SpaceX

Byeman said:
The issue isn't pads and support buildings, that has been user funded. The issue is basic infrastructure.
NASA can't take money from SpaceX for construction like bridges, roads, power lines etc.
Click to expand...
Interesting, looks like NASA can authorize SpaceX to complete road upgrades given they did is already. It just gets added to their budget.

Kennedy’s roadways were also not designed to support the conveyance of larger launch vehicles such as SpaceX’s Starship. For example, the Saturn Causeway, which is approximately 4 miles long and serves as the primary access route to LCs 39A and 39B, needed to be widened for the side-by-side transport systems used for Starship. Typical design standards for many of the primary roads on the Center include 12-foot-wide lanes separated by 10- to 20-foot medians. To support Starship, the Saturn Causeway needed to be widened by approximately 8 feet, increasing its width from 26 to 34 feet. Given the high priority of this project, the Agency approved an easement agreement with SpaceX in 2024 permitting the company to assume full responsibility for funding the project and completion.27 SpaceX completed the Saturn Causeway road widening project in 2025. While this project improved capacity along a critical corridor, it represents a localized solution and does not address all of Kennedy’s potential future conveyance issues.
Click to expand...

page 20 of the report, https://oig.nasa.gov/wp-content/upl...-launch-infrastructure.pdf?emrc=6a3b663b1c6c9

The Statutory Funding Barriers section of the above report is pretty good covering what can and cannot be paid for, why commercial vendors should pay for it and also references the Space Ready Act which should remove the issue altogether, if it ever gets passed. essentially if the Space Force can do it then why shouldn't NASA be allowed to (pending passing of the Bill).
 
NMaude said:
I don't know why they didn't launch at least one Shuttle mission from Vandenberg AFB just as a proof-of-principle flight and mission.
Click to expand...

Even before the Challenger tragedy SLC-6 was delayed, over budget. On top of that the filament wound casings SRBs were unsafe.

Finally all those rolling hills around VAFB created a harsher launch environment by reverberating noise and vibrations, a non existing problem at The Cape.
 
Quite why the Air Force never bought the Space Shuttle is beyond me after all they had built the infrastructure for the Shuttle and just to let it go to waste like that is just plain daft.
 
FighterJock said:
Quite why the Air Force never bought the Space Shuttle is beyond me after all they had built the infrastructure for the Shuttle and just to let it go to waste like that is just plain daft.
Click to expand...
It wasn't for sale, it was NASA's.
As for the "waste", it is a sunk cost fallacy to use the facility. Cheaper to step away and use Titan IV.
Additionally, the shuttle never had the performance to do all the Vandenberg missions.

There were 10 Titan IV launches from 1989-2006 that truly required to be launched from Vandenberg. .60 launches per year wasn't worth it.
 
current state of SLC-37
HLqqCt6XAAAhuJn
 
FighterJock said:
Quite why the Air Force never bought the Space Shuttle is beyond me after all they had built the infrastructure for the Shuttle and just to let it go to waste like that is just plain daft.
Click to expand...
Because it never worked as promised, and USAF quickly realized, that it isn't efficient for placing military equipment on orbit. So instead of pushing forward and wasting more money on the idea that clearly wasn't gonna work as USAF wanted, they decided to cut the losses. Actually kinda reasonable.
 
I suppose you are right Dilandu, the Space Shuttle in a way should never have been built after watching both the Challenger and Columbia incidents on TV. And we could have gone to Mars by 1985 according to Werner von Braun's estimate.
 
FighterJock said:
I suppose you are right Dilandu, the Space Shuttle in a way should never have been built after watching both the Challenger and Columbia incidents on TV. And we could have gone to Mars by 1985 according to Werner von Braun's estimate.
Click to expand...
Challenger was a human error. You can't fix stupid. The foam on the ET was definitely a problem waiting to happen.
 
Something weird with SLC-6 Shuttle ops : VAFB main runway for 747SCA and orbiter landings was far away, 10 miles across the hills. So orbiters would have to be trucked on roads.
It is easy to forget how different from KSC would VAFB Shuttle operations be. Worlds appart.
 
FighterJock said:
I suppose you are right Dilandu, the Space Shuttle in a way should never have been built after watching both the Challenger and Columbia incidents on TV.
Click to expand...
Can't said that. Hindsight is 20/20. The reasons for it were valid.
FighterJock said:
And we could have gone to Mars by 1985 according to Werner von Braun's estimate.
Click to expand...
No, we didn't have the life support systems. Nor would we have nuclear engines.
 
BlueAbyssal said:
There’s an FCC filing for returning from orbit on Flight 14:
https://twitter.com/x/status/2066882784879124564
View: https://x.com/xdnibor/status/2066882784879124564?s=46
Click to expand...

SpaceX Tests New Vehicle For Returning Payloads From LEO​

https://aviationweek.com/space/commercial-space/spacex-tests-new-vehicle-returning-payloads-leo
CAPE CANAVERAL—A SpaceX Falcon 9 rocket dispatched a new spacecraft designed to return science samples and items manufactured in microgravity back to Earth, a service the company intends to sell to researchers and entrepreneurs.

The Falcon 9, flying for the 29th time, lifted off at 6:53 a.m. EDT June 23 from Cape Canaveral SFS’s Space Launch Complex 40. An hour later, SpaceX confirmed deployment of the capsule, known as Starfall. The company did not broadcast imagery of the second stage or payload deployment, nor disclose if there was additional spacecraft aboard.
Click to expand...
 
Some thing is odd on Starfall
normally SpaceX present the Launch with video of faring/payload separation.
on Starfall, no video of Payload, just Booster operation, like this is a military mission
no media coverage of Payload in orbit or it landing,
while the Payload return in package to harbour

Is Starfall a false flag operation, has SpaceX launch something for Military/intelligence service ?
 
Michel Van said:
Some thing is odd on Starfall
normally SpaceX present the Launch with video of faring/payload separation.
on Starfall, no video of Payload, just Booster operation, like this is a military mission
no media coverage of Payload in orbit or it landing,
while the Payload return in package to harbour

Is Starfall a false flag operation, has SpaceX launch something for Military/intelligence service ?
Click to expand...
"False flag" for what?. Could just be proprietary.
 
Michel Van said:
yes, but lack of media in this case is untypical for SpaceX
normally they cover launch orbit and return in Media if now Youtube or X
Click to expand...
Don't know. Seems like an odd shape for an RV. Wonder what they plan to use it for (specifically).
 

Similar threads

Back
Top Bottom