAA paperwork, Elon. Next week as usual should see a final wet dry rehearsal. Fuel up the suckah and do the countdown per the test. An unexplained short in the control sequencer accidentally lights the engines and releases the hold down clamps. Rocket takes off and as long as the flight path does not deviate the automatic FTS Flight Termination System will not fire.
A launch on this year’s Tax Day (17 April) would help drive the point home about the value of commercial space – that there is a better way.
There’s nothing better than Competition to get things going.
The Minimalist launch facilities are striking, but to be all that’s required to launch this class of rocket is near-incredible.
Do we know the FAA hasn’t issued the paperwork? It is now close of business on a holiday-which means no lawsuit can be filed during Easter-so a very early Monday launch could beat a run to the courthouse. My goal would be to have FAA’s date stamp be 4:59 PM today on Good Friday. He and the staff walk out the building as the Greens blow up the phones to no avail-and Musk has the weekend for his own miracle. The FAA announcement ten seconds before test-a sudden “change” then launch. If Elon gets it earlier-don’t tell us-play along.
Blair Ivey – “The Minimalist launch facilities are striking, but to be all that’s required to launch this class of rocket is near-incredible.”
I have been thinking for some time that SpaceX’s declared intentions for ultimate launch cadence simply cannot be supported by any reasonable expansion of existing launch sites.
Texas probably lacks the infrastructure to be more than a development facility. Shared facilities like KSC and Vandy would be overwhelmed by high frequency Starship launches, not to mention the severe impact on local air and sea traffic.
No, SpaceX will need to grow up into one or more dedicated launch sites to sustain its future, and finding even one is going to be tough. Consider some general requirements:
1. Worker and family amenities (including climate and noise tolerance).
2. Access to industry and compatible roads / airports / seaports.
3. Clear eastward launch corridors over:
a) water not crossed by shipping lanes, or
b) uninhabited land.
4. Relatively low latitude.
I’m sure we can all come up with more!
Launch it when ready. When confronted by the *Joe “administration” just identify it as a super high fidelity test. That’s what *Joe would do. What’s good for the goose…
Hey, Joe – wanna go for a ride? A real Presidential first!
The scaffolding and railings on the Orbital Launch Mount came down today. This is starting to look real.
Moment of History
“First Liquid-Fueled Rocket”
March 16, 1926
https://youtu.be/uB9x0-YxsGQ
5:30
Wayne, some time ago I read “Rocket Man: Robert H. Goddard and the Birth of the Space Age” by David Clary, via Kindle.
I had a very unexpected reaction to this book, but I will simply recommend it to you for your entertainment.
Regular Starship launches will see a major “save the planet” campaign to stop US launches. I’m guessing that they will want electric boosters…idiots. Same folks seem to be all in on Ukrainian war.
Ray Van Dune wrote: “I have been thinking for some time that SpaceX’s declared intentions for ultimate launch cadence simply cannot be supported by any reasonable expansion of existing launch sites.”
This is probably true. SpaceX’s agreement with the Boca Chica site has a limited number of annual launches (12?). Making this site a major spaceport would have ramifications for access to the beach, and that would likely be completely unacceptable to the local Texas residents.
Kennedy Space Center is the most likely to be able to support a higher launch cadence, but it probably has its limitations, too. This is most likely why SpaceX had bought a couple of oceangoing drilling platforms, so that they would have better ability to ramp up their launch cadence with launch pads that they control, avoiding competition with other companies who need to have their own launch windows that would interfere with Starship launches at established launch sites, such as KSC.
However, there has been rumor that SpaceX may build a few Starship launch pads and towers north of Launch Complex 39. If true, then it could be that KSC is capable of handling a larger amount of launch traffic than we have given it credit for.
SpaceX has a contract to put the Human Landing System lander in space, so that is one launch that is necessary two years from now, and they have a more immediate need to have at least 40 Starship launches in the next three or four years to get the minimum number of second generation Starlink satellites into orbit in the time that the FCC requires for SpaceX to keep their license for their frequency(ies). The upside to The FCC approving only 7,500 satellites instead of the requested 30,000 is that SpaceX only has to launch 1/4 as many satellites as they had originally planned, so there is less pressure to launch the minimum number of satellites that the FCC requires for securing long-term authorization for this constellation and its frequencies. This is a risk that the Kuiper constellation faces, too. They have a limited amount of time to get half their constellation in orbit to hold onto their authorized frequency(ies).
To add to Ray’s list of requirements, let us include:
5. a supply of methane and oxygen propellants.
Rumor is that SpaceX may build propellant production facilities close to their launch sites. It makes sense, as a whole lot of propellant will be needed if they are launching frequently, such as daily or even their ambitious three per day cadence. [*** Rhetorical question alert ***] How long will it take to build up to that kind of cadence? Trucking in 8 million pounds of propellants for each launch could become quite a logistical obstacle.
Edward: Note that SpaceX has sold those drilling platforms. The company recognized that it would too impractical to adapt them for Superheavy/Starship. When it comes time, I expect them to design their own sea-launch platform, from scratch.
Edward, thanks for elaborating on the subject, which I think is a critical one. You did not mention that SpaceX is selling / has sold the drilling platforms, although I am sure you are aware of it. At first when they bought them I was impressed, but then I got thinking about more…
For example, I was wondering how do you handle a multimillion-pound delicate object in an environment that is constantly shifting, even by a little? Even if it’s a lot less heavy empty, you have to figure out how to move and/or rotate it under less than perfectly stable conditions! Remember, 4mm skin!!
This brings up a related question I have not seen addressed. Since SH / SS are built vertically, how will they be transported to KSC?! I cannot see how it can be done vertically in real-world weather, and they are not obviously structurally ready to be laid down and stood back up again! Sounds like a “strong back” of huge proportions is gonna be needed!
And where is the barge that will carry them? I don’t think the “Rocket Ship” is big enough, and it may be owned by ULA (not sure)?
Imagine the Superheavy arriving in the KSC Turning Basin!! That’ll put the mighty Vulcan into perspective won’t it?! And I think it could even be erected onto an SPMT in the VAB, which would put that historic structure to a new and noble purpose! NOW we’ll really see why it was built so big!
@Ray Van Dune, you bring up an interesting logistical question, I always expected they would fly the finished ships from TX on their maiden flights, and land them at Kennedy for all future missions… I guess time will tell what they work out, but I’m sure they have a few layers of plans
How about adding Wallops Island to the list of possible additional spaceports? When I was a kid would go to space campouts on Wallops to see sounding rocket flights. Current launch facility has limited orbital capability with Cygnus ISS resupply. 13 miles long 2 `1/2 miles wide.
We could do what the Chinese have done with Spratly Island and expanded the reef to a very sizable airfield and base. Do this off the coast of South Carolina. and build a nice new spaceport.
Ray Van Dune,
You wrote: “You did not mention that SpaceX is selling / has sold the drilling platforms, although I am sure you are aware of it.”
You are right on both counts, as is Robert.
Sea Launch pioneered launching from such platforms, although they used much smaller rockets. The concept has been proved, but scaling up to the larger Starship seems to take more than SpaceX had originally thought. I don’t know whether they will have to design platforms from scratch or it they will figure out a modification to an existing design, but it is clear that it is more complicated than SpaceX had expected.
There are two or three kinds of platforms, if I can oversimplify a more complicated topic. The first is one used in water shallow enough to set the platform on the bottom, assuring that it does not move. Deep water platforms are held in place with cables that extend to the ocean bottom. Sea Launch was portable and basically floated in place. SpaceX may intend to use the first type, closer to shore where it can be stabilized by resting on the sea bottom; at least that would be my preference if I were designing the system. This could also be used for many point-to-point launch pads (e.g. New York to Singapore, offshore and away from shipping and aircraft traffic lanes). It also could help with the supply of propellants, which might (maybe) be able to be piped out to the platform rather than shipped out there or manufactured on the platform.
SpaceX may be building a Starship factory at KSC. If this is the case, then Boca Chica need not be the source for all Super Heavies and Starships. On the other hand, Boca Chica is next to a shipping channel, so if they design a barge that can take a Super Heavy safely, then they may be able to build some of them there.
“NOW we’ll really see why it was built so big!”
What a sight that would be! It could be that, like ships and aircraft, there is a maximum practical size of rockets to lift hardware to Earth orbit. Time will tell whether the Saturn V and Starship are approaching that size. If so, the VAB may be the right size for these super heavy-lift launch vehicles.
By the way, Ray, your requirement #4, a relatively low latitude for a Starship launch pad, is not necessarily correct. Many satellites are placed in orbits that have relatively low inclinations, so an equatorial launch pad is a good thing to have, but the optimum latitude for a launch pad is the same as the inclination that the payload is to have. An equatorial pad takes advantage of the “throw” that the Earth provides, which is perfect for a geostationary satellite, and most people mistakenly believe that this throw makes lower latitude launch sites the best for any launch. However, to go into a higher inclination orbit requires that propellant be used in order to add northward (or southward) velocity. If you start at the attitude that corresponds with the inclination, then no north or south velocity change is needed, and the rocket only need launch to the east, reducing the propellant necessary or allowing for a capacity of a heavier payload. The advantage is only a few percent, but the advantage exists. This is yet another counterintuitive factor of orbital mechanics.
If I could only have one launch pad, an equatorial one would be my choice, but I would rather have additional pads at 30˚ (e.g. KSC), and 60˚ (eg. Russia) would also be desirable. These two latitudes would give good starting points for orbits with nearby inclinations. New Zealand, Norwegian, Scottish, and Alaskan launch sites are excellent places for putting payloads into sun-synchronous orbits, which are slightly retrograde polar orbits.
Edward, I may be mistaken, but I was under the impression that it is relatively easy to launch to a HIGHER inclination than the launch site’s latitude. For example, the ISS orbit is at a higher inclination than KSC, which allows Russian launch sites to access it.
This is significant because it is NOT relatively easy to launch to a LOWER inclination, which requires a “dogleg” maneuver that sucks up extra propellant.
A related phenomenon is that high US and low Canadian latitude sites see the ISS passes quite frequently, compared to more equatorial sites. When I have had the opportunity to spend a bit of time relaxing in more equatorial places, I have noticed that ISS passes are somewhat rare! But at “home” it seems the ISS goes over the majority of mornings or evenings!
If this was a republican, free enterprise friendly administration would SpaceX have already launched the booster and starship more than zero times in the last 2 years?
Granted they have had to build a fully capable launch pad and tower. But first launch the booster on its own. With each launch the booster goes increasingly higher, always returning intact to the launch pad. Do some more solo launches of Starship since the last Starship flight was barely a success. The goal of each test is to always have the rockets return to earth intact.
SpaceX is developing a reusable launch system. So let them conduct frequent tests that let them gradually expand on that capability.
Yeah Steve, that kind of approach was what I sort of expected to happen: start off with some non-retractable utilitarian booster landing legs, land on a pad, and work up from there.
Ray Van Dune,
You wrote: “I was under the impression that it is relatively easy to launch to a HIGHER inclination than the launch site’s latitude. ”
This is correct. However, it is still most efficient to launch at the higher latitude to get into that inclination. This is why the ISS is in such a high inclination orbit, so that the Russians can get their modules, and perhaps the Soyuz, to the station. It is also why I would choose the equator if I could only build one launch site.
The reason you see the ISS so often is because it spends far more time at the higher latitudes than it does passing by the equator.
_____________
Steve Richter,
SpaceX had submitted a flight plan two years ago. The plan was to perform the same flight test as they currently plan, however they did not have Raptor engines, so they intended to launch Booster 4 and Starship 20, which were RP1 (kerosene) based. They did not intend to recover either rocket and still don’t. They are intended to be expendable for this first launch.
SpaceX has much experience with RP1 and Merlin engines, so this was a well reasoned idea. They were having problems with the heat tiles, and as the FAA environmental report was delayed, so about a year ago they decided to wait for the Raptors and more advanced designs. It may have been unlikely that the Starship 20 would survive reentry well enough to give good data, so this may have helped drive the decision to wait for the Raptors and Booster 7 with Starship 24. These two rockets are still going to be expended by landing them in the ocean. As we have seen in the past, SpaceX updates their designs with each test, and I suspect that both the booster and the orbiter are still not defined well enough to make it useful to reuse either one, at least not yet.
Other people have suggested that SpaceX wanted to wait for more tests to be more assured that the pad (launch mount) and tower would be less likely to be damaged by a booster explosion near the pad; the idea being that it would be less likely to explode. I suspect that SpaceX had confidence in the RP1 design not exploding near the pad, but methane rockets are new; no one has yet put one into orbit, but no one has exploded one at the launch pad, either.
In the meantime, for the past year SpaceX has been building ground support equipment for methane and Raptors, which they would have had to do anyway, so it is not clear whether they lost a year of testing or whether they may have learned a couple of things by testing with two or three Merlin RP1 boosters (#4, 5, and 6) while they upgraded the launch site. They have been using their Raptor static test firings to determine improvements for the pad and tower. The damage to SLS’s launch tower may have informed them of additional necessary protective measures.
What is unclear is whether SpaceX’s efforts are timed to correspond with the FAA’s bureaucratic schedule for granting a launch license (ew.g efforts shifted to Kennedy because the license would not come until April) or whether the FAA is waiting until they are sure that there are no additional tests that give better data for them to make their decision about issuing a license. I do not believe that the latter is the case, since they should have all the data that is forthcoming.
There is some evidence that for a while SpaceX may use expendable Starships to launch their second generation Starlink satellites. This suggests to me that Super Heavy boosters and Starships are inexpensive enough and can be built fast enough that they can be efficiently and economically used as expendable rockets. It will be fun to watch the other companies come up with ways to compete with that.