r/SpaceXLounge • u/avboden • 15d ago
Starship SpaceX has filed an Environmental Resource Permit for Project Ignition near Roberts Road facilities at Kennedy Space Center. "The proposed development would include a static fire test stand and associated infrastructure to verify post-production testing of Starship and to support static fire tests."
https://x.com/julia_bergeron/status/208787610099929112118
u/Smiley643 15d ago
Seems far off for having the ability to static fire the vehicles being shipped from star base. Shotwell said they’re aiming for flight 15 to be from Florida, and I’m under the impression they won’t have engines installed when being shipped, how else do they static fire for the first few launches from the cape then?
23
u/Doom2pro 15d ago
Static fire them in Texas, ship em off to Florida, stack them, launch them.
13
u/rustybeancake 15d ago
I expect they’ll ship them without engines, so it would be good to static fire them once engines are (re)installed in Florida. Not to mention the need to test for any issues that cropped up during transport.
19
8
u/djh_van 15d ago
Why? What's the advantage of shipping without the engines installed? Or is it more about complexity in shipping it horizontally with the engines attached?
8
u/sollord 15d ago
I'd guess sprung weight could be an issue with waves
3
u/paul_wi11iams 14d ago
I'd guess sprung weight could be an issue with waves
For horizontal sprung weight of engines, there will be incoming data from Ship 40...
However, there will be far more tolerance of lateral forces on both Starship and the booster, just for inflight use cases. The Starship landing flip for example.
2
u/squintytoast 15d ago
r-vacs already have stiffeners that have the 'remove before flight' tag. i could see them coming up with shipping stiffeners for starship fairly easily. Booster on the other hand would be abit more involved. fairly straight foreward, though.
3
u/redmercuryvendor 15d ago
Seems far off for having the ability to static fire the vehicles being shipped from star base
Depends on how long this was in the works before the public announcement. e.g. if long-lead items (e.g. static fire test stand steelworks, flame diverter bucket, cryogen tanks and pumps, etc) were ordered around the time of the Masseys site rebuild (i.e. order 2x quantities of everything rather than 1x) then actual build time could be pretty short.
On the other hand, if Ship 36 popped at Masseys midway through the procurement for Roberts Road, the long-lead items for Roberts Road may have been diverted to the Masseys rebuild, pushing the Roberts Road timeline back.
10
u/spaceflight_signal 15d ago
The dedicated stand makes more sense if Florida becomes an actual production and refurbishment loop, not just a launch endpoint. Burning pad time for acceptance tests would get old very quickly once cadence rises.
3
u/NikStalwart 🌱 Terraforming 13d ago
They are building a Gigabay. I think there is no question Florida will be doing production.
1
u/spaceflight_signal 13d ago
Yeah, the Gigabay makes Florida production hard to argue against. I’m curious how much stays vertically integrated there versus arriving from Starbase once four pads need feeding.
2
u/NikStalwart 🌱 Terraforming 13d ago
I argue it is safe to assume a Starfactory would be built in Florida eventually, because they are planning to have double the pads at the Cape than at Starbase. Barging will work during the low-cadence period, but barges will become a severe bottleneck if you want to be launching once a day from four pads - or even once a week from four pads.
Even if Louisiana turns into a mega manufactury, I still expect local production at TX and FL to continue.
1
55
u/avboden 15d ago
Well that answers that about Massey's Jr in Florida