Starliner crisis! PLUS, Boca Chica battle is over! SpaceX moves Starship operations!

SpaceX, unsurprisingly, has decided to end their battles in Texas by moving the bulk of Starship operations to Cape Canaveral!
PLUS, Starliner faces an unexpected (and fabricated) crisis!
#space #nasa #spacex
Please support me on Patreon!
/ angryastronaut
Dear generous supporters,
For the last several months, you've heard me talk about getting to 1% of my subscribers being Patreon members.
I'll be able to really take this channel to the next level if we get there.
Since then, we've reached about 45% of that goal, but I don't see us crossing the finish line unless I have A LOT to offer in return.
So here's my proposal:
If we can reach 90% of that goal, REVENUE WISE, I'll start a channel EXCLUSIVELY for Patreon supporters. That means one recorded video and one Livestream per week, just for you! No one else will have access to this content.
Ever.
We can reach this goal, WITH YOUR HELP!
What does this mean for KZbin Members?
If my current KZbin Members join Patreon at the $3 level, and if my existing Patreon supporters bump up their support by ONE LEVEL, we can reach this goal this month!!
In addition, I will take video topic suggestions from you guys every week, and pick a video topic for the week.
That means you guys choose the content!
PLEASE NOTE THAT ALL CURRENT BENEFITS FOR KZbin MEMBERS WILL NOT CHANGE, WHETHER WE REACH THE GOAL OR NOT!
What do you think?
If this sounds like a fair deal, here's my Patreon link:
/ angryastronaut

[@blairsimpkins3505]

get rid of that awful background music.

[@tomb504dog]

I had to stop listening a few minutes in. Way too much in earbuds.

[@jaxonmattox9267]

I think this is misinterpreted as being a reduction in their focus on Boca Chica, but rather it is an expansion to cape Canaveral to accommodate a rapidly increasing launch cadence.

[@jimhanty8149]

The most negative of an approach that can be taken on anything concerning SpaceX , will be the approach presented..There’s more clicks to be had among the Woke , indigenous , protesting everything crowd and few old hippies crowd by BASHING musk than reporting what good he has done for humanity….

[@davidstevenson9517]

A launch cadence that, so far, has been only 3 launches in 12 months, all ending in disaster. NASA has just given SpaceX a "hurry up" notice.

[@jamescarter8311]

@@davidstevenson9517 Were you born yesterday? None of the Starship launches ended in "disaster." They're called prototypes and each launch completed further milestones; and you thinking NASA even knows the meaning of "hurry up" is pretty hysterical. Three launches per year is pretty impressive, actually, when compared to NASA's SLS which has been in development for 13 years and using 40-year-old hardware. It launched once and will ultimately be canned because it's ridiculously expensive and not reusable.

[@professorg8383]

@@jamescarter8311 "Disaster", "catastrophic failure", "unplanned destruction", "premature disintegration", "rapid unscheduled disassembly" , etc. Aii pretty much means the same thing. "Failed to complete" the design mission resulting in complete loss of the vehicle. Prototypes are almost never expected to be completely destroyed unless they are a specifically designated "sacrificial prototype" designed to be destroyed with the sole purpose of analyzing the the details of the destruction. Only the simple minded would accept a unplanned loss of the prototype as a success. The idea that these FAILURES "achieved some milestones" , disregards their failures to achieve all the planned milestones. Those failed milestones are only cases of getting it wrong. It is the insanity of the SpaceX approach to development. The reality is that each of these 3 flights ended in FAILURES! And the destruction of a lot of very costly hardware. These failures come at a significant cost. "Three launches per year is pretty impressive," But the were all failures!! And if you want to call them "prototype" tests, they weren't really "launches" then, they were merely tests, so zero launches would be more accurate!! SLS launched once and it was a complete success achieving all milestones!!! "Using 40-year-old hardware" Actually, re-using previously flown, upgraded Space Shuttle engines . It's an amazingly successful, powerful engine design! Do you favor re-usability or don't you?? If SpaceX re-uses something it's an unbelievable act of genius, but if somebody else does it, it's just using old junk!! Pretty hypocritical! SLS was based upon using previously well proven designs from the Space Shuttle program. Many components in inventory, refurbished and upgraded. In reality, this was a smart economical move to take engines and SRBs already built and putting them to use. transferring those already spent costs from a defunct program is a bit of an accounting measure rather than actual development costs for SLS. Gelays were largely mandated by Congress. Comparing SLS to Starship is an apples to oranges comparison. NASA has stated that there would be no official per flight cost estimates of any variety provided by NASA for the SLS. But other government agencies have come up with estimates based on different accounting methodologies of around $500 million. BTW Arguably, Musk first announced the concept back on 2005 and has been in some stage of development since. We have no idea how much money has been spent during the R&D days, or since for that matter. Musk throws out numbers but we know these are not credible. Musk likes to talk about current operational costs but totally disregards development and often infrastructure investment cost. It doesn't take a genius to realize that SpaceX has long since spent the fixed contract costs of their Starship contracts and they are way past the delivery deadlines. Starship is nowhere near close, NASA can indeed say "hurry up" on a fixed price contract, but when they manage a program, it's a completely different situation. And cost plus is handled completely differently. As for SLS getting cancelled, that's unlikely. Contracts for new RA-25 engines and new SRBs have been issued. The SLS vehicle has a lot of potential for other heavy lift missions. It is proven technology Starship, not so much!! And then thee is now the ULA Vulcan which was a complete success on its first flight. That rocket has more than enough potential to compete with Starship, if it should ever succeed. An Starship doesn't have abort capabilities either on launch or landing on the Moon. Something NASA has required for manned flights pretty much forever!! And then there's the little issue of how to unload cargo. Does anyone, including Musk, know how they will do this??

[@shaung949]

Spacex have always maintained that starbase is an R&D site. The majority of their commercial launches were always planned to launch from Canaveral.

[@cratecruncher4974]

Then why is SpaceX working on (or just completed) another launch tower, a second megabay, a huge new starfactory, a new multistory office building, a large parking garage, a static fire pit, etc. etc. Last time I checked SpaceX was harvesting parts from their Cape operations for Boca Chica. Perhaps I'm not clever enough to see this new dramatic shift like Mr. Angry or maybe this is just confirming that SpaceX will use the Cape as a sister site for Starship operations.

[@JosefTorkelsen]

Agree. There is no shift. It is just preparing for rapid launches in the future as you can’t do hundreds of launches a year at Boca but they definitely plan more than just an experimental site at Boca

[@user-gl8oi5wv5u]

Agree. How the hell are they going to transport a completed Starship from Boca Chica to Canaveral for launch? and at about 1 a week... So by implication the $$ factory they have just about finished is already redundant. I think @Angry's intuition is going off.

[@budthompson2020]

As a local resident in the Titusville/Cocoa area, and being that the vast majority of homes in Brevard County are constructed of CMU (concrete block) down through the years we have seen an increase of “stair stepping” of joints, And stucco damage is increasing steadily with the more regular and powerful launches. Although is has been thrilling all these years as a former space center employee to watch the launches from our front yards, we have all also watched our homes loose value as they slowly crumble. No doubt there will have to be a reconciliation in the future Perhaps this is an environmental impact that is yet to be considered. The very ground shakes and the windows rattle here, 13 miles from the launch pads when falcon heavy takes off, Artemis and Starship, all the more

[@jstrotha0975]

Why would SpaceX build a massive factory at Boca Chica if they didn't intend to launch more that 5 flights a year.

[@mm-dw4rr]

Yes, that's the real question - thankyou.

[@andrewsarchus6036]

Exactly. Makes precisely zero sense. Elon's plans of course require massively increased cadence at BOTH sites.

[@KOZMOuvBORG]

tax write-offs?

[@MichaelWinter-ss6lx]

Twohundred Starship launches a year, are only the beginning.

[@Spherical_Cow]

SpaceX has already publicly stated that they intend to barge the future finished Boosters and Ships over to Florida from Boca Chica. They will likely use Boca Chica for ongoing R&D testing and relatively infrequent launches, as well as initial qualification testing (cryo-proofing and static fires) of finished Boosters and Ships before deploying them to Florida.

[@pendragyn777]

I can see SpaceX using both launch sites. Boca is getting a 2nd launch tower, startship factory, and the plan is more than 5 launches this year alone. No doubt KSC will be the main launch site but Boca will have more than it's fair share of launches. Competition for KSC launches is only going to increase dramatically in the next few years. Boca is Starship only.

[@velisvideos6208]

They don't have the permits for more than 5 launches per year from Boca Chica. So it was clear all along that there would not be more than 5 launches in 2024. Still Elon was talking about 9 launches just 2 months ago...A great thinker and planner for sure...

[@Spherical_Cow]

​@@velisvideos6208 a few months ago, SpaceX started working with the FAA to modify the Boca Chica authorization, to allow up to 10 launches per year.

[@ObjectiveTruth5168]

Thus shuffle to the cape was always part of the plan. I don't get where you're coming from with this idea that they're going to ramp down activity at boca Chica

[@MikeHoltackers]

Agreed.

[@chrismoule7242]

Agreed. Building a 2nd Launch Tower at BC seems to indicate a certain level of commitment...

[@brucemcglasson]

Did someone form Texas piss in your Cheerios.😂😂😂

[@bradthefitter5031]

agreed

[@zmblion]

​@@brucemcglassonnope just he's a British beggar now. Not making enough he wants to paywall his content and had enough to move clear across the pond and fall in love with a flight attendant so must have enough to fly a lot to hang out with this chick or dude. He's dooming his own channel

[@billsimpson604]

I doubt SpaceX would be building a huge office building and giant parking lot unless they planned to stay in Boca Chica for quite some time doing something launch related. But who knows?

[@Spherical_Cow]

Boca Chica will be an R&D, manufacturing, and initial hardware qualification facility, with finished hardware shipped to Florida for launch operations. There will be a handful of launches from Boca Chica per year, for R&D and supplementary purposes, but Boca Chica was never intended to be a high-cadence, production launch site. That was always going to be for the Cape.

[@davidstevenson9517]

Boca Chica was NEVER a "GATEWAY TO MARS"; what idiot thought off that ludicrous banner?

[@MrGeneralScar]

Elon said at least 2 years ago, Boca was for development and test launches. Cape will be for payload/commercial launches. I think he said it in Everday Astronauts last base tour. More recently he said it in multiple interviews or presentations that I can remember. Will SpaceX slow down at Boca... No they will keep accelerating until they hit their target and then hold steady with their development cadence. The Cape will most likely exceed Bocas cadence very quickly. They are not moving anything, they are building a commercial launch facility at the Cape, and continuing to flesh out and operate Boca as a test and rocket dev facility. Running multiple facilities dedicated to specific tasks is the only way you can achieve the cadence SpaceX wants to achieve.

[@markallisonmc]

Just a click bate . This is nothing new.. Elon always said R&D would be TX and the Cape would be the main launch and recovery

[@kevatut23]

This trend of playing music to the point of drowning out the narrative, sucks

[@orion_13]

I've only complained about this for 3 other episodes... it seems to not matter.

[@stephendunlap8833]

Ya I have too... gave up on this one 4min in. I wanted news... not guitar rifts crammed down my ears

[@NorthernChev]

Well, your assumption that SpaceX is "giving up" on Starbase as its primary center for Starship test launches won't be the first time you've been wrong...

[@davidstevenson9517]

Well, Angry points out that Boca Chica has "always" been the primary center for Starship test launches. Rather, the FAA public report reveals that, with a limit of 5 "test" launches per year, Boca Chica couldn't possibly be a transport hub for Starship . Yet, SpaceX has publicly touted Boca Chica as, among other things, "GATEWAY TO MARS". Now, for the sake of modesty, might be time for a name change: Boca Chica Starship Research & Development Centre "GATEWAY TO THE CAPE"

[@NorthernChev]

@@davidstevenson9517 Angry is wrong in the sense that SpaceX is "phasing out test launches at Boca". SpaceX have said for years that they're moving launches to the Cape. So, this is nothing new. But every NEW iteration of Starship will CONTINUE to be FRIST launched and tested at Boca for decades to come. Hence the continuation of "Five per year". I just take issue with his blanket comments that they're phasing out testing at Boca. They're not.

[@zmblion]

Spacex has already said boca is only for R&D after that they fully intend to move to Florida launchs and offshore. Your a hater for whatever reason.

[@waynespringer3320]

I am still of the opinion that Starliner needs to be scrapped. Regardless of what NASA or Tory Bruno says.

[@dclpgh]

I expect there will more than 5 launches form Texas. They are presently clearing land for a 2nd tower at Boca.

[@MichaelWinter-ss6lx]

Oh, thats already done! Now comes infrastructure for OLM2.

[@tmuny1380]

Starbase 1 is going to make an amazing amusement and water park ! The mega flume ride, The giga roller coaster and the chopsticks restaurant !

[@RowanMangion1976]

SpaceX was applying for more launcher at Boca then 5 a year and will get it The people complaining about SpaceX will not Win and you know it The cape was going to get starship eventually as it was already planned Having multiple launch platforms was always the play for Starship

[@venturefanatic9262]

Now NASA can clamp down on SpaceX ensuring the Old Boys can hamper them.

[@brianmurphy8811]

Perhaps, but I think at this point NASA might have the US Military tapping it on the shoulder if they hamper too much.

[@unklraynutter8928]

Thanks for your insights!

[@gregsteele806]

This isn't news. Musk said last month that Boca would ultimately be for construction and R&D. While most commercial flights would launch from the Cape.

[@Spherical_Cow]

6:15 uh... Yes? Duh? This is exactly what SpaceX claimed right from the get-go: Boca Chica is for infrequent R&D launches; the Cape will be for frequent production launches. I suppose you could've paid attention all along - but at least now you've caught up, so no harm done. 🤷‍♂️ Though I should note SpaceX is currently working with FAA to update the Boca Chica aurhorization for up to 10 launches per year, increasing from the current limit of 5.

[@lemont64]

With one tower at cape Canaveral....that's not happening...starship needs multiple launch towers to operate smoothly

[@tyvernoverlord5363]

Exactly, they need multiple sites around the nation. Heck, put some in Alaska and Hawaii; just to scare both Putlr and Poo Bear!(And also help with capability and launch tempo)

[@shaung949]

currently they have four towers planned, two at starbase and 2 at the cape.

[@johnhanson6039]

They did nothing new here. This is the plan for Starship for the last two years, and just implements that set of operations. Research at Boca Chica, operations from the Cape. Nothing at all has changed, just moving towards the implementation. They have also always planned minimum of 3 launch pads at Cape Canerval

[@cravarc]

Well done. Thanks for setting things straight.

[@adak2050]

Boca now has 2 mega bays, star factory, headquarters building, Massey's test range, and soon 2 towers. No way it will be just five, I would say closer to 20 per year eventually. 39A at Cape also launches Crew Dragon to ISS/NASA did not want to risk. Pad 40 now capable of launching crew dragon so 39A is available. Have tower & Star factory at Cape, still need launch pad, tank farm & 2 Mega Bays. I would say Cape + Boca will be launching about 50/year eventually with plan to build 3rd launch site somewhere

[@monkeyboy4746]

I use headphones, the music sounds great, no problems.

[@mbj__]

Again. Pls skip the background music while you speak

[@Time2gojoe]

I just hope they get landings down pat so they can have the best possible understanding of what to do to build starship barges

[@jamesp5301]

39A is perfect! The pad and infrastructure there will really benefit starship

[@MichaelWinter-ss6lx]

They must build everything. The bit of infrastructure thats there must get substancial upgrades. This will take two years, before the first Starship can launch in Florida. They're aiming at 200 Starship launches per year. The Cape can't handle that. Maybe with 4 launch towers.

[@jamesp5301]

@@MichaelWinter-ss6lx yeah after watching the video yes but the infrastructure from the deluge system can be enhanced and shared. It’s a much clearer path to the necessary cadence then could have been achieved in Texas

[@-MeatsOfEvil-]

​@@jamesp5301 Exactly, Boca is a great place to test all these launch systems before they build them in Florida. A blueprint for future launch sites.

[@michaelreid2329]

Do you think SpaceX will hop the Starship and Booster to Cape Canaveral for final stacking and flights originating there.

[@richardzeitz54]

The background music is so irritating and unnecessary. Honestly, I take in fewer of your videos since you introduced it. If only there was a music free alternative I watch more.

[@spleefthedude7747]

Thx

[@greenstair]

Your channel is the most informative of the popular space race watcher channels. I really respect the quality of information and analysis. Fascinating stuff.

[@alanodonnell7234]

That’s why you are the best. Utterly unbiased analysis. Well done!

[@CrimsonTemplar2]

This is a very good move. The infrastructure & existing space operations there will shut down the environmental hassles SpaceX is facing.

[@k53847]

Hah!

[@investmentgammler4550]

Starship is the successor of Saturn V, so it absolutely should launch from LC 39 !

[@valkoharja]

I'll believe this when I see it.

[@matphilips3288]

40 Starship launches a year? Isn't that a environmental big issue? 😮

[@davidstevenson9517]

It is. Moreover, 40 launches per year for what? Starlink, yes but 40 launches of 100 tonnes of other payloads annually? Has SpaceX got contracts to launch 4,000 tones per year into LEO? I think not!

[@jesselomas8626]

Starliner crisis? No. The last issue is down to ULA and the manufacturer of that O2 relief valve. As Bruno admitted in the confrence because it was a crewed flight it was aborted. If it had been a satellite AC would have probably flown as it had happened before. As for Boeing/AR and the original designer of the manouevering pod valves that's a different issue. Boeing knows FULL WELL that's if something bad happened there then both AR and then are in some serious crap.. That's on Boeing..

[@TheGhungFu]

Pretty sure this was always the plan. Build in Boca, flight test them and land at the Cape for flight/payload preps.

[@davidstevenson9517]

Agree, TheGhungFu; NASA couldn't let them near the Cape until proven they wouldn't explode on the pad. That has been proven; now they explode above an ocean or skirting the edge of space.

[@keithparker6520]

It was always more sensible to launch from the Cape.

[@davidstevenson9517]

Those little Falcons certainly enjoy benefits of LC39A: the huge flame-trench built for the gigantic Saturn 5 stops them from burning their tail-feathers.

[@normski4ash]

20 plus hours from A to B via road ! Maybe buy ULA, use their ship to get to the Cape.

[@johnruckman2320]

So the valve manufacturer was deliberately making defective valves? If that's the case, shouldn't there be repercussions?

[@bertus76q]

Bait video!

[@brianmurphy8811]

Yeah the first sign of them moving operations to KSC was when they transported parts of a second tower from Florida to Brownsville. Pay no attention to the notice from the Brownsville judge that indicated they'd start moving the pieces to Boca in the coming days.

[@-MeatsOfEvil-]

Great reporting, could we have 11.74% more anger? Thank you!

[@MissingTools]

Boeing not totally off the hook here, as they are half owner of ULA, which builds the Atlas and Centaur launch vehicle.

[@jasoncummings4994]

I believe u are correct in ur coverage of ULA and Starliner, but do u really think they would tell u of any internal issue at this moment? Love ya and keep up the great work.

[@stevecastellanos]

I thought Elon wanted 1000 ships so he's going to use all 3 launch towers.

[@PaulBCAB]

Like other commentators, I suspect that SpaceX will be launching Starship from a number of locations, including more from Boca. Since you have contacts at the FAA, I'm wondering about the plan for SLC 37 at the Cape. The Wikipedia entry for SLC 37 states " In 2024, after the retirement of the Delta IV Heavy, the FAA initiated an Environmental Impact Statement for potential Starship launch activity from the complex. The draft is set to be released by December 2024.[9]" SLC 37 has a lot of available area between SLC 37 and SLC 40. There could be a large number of launch/catch towers along that area. Then there is SLC 6 at Vandenberg, which SpaceX has apparently leased. What's happening with that? Forty-four launches is a drop in the bucket compared to what Musk wants to do.

[@davidstevenson9517]

Paul, you are SO gullible...

[@hervigdewilde3599]

@ 10:45, when everything disconnects, there's a big pipe that stays attached a it launches - is it meant to do that or is a "feature"...?!? 🙄

[@TheCNYMike]

Last I knew, they were replacing the valve in the Centaur upper stage and another launch attempt was scheduled for May 17. If that hasn't changed, no crisis.

[@cynvision]

What is going to be done about the launch noise? Cities are too close in Florida.

[@Brian67588]

I'd see it as an end to the prototyping phase before 2025.

[@echomande4395]

As originally envisioned, LC39 was meant to have three pads with optionally two more. Starship makes you wish that NASA would finally carry that plan out and construct the other up to now unbuilt pads.

[@antonnym214]

Good reporting on all of this. Your video is so energy-dense I had to play it twice to get everything, and that's a good thing. Wild about the ire being directed at Boeing when the problem isn't even a Boeing part! SpaceX is doing the right thing, moving the bulk of launches to Canaveral. At least now they won't have as many problems meeting environmental requirements.

[@Ittiz]

Elon already said what they're going to do. Develop starship in Boca for now, by fly in production at the cape. They aren't "moving" their operation. They just think things will just go faster and easier at the cape. I think they'll worry Boca after the cape has been approved. To get the cadence they want they will have to ramp up not just at the cape, but will have to ramp up at Boca and get Vandenberg set up and ramped up as well.

[@davidstevenson9517]

Once again a SpaceX Cultist has "moved the goal posts" when unpalatable facts present themselves. What about your beloved "GATEWAY TO MARS"?

[@jackdbur]

With both Starship & Booster both fully reusable SpaceX could "hop" them to The Cape having constructed them at Boca! = a launch that is not a launch! 😅

[@TimothyLipinski]

Great Video and info ! With the SpaceX Starship starting to launch from the KSC area the one payload that should launch from the drone ship or an ocean platform is the SpaceX Tanker Starship ! For the ULA Atlas 5 Centaur rocket the Centaur upper stage is also designed to be fitted and launched on the ULA Vulcan Centaur ! Having two launch providers to LEO will help keep cost in check (USD/U$D) and add to Crew SAFETY for NASA ! ! ! The Tech developed to return to the moon to stay, can tale US and the world to Mars and beyond ! tjl

[@logicalfundy]

Looks like an expansion in support of regular operations. Boca Chica has always been R&D and manufacturing anyways, and with all of the new infrastructure in progress - there's certainly no plans for winding down operations. They even have a second launch pad under construction there.

[@Crusader1984]

F**** Boeing

[@stratolestele7611]

I disagree on this. Yes, I'm a Texan who wants to see SpaceX be a major presence here, but I also feel that a launch site at the Cape has always been part of the plan. It's not difficult to transport the spaceships from one location to the other via the gulf/ocean. Boca Chica/Starbase is, IMO, *also* going to be a major launch site, as well as the Cape, as well as other locations. They *have* to have multiple launch facilities in order to meet the cadence of launches they need to get mass to orbit. SpaceX will overcome the hurdles they're going through at Starbase. In spite of the huge amount of development already established there, everything there is still in its nascent stages of development. The infrastructure is far too advanced for it not to be a major launch facility. They will get there. Our governor here in Texas, also very much wants SpaceX to succeed here and is helping in every way possible. Opposition? The vast majority of local residents and local government want SpaceX in their city (Brownsville and surrounding areas) in a big way. It represents a huge lift for a depressed area who could really use the growth. Bars, restaurants, shopping centers, housing developments, and more. Besides, *IF* Starbase is only going to be primarily a 'test facility', why would they disassemble the launch tower in FL, and move it here to create a second launch tower? Two towers for testing? Doesn't make any sense. We'll know a lot more before too long.

[@michaelsalcau6010]

It earned its stripes !

[@johnhanson6039]

There is simply no change at Boca Chica they have always said Boca Chica is for development

[@davidstevenson9517]

Ahem! What about "GATEWAY TO MARS"? SpaceX Cultists were short-stroking over that one! Dont move goal-posts, John.

[@Spherical_Cow]

​@@davidstevenson9517 What about it? Were you under some mistaken impression that Mars colonization was to be run from Starbase (or any time soon, for that matter)? That was literally _never_ the intent, even if you somehow imagined otherwise. The "gateway", if that really needs to be explained to you, is metaphorical rather than literal. It means, "this is where we plant the seed".

[@MichaelWinter-ss6lx]

Move to Florida? There is momentarily nothing, and BC gets a 2nd tower now. How can the Cape handle 200 Starship launches a year? And that is only the beginning! 🚀🏴‍☠️🎸

[@RichardSmallwood-du9qb]

Hey Angry! You're sounding more and more like a Dalek! Ex- termin- ate Ex-termin-ate (usw) ~ R

[@smedspets695]

Well the valve part aged like milk

[@monkeyboy4746]

Yes, this is best, reel it in and wind it down.

[@k53847]

You realize it can take years to get an EIS approved, which is just the first step?

[@WoodHughes]

We seem to be forgetting the eventual off shore launch facilities. Sure, SpaceX has scrapped their first plan of converting oil platforms to launch facilities, but they can still use the experience of Boca to better design future versions.

[@davidstevenson9517]

Good point. NASA probably expect proof of the launch Tower "catching mechanism" feasibility before allowing landings at the Cape. If so, an off-shore landing facility would be a must.

[@robreid6195]

I'd suggest, to save time, not reading FAA (etc) reports/statements verbatim. Paraphrase to the main take home with a screen dump of the relevant text, and let us hunt it out if we need all the details. Speaking for myself, I like quick updates so I can move on.

[@NicholasNerios]

Sweet deal

[@jackf.7415]

Even for R&D, why would SpaceX develop the Boca Chica launch complex until full approval was given by the Federal Government, EPA, FAA, Boca Chia and the State of Texas, etc, etc?

[@Easy-Eight]

Great news, it's always smart to put one of the most important launch centers in the world in hurricane alley.

[@RockinRobbins13]

What do you call Boca Chica then? There have been many more hurricanes that hit Brownsville than have hit Cape Canaveral. And hurricanes come from thousands of miles away with weeks of warning before they hit. Plenty of time for remedial action. Let's contrast that with the far more dangerous earthquakes, tornadoes and ice storms of other areas of the country. We know how to deal with hurricanes. We're actually good at it. There is no way to deal with earthquakes, tornadoes or ice storms. They hit without warning. However I'm perfectly happy with the rest of the country being terrified of hurricanes. Florida is far too populated already.

[@Easy-Eight]

@@RockinRobbins13 *Florida is far too populated already.* Beyond me why people tolerate it. I have in-laws in Florida and the drive to their house takes longer than the flight. Conversely, this coming fall I'm going to far northern Canada. There are almost no people. It's wonderful. Florida has Disney and you can keep it.

[@RockinRobbins13]

@@Easy-Eight I'm not so happy about Disney either. I can overnight it to you if you'd like. Banff would be a great place for it!

[@cobbyclan3466]

Starship progress is glacial. Fine for lobbing cargo into LEO, but complex refuelling will turn out to be a showstopper.

[@shaung949]

glacial compared to which other rocket development? SLS is still waiting for it's second launch after 13 years

[@Jogeta5]

Compared to what, the For All Mankind timeline? That was a farcical claim to make.

[@Maddmargarita]

Boeing is going to get those astronauts killed.

[@bobthebomb1596]

The issue was not connected to Boeing, the valve was on the Centaur upper stage, a ULA product. It's like blaming Ford for an issue with Goodyear tyres.

[@NAKEDGARDENER]

@@bobthebomb1596, Yes the fault was with the Centaur, however who actually owns ULA? Boeing and Lockheed Martin.

[@NAKEDGARDENER]

FYI Ford actually did once own their own rubber plant to make their own tires. Went bankrupt.

[@magnitudematrix2653]

If its a Boeing I ain't going...

[@dks13827]

No.

[@garyseven777]

Why are they building a second launch tower if they are leaving? I think this is just logical expansion.

[@pricelessppp]

Catch tower?

[@GH-jb6bq]

Sorry, the notion that Boca Chica infrastructure was all for naught is ridiculous

[@BrianKelsay]

I'm not sure that I believe that they're going to up and move all their operations right away. They did just build the whole star factory to mass produce the rockets in Boca Chica.

[@Hoss4Blues]

Old news and completely obvious decision. Still interesting and informative however for those that didn’t know this.

[@thexfile.]

Boeing 787 Starliner.

[@markloosen3430]

Would be nice to see super heavy and starship take off at boca and land at the cape. Manufacturing only happening in boca and then off to the cape 🤔 for new ships. Obviously only after all the take off and catching has been fully tested in boca.

[@davidstevenson9517]

But can the HLS/Artemis 3 schedule accommodate the chopstick testing timeline? Maybe, but what of test mishaps which delay and/or damage launch towers, OLMs and infrastructure? Looming over the NASA/Artemis schedule is the China crewed lunar landing in 2029; for NASA and US Congress, THAT is the bottom line.

[@nickfutter6544]

Don’t think they will wind down Boca, just ramping up in FL gives them more options. And won’t be blackmailed by the environmental crowd

[@rgloria40]

SpaceX should ramp up security especially when Artermis is launching soon. Capacity and economic will beat the NASA culture of spend on old technology...and causing suffering among....

[@shelob12347]

No

[@RogerWilco1]

You're completely off base here. SpaceX will launch NASA and Commercial flights from Florida, but it will laucnh starlink and their own flights from Boca Chica. Boca Chica is still the center.

[@sethchyna]

just wanna say 2 dead whistle blowers within a month is a lil odd

[@rocroc]

This additional capacity in Florida is only a drop in the bucket. They will need far more capability to launch rockets than is available in Florida right now. I understand they have proposed two military sites in California and one military site in Florida. Others are planned. When this rocket becomes reliable, I presume it will also launch from inland location like New Mexico and Arizona, and Nevada, etc. Musk wants it all and this is just the beginning.

[@user-vo8zx2uj1p]

Will the fuel tanks be enough to reach orbit from the new location? Cause the main point of Boca Chica was to use the earth rotation to achieve the orbital speed with enough fuel in the tanks, so some calculations have to be made again. For real it was way easier with the shuttle.

[@Spherical_Cow]

Boca Chica is at approximately the same latitude as Cape Canaveral - there's no appreciable difference in that regard.

[@user-vo8zx2uj1p]

@@Spherical_Cow ok then, i'm not a rocket scientist but i assumed even marginal latitude difference could be a big deal on such a heavy thing.

[@Spherical_Cow]

@@user-vo8zx2uj1p the Earth surface rotation speed at Boca Chica is 932 mph, while at KSC it is 910 mph. The 22 mph difference is inconsequential, considering that the total delta-V (including compensation for atmospheric and gravity drag during ascent) to reach low Earth orbit is around 10 km/sec or 22370 mph.

[@LV-426...]

Texas can have its turtles.

[@davidstevenson9517]

Those turtles that have survived at Ground Zero on April 20, 2023.🐢🐦🚀💥

[@punkypinko2965]

Good. Billionaires don't always get their way. I like it.

[@user-pp7gv5tj9j]

So what percentage of the Boca Chica personnel will be moving to Cape Canaveral?

[@davidstevenson9517]

To where? At the Cape Starship Factory, all the Mega Bay construction materials have disappeared; the area surrounding the Factory is unpaved and almost deserted. SpaceX Starship program is in turmoil; too many failures, too slow to meet the Artemis schedule, shuffling back and forth between Boca Chica and the Cape. NASA are tearing their hair out in frustration.

[@Spherical_Cow]

​@@davidstevenson9517 The Cape build out was premature: the system hadn't been tested yet. Now the approach is more rational: iterate and work out the kinks at Boca Chica first, then build out the Cape infrastructure based on lessons learned. Regarding "too many failures" - you're aware that it's only been 1 year since the first full stack launch, right? All those "failures" occurred within the span of a single year. And within the span of that 1 year, the Starship launch capability advanced from the "rock tornado" and cartwheels in the stratosphere, to a point where they now have flawless liftoff, ascent, stage separation, and second stage burn - with Booster reentry nailed and landing/recovery process the next focus, as well as Ship attitude control in orbit and reentry firmly on the agenda for the upcoming fourth launch.

[@contestvoter]

The inertia of an EIS necessitates leadtime to beat China. Predicting no impact on Boca Chica depot and HLS developments.

[@paulkaiser8834]

Background music is annoying - it doesn’t elevate the video at all. Makes it difficult to hear what you’re saying

[@RockinRobbins13]

Great video! Unlike many of the space channels, you don't just parrot the easy pickers of low hanging fruit. You've gone the extra mile to get the significant news we don't already know.

[@joeont]

starship will be ramping up significantly at boca chica for the foreseeable future. The cape is far away and will be the production launch site. They are not close to production launches.

[@davidstevenson9517]

Hey Joe! Didn't you hear the report? "Ramping up"? From 3 launches in 12 months to a max. of 5 per 12 months is "lurching" not "ramping".

[@Spherical_Cow]

​@@davidstevenson9517the current approved max for Boca Chica is 5; SpaceX applied several months ago to extend it to 10 (and the FAA has been processing that application). That said, SpaceX (including both Musk and Shotwell) publicly stated numerous times over the recent _years_ that Boca Chica was intended as a manufacturing and R&D facility, not a high-cadence operational launch complex: that was always going to be the Cape. I expect Boca Chica to be limited to 2 launch towers, and at most a dozen or two launches per year. The majority of its manufacturing output will be shipped to Florida for operational deployment.

[@davidstevenson9517]

@@Spherical_Cow With the Cape Second Launch Tower now becoming the Boca Chica Second Tower, an off-shore landing platform at the Cape seems more likely. NASA now knows Starship probably won't explode on launch (but over an ocean or in the upper atmosphere), but landings via tower "catcher arms" have yet to be tested. NASA MUST get Artemis 3 and 4 moving; the demo lunar landing by a "skeleton" Starship is a non-return mission so catcher arms aren't required. But can NASA afford to wait for Boca Chica R&D to conduct a test "Starship Tower-catch" before launching Artemis 3 in 2026? Probably not; hence an off-shore landing platform, at the Cape or Boca Chica. But how long would that take to construct?

[@Spherical_Cow]

@@davidstevenson9517 the challenges with creating an offshore landing platform for Boosters are immense. Imagine a barge carrying the equivalent of a Starship launch tower (100 m tall) while remaining stable at sea... Not gonna happen any time soon: Boosters will return to the launch site for catch-landings. Ships might at least theoretically support barge landings, if outfitted with landing legs: but there are currently no published plans for such a thing. As of today, the plan is for Ships to land on the launch tower's "chopstick" arms, same as Boosters. For Artemis 3, I expect SpaceX will simply expend the Tanker Ships (yes, all of the approximately 10 to 15 of them), while catching and reusing the Boosters. Each Tanker might cost SpaceX about $30-40 million (based on recent Payload analysis that pegged the current cost of a full stack at $90 million, with most of that assigned to the 39 Raptor engines, and labor.). So, throwing away even 15 Tankers would only cost around $600 million extra, at worst. Considering each SLS launch costs $4.2 Billion, that's not such a huge price bump for an expedited mission. Past Artemis 3, Ship landing and reuse should already be a thing. Oh, and I wouldn't seriously expect Artemis 3 to happen before 2027, at the earliest, regardless - and that's not just because of Starship delays.

[@davidstevenson9517]

@@Spherical_Cow Good points, SC. I know an off-shore platform is a huge, time consuming expense for such a large vehicle; converted oil rigs being the obvious candidates in future. Expendable tankers and boosters only return and catch would simplify Artemis 3 and lessen the clutter in the NASA/HLS schedule (I'm not sanguine about late 2026 for Artemis 3, either). But HLS both launching AND returning to the Cape... perhaps NASA would approve a Cape LC39A chopstick catch if SpaceX tests the system at Boca Chica, using the tanker boosters catches as examples. Does Artemis 3/HLS have to return to the Cape anyway? Hello from New Zealand. 🇳🇿🚀🌚

[@dewdropin2010]

2002 building a rocket company from scratch impossible 2024 Elon talk about thousands of ships heading to Mars impossible especially from just Florida so multiple launch sites including Boca Chica will be launching starships

[@unclerichard6729]

There's no way launches from Boca are going to do anything but increase. Considering the number of ship Elon expects to launch, both bases are going to be launching as much as possible and more launch sites will likely be added. I think SpaceX needs to rethink launching from platforms at sea. Move out to international waters and screw the FAA.

[@billsimpson604]

Operating at sea is very expensive. Salt water corrodes everything. Getting to & from a platform is difficult due to rough seas. One explosion would take out everything and everyone. I doubt it will ever happen. I'm pretty sure no company or US citizen can launch anything into space without prior US government approval. Try that, and you would get a visit from the Coast Guard.

[@brianw612]

Space X is an American company run by US Citizens. They can't screw the FAA. An FAA license is REQUIRED for any space launch or re entry conducted by US Citizens ANYWHERE IN THE WORLD! It's clearly stated on FAA.gov and it's US federal law! That's why the FAA investigated a launch mishap by Rocket Lab in NZ. Rocket Lab is headquartered in the US. Citizens of the US are subject to US federal law where ever they are, land, sea or air. Geographic location is no escape.

[@kastenolsen9577]

F boing. A profit gobbler!!!

[@travisplatt6805]

Click bait title. Ugh.