[HN Gopher] SpaceX - Evolving the Multi-User Spaceport
___________________________________________________________________
SpaceX - Evolving the Multi-User Spaceport
Author : thsName
Score : 118 points
Date : 2025-09-26 15:17 UTC (7 hours ago)
(HTM) web link (www.spacex.com)
(TXT) w3m dump (www.spacex.com)
| BryanLegend wrote:
| To infinity, and beyond!
| philipwhiuk wrote:
| Previously:
|
| https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=45294806
| euroderf wrote:
| Has anyone written a history of launch pad characteristics and
| assignments and upgrades and conversions at Cape
| Canaveral/Kennedy ? So many stories.
| Osyris wrote:
| I'm a big SpaceX fan, but as far as I can tell, this doesn't
| contain any real updates. It's just aspirational thinking.
| dapperdrake wrote:
| Until SpaceX wasn't aspirational, anymore.
| philipallstar wrote:
| The danger of continually making aspirations a reality.
| dev1ycan wrote:
| Yeah it's a bunch of aspirational nonesense, their rocket is
| nowhere safe enough yet (or even in the near future), SpaceX is
| a proud member of the aspirational club alongside (the much
| loved by Hackernews members) intel foundry!
| bryanlarsen wrote:
| Huh? The Falcon9 has the best reliability and safety record
| of any rocket in history, and it's not even close.
| anonym29 wrote:
| Yes, Boeing rockets have a much better track record on
| uptime, availability, and cost, like when that Boeing rocket
| famously saved the stranded astronauts after SpaceX
| demonstrated extended incompetence in getting a rocket up to
| space /s
| Perz1val wrote:
| Why so? Falcons have reliably so many launches, they are
| undeniably the most battle tested rocket ever made. I
| genuinely have no idea, why are they not safe?
| dev1ycan wrote:
| I'm obviously talking about Starship, which is mentioned
| 208 times in their article.
| nomdep wrote:
| You obviously want that they fail. Your "the rocket is
| not safe and will never be" is what is aspirational.
| jakeydus wrote:
| That's not what OP said, though.
| simonh wrote:
| To be fair, when a company's infrastructure construction, and
| planned operational activities have a significant impact on the
| local environment, it makes sense to explain and signal these
| up front. You can bet environmental groups and SpaceX's
| competitors are already lining up their objections.
| bryanlarsen wrote:
| Especially when that local environment includes Disney, the
| 800 pound gorilla of the area.
| ericd wrote:
| Wonder which way they'd come down on this, seems like it
| might be a big (and free) attraction, if visitors could see
| the aftermath of those sunset launches. Seems like at ~60
| miles away, the noise shouldn't be an issue.
| bryanlarsen wrote:
| The big issue is that the keep-out zone for rocket
| launches includes the cruise ships out of Port Canaveral,
| which is where Disney Cruises are based.
| mrguyorama wrote:
| And a significant fraction of all other Cruise traffic in
| Florida.
|
| Our non-disney cruise sailed out from there. There was
| lots of signage about how the waterways would be closed
| for the SpaceX launch the next day.
| MattDamonSpace wrote:
| Also a summary of their efforts so far, lots of info I've not
| seen discussed much (though I am a fairly casual follower of
| SpaceX)
| terminalshort wrote:
| Remember when reusable rockets were aspirational thinking?
| ffsm8 wrote:
| Hmm, you're aware that the space shuttle was "reusable"
| though, right?
|
| Because in this context, your question would squarly land
| around the time before STS-1 was launched in '81
|
| For this to be about space x, you'd have to add some
| qualifiers - like "privately owned"
| JumpCrisscross wrote:
| > _you 're aware that the space shuttle was "reusable"
| though, right?_
|
| Shuttle was reusable on paper. It couldn't unlock high-
| cadence launch because it was not built on an assembly line
| and had long, manual and error-prone refurbishment
| requirements.
|
| Put practically, one couldn't build a LEO constellation
| like Starlink or aim for in-orbit refuelling with the
| Shuttle. One can do the former with Falcon 9. One can
| attempt the latter with Starship.
| philipallstar wrote:
| The shuttle's rockets were not reusable.
| Rebelgecko wrote:
| No, I was born after DCX
| peterfirefly wrote:
| They were very much still aspirational after DC-X. Getting
| to an altitude of just over 3km with essentially no path to
| orbit doesn't count.
| schiffern wrote:
| >as far as I can tell, this doesn't contain any real updates
|
| I don't think that's true? Pretty rare to see incorrect info
| boosted so high without any factual challenge. Just lucky
| timing, I guess.
|
| Can anyone point out where they previously read about these
| methane blast experiments and SpaceX sharing the raw data with
| regulators? This was news to me, and I follow SpaceX news
| pretty closely.
| ACCount37 wrote:
| Mostly, it's SpaceX detailing how increases in launch count and
| scale are necessitating infrastructural, operational and
| organizational changes at launch sites.
|
| Oh how the times have changed. We went from waiting months from
| one Falcon 9 landing test to another and to the point where
| people are having to rethink how to run spaceports to be able
| to sustain SpaceX's insane "2.5 launches a week" cadence.
| modeless wrote:
| This is not an update for SpaceX fans. It's aimed squarely at
| people who have opposed SpaceX's expansion in Florida at
| Kennedy Space Center and Cape Canaveral. These people have made
| arguments about safety and the environment as well as
| disruption to the operations of SpaceX competitors. Some of
| these arguments may be made in good faith but some are simply
| aimed at obstructing a competitor or political opponent. SpaceX
| is countering those arguments here.
| panick21_ wrote:
| I think its not really aspirational so much as it is long term
| planning. If you 20 years ago had told people the launch rates
| SpaceX is achieving now people would have laughed you out of
| the room. And this is not from SpaceX private launch site, but
| a government owned launch site. SpaceX has really been the
| driving force behind advancing the nations launch
| infrastructure and launch practices.
|
| I don't see any reason why SpaceX should not continue to plan
| in such an agressive fashion, as there isn't really a clear
| reason that anybody can point out to about how its
| fundamentally impossible.
|
| Its mostly competitors and activists trying to slow down SpaceX
| and post like this are trying to tell people 'look these are
| what we are planning and it will benefit everybody'.
| jltsiren wrote:
| The USSR averaged >1.5 launches/week from 1967 to 1989.
| SpaceX has exceeded that, but not by a huge margin. Once they
| start doing daily launches, it will be something people would
| not have believed 20 years ago. But we are not there yet.
| uejfiweun wrote:
| Probably a stupid question but if rocket launches really became
| as commonplace as airplane flights, would we see some kind of
| increase in global temperatures?
| eblume wrote:
| Not stupid at all. Definitely yes. Don't have the numbers on
| hand but it's orders of magnitude more CO2-equivalent released
| per kg-mile, especially when you factor in the fact that they
| are using methane.
|
| Of course the reality is that this tech won't ever see adoption
| used that widely, but where is the break-even point?
| bryanlarsen wrote:
| Rocket launches emit less CO2 than a trans-pacific airline
| flight.
| barbazoo wrote:
| > CO2-equivalent
|
| I think what they were trying to get at is GHG emissions in
| general which there are more of than just CO2.
| bryanlarsen wrote:
| Full flow staged combustion engines like Starships do not
| have significant un-burnt methane. They run slightly
| fuel-rich, but that results in extra CO emissions rather
| than CH4 due to the temperatures involve -- methane
| cracks at 1200C, Starship engine temperature is 3000C.
|
| Starship's operations in Boca Chica do emit methane
| during ground operations. The mitigation for that is to
| use a pipeline rather than trucks for delivery.
|
| Solid rocket motors emit all sorts of nasty stuff, like
| aluminum particles.
| terminalshort wrote:
| The short answer is yes. Airplanes account for 2.5% of CO2
| emissions and rockets use massively more fuel than airplanes
| per flight (falcon 9 is ~10x fuel capacity of a 737).
|
| But this is an insane scenario because there are about 100,000
| commercial flights per day in the world. In all of 2024 there
| were ~250 orbital launches. So to hit the same rate as
| airplanes it would require a ~150,000x increase in the launch
| rate (or a ~15,000x increase to equal the CO2 emissions of
| airplanes).
| bryanlarsen wrote:
| Most of the falcon9 fuel is liquid oxygen. A Falcon9 holds
| less kerosene than a 737 ER.
| mr_toad wrote:
| I can't see that happening for centuries, if ever. And if we
| haven't figured out a way to deal with global warming in a few
| centuries the number of space launches and airline flights will
| probably both be zero.
| jauntywundrkind wrote:
| I imagine this is ateast in part trying to smooth over some local
| concerns, about SpaceX's stated desire to have ~44 Starship
| launches a year. Locals are significantly concerned about what
| that would mean for the area.
| https://www.floridatoday.com/story/tech/science/space/2025/0...
| chilmers wrote:
| I think the context some may be missing here is that Blue Origin
| and ULA have been attempting to get the FAA to limit SpaceX's
| planned Starship operations in Florida on the basis that they
| will have too much environmental impact and impede theirs:
|
| https://arstechnica.com/space/2024/07/theres-not-enough-room...
|
| So this is basically SpaceX arguing back about how these concerns
| aren't valid or can be mitigated through more informed safety
| margins and co-operation between launch providers.
| ionwake wrote:
| I'm shocked Blue Origin would compete in such a men's spirited
| way ? Or am I misunderstanding something here as a naive
| britbong
| modeless wrote:
| It's not the first time. To some extent it's just how the
| government contracting game is played. Regrettably. https://e
| n.wikipedia.org/wiki/Blue_Origin_Federation,_LLC_v....
| ACCount37 wrote:
| Notably, Blue Origin got its case thrown out, as NASA has
| demonstrated that Starship was selected for HLS over
| National Team option on technical merit.
|
| Not that it stopped Bezos from lobbying for a second round
| of HLS contracts and securing a contract for Blue Origin
| anyway. But at least that resulted in a second HLS -
| instead of SpaceX's contract being clawed back.
| ionwake wrote:
| I just thought once you are that rich, when doing "space
| races" that there was some sort of collaboration, due to
| difficulty, greater good? Im not sure why I see the space
| race differently
| ACCount37 wrote:
| There's a lot of underhanded competition going around there.
|
| Previously, there were a few rather suspicious "environmental
| groups" hounding SpaceX - the understanding was that someone
| was funding them to try to throw a wrench in SpaceX's plans.
| This here looks like more of the same.
| throwoutway wrote:
| Has SpaceX revealed what they plan to do with the Texas Starbase
| once they start launching Starship from Florda? Will they just
| stop using it?
| mr_toad wrote:
| They seem to like to iterate. The Falcon 9s flying now are
| essentially version 5. I can imagine they'll keep experimenting
| with Starship designs for a while.
| quailfarmer wrote:
| > Liquefaction is a process where saturated, loose soil loses its
| strength and behaves like a liquid, often occurring during events
| like earthquakes.
|
| That would be quite an environmental impact!
| peterfirefly wrote:
| Whenas in silks my Julia goes, Then, then (methinks) how
| sweetly flows That liquefaction of her clothes.
| Next, when I cast mine eyes, and see That brave vibration
| each way free, O how that glittering taketh me!
___________________________________________________________________
(page generated 2025-09-26 23:01 UTC)