5 ms·

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 f

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 4mo 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 4mo 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 4mo ago
  Waiting until you need something and don’t have an easy replacement is how you end up with delays and bottlenecks.
  - lunar_mycroft 4mo 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 4mo 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 4mo 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 4mo 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 4mo ago
      Actually SpaceX is in the process of building multiple Starship launch pads in multiple locations with only an expected theoretical need.
      - lunar_mycroft 4mo 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 4mo 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.

pbrum 4mo 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 4mo 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 4mo ago
Waiting until you need something and don’t have an easy replacement is how you end up with delays and bottlenecks.
- lunar_mycroft 4mo 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 4mo 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 4mo 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 4mo 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 4mo ago
    Actually SpaceX is in the process of building multiple Starship launch pads in multiple locations with only an expected theoretical need.
    - lunar_mycroft 4mo 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 4mo 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.