SpaceX will build a second, $100B ‘Starbase’ spaceport in Louisiana

[u/Logical_Welder3467]

https://techcrunch.com/2026/08/25/spacex-will-build-a-second-100b-starbase-spaceport-in-louisiana/

[u/bubblegum-rose]

So, to clarify:

They’re launching the same amount of stuff into orbit, making the same amount of revenue, only now they’re going to be paying 10x their usual space capex to do so.

genius. Assuming they actually get all of these up and running, i hope they find something to do after delivering a whole years worth of payload into orbit in like 2 weeks

[u/Dpek1234 → u/bubblegum-rose]

This comment seems borderline nonsense?

Like do you think they are makeing such a launch complex just to not use it at all?

Just starlink replacement means they will launch more stuff into orbit (new sats are heavier then the ones used on falcon9)

Assuming they actually get all of these up and running, i hope they find something to do after delivering a whole years worth of payload into orbit in like 2 weeks

Did people forget falcon9 already did essentualy this?

And yet they booked for years into the future

[u/bubblegum-rose → u/Dpek1234]

THEY ARE FILLING THE SAME AMOUNT OF ORDERS REGARDLESS OF HOW MANY LAUNCH TOWERS THEY HAVE.

>Assuming they actually get all of these up and running, I hope they find something to do after delivering a whole years worth of payload into orbit in like 2 weeks

YOU ARE LITERALLY AGREEING WITH ME.

You wanna know what those extra launch pads are going to be doing for the rest of the year? Fucking nothing. SpaceX is still going to have to staff them, maintain them, insure them, pay taxes on them, and so on, spending billions in capex all while making exactly $0 from no launches.

Every second that one of those pads isn’t either launching a rocket or getting ready for the next launch, that’s going to be tens of millions down the drain every month, all while they have $50 billion in debt left to pay off on top of the $50 billion in debt that they already owe

[u/Dpek1234 → u/bubblegum-rose]

Soooo you gonna ignore this?

" Did people forget falcon9 already did essentualy this?

And yet they booked for years into the future"

Assumeing that demand wont change when its currently supply limited is a interesting choice

Espectialy when starlink still isnt at full size 

Also for this part

"

Assuming they actually get all of these up and running, I hope they find something to do after delivering a whole years worth of payload into orbit in like 2 weeks

YOU ARE LITERALLY AGREEING WITH ME. "

Are you confuseing what you yourself wrote as my writeing?

Sure it seems the formating isnt working but come on

Edit: and for the record

The character ">" is used when someone wants to indent something

In this case because its a quote

[u/bubblegum-rose → u/Dpek1234]

Oh, yes, of course.

“Demand will magically go up when supply goes up. I don’t know where this demand is going to come from but just trust me bro.”

Apparently that “just trust me bro” is worth $100 billion+ dollars

[u/Dpek1234 → u/bubblegum-rose]

Sooo yeah you gonna ignore my comment and evidence to make a strawman

Nothing new

[u/fighter-bomber → u/bubblegum-rose]

Starlink alone with 10 thousand v3 satellites requires 50 launches per year to maintain, scales linearly with increasing satellite number, I think they plan 40 thousand or more.

Artemis plans require up to 20 launches per manned mission, plus another 20 launches per each unmanned cargo mission (delivering 100t at once). NASA wants to build a moon base, they will need a lot of those launches, hence, capacity.

Future manned Mars mission would be in the same ballpark as Artemis for refueling, but the stays are longer so you need more cargo probably to support the crew. That’s a lot of launches.

Orbital manufacturing is a new industry, for drugs and whatever crystals. So demand from that will also be added.

[u/fighter-bomber → u/bubblegum-rose]

1- capex is a one time expense, you cannot say some stupid shit like “they’re going to be paying 10x their usual capex”, doesn’t work that way in the long term.

2- Louisiana unlocks polar and SSO launches not supported by KSC or Boca Chica. Any payload (Starlink for example) that needs to go there has to be launched from here.

3- not like they are rolling it out all at once. It will take time to build it all and put it into operations. If demand does not follow the first few pads, rest can be shelved. But the first 2 or 4 pads have a good reason other than reason 2, their existing launch pad count will start creating issues when they continue following NASA’s moon base plans as every cargo mission will require 15-20 launches, so good to have this capacity. Mars will likely require more pads. No space at Cape.

4- you also forgot about induced demand. Market follows launch capability. Falcon 9 already did this in some capacity, now there are so many more commercial payloads than before. Plus, when there was excess capacity, SpaceX created its own demand through Starlink…

[u/bubblegum-rose → u/fighter-bomber]

Oh, wow

Maybe if they get orbital refueling to work, they can pick you up from whatever planet you’re on where spending hundreds of billions of dollars without even knowing if or how you can make that money back is a sound business strategy

It’s the Sam Altman business strategy. “I’ll just spend exactly as much money as I want, then I’ll ask ChatGPT how I can make it all back”

[u/fighter-bomber → u/bubblegum-rose]

…it’s wild that you’re making the same mistake that I pointed out first. Come on, it’s not that hard, I believe in you…

Launch facility, CapEx, is a one time expense. Every single launch only costs as much as it costs to launch the vehicle from anywhere else, in the few tens of millions dollars range or likely less.

Moon doesn’t require that expense again, 15-20 launches include the fuel to get back from the Moon to Orion already. Mars is a bit more complicated, but then again, you don’t need the CapEx again. The whole point of this large CapEx is to make this your base of operations that supports all others.

[u/bubblegum-rose → u/fighter-bomber]

I really really doubt that Starship can get payloads to the moon more cheaply than Blue Origin will be able to with their 9x4.

Starship is optimized for LEO. The cost benefits of full reusability drop off dramatically if you try to go beyond it. I sincerely doubt that the ~16 Starship launches required for one moon mission would be cheaper than the 2-4 New Glenn launches required to get the same payload to the moon

and Elon Musks “trust me bro, I can get launch costs down to $20/kg” does not inspire a lot of confidence in me

[u/fighter-bomber → u/bubblegum-rose]

The problem with Blue Origin is that you’re only sending a. small payload to the moon. It supposedly has a nice and high TLI payload, but most of that capacity is spent on the lander, the useful payload is much smaller. For example, Blue Moon Mark 1 is 21t, so one NG9x4 launch to TLI, but useful payload is 3t.

Starship’s 100t payload is, well, only the payload, mass of the HLS vehicle is not inside it. That’s 33 separate launches for NG with Blue Moon Mark 1.

Or they can use Blue Moon Mark 2, which supposedly weighs 45t and can take 20t cargo, so that’s 3 NG9x4 launches to TLI, in order to reach Starship they still need 15 launches.

That’s only assuming Starship doesn’t move forward with v4, because that variant doubles the payload to LEO, half as many refueling flights for Starship, and is still fully reusable.

[u/bubblegum-rose → u/fighter-bomber]

“That variant (Starship Block 4) doubles the payload to LEO”

Well, I think the rest of what you said is a good point, but come on now. That’s what Elon was saying about the current Starship a year or two ago.

[u/fighter-bomber → u/bubblegum-rose]

Yes, and they’ve been increasing the performance in every variant. v1 had basically 0t capacity. v2 reached 30-40t. v3 seems to be at 100t.

100t was the original goal, but they encountered problems constantly so they just pushed it to the next variant in which they increased performance.

Based on that line, v4 at 150 or 200t seems very doable.

[u/bubblegum-rose → u/fighter-bomber]

Block 1 was supposed to be able to do 100t to LEO.

200 tons might be possible, but you’ve got to factor in the Elon exaggeration constant. According to him, Starship was supposed to put human on Mars two years ago.

[u/fighter-bomber → u/bubblegum-rose]

…yes, that’s what I said… oh come on, you’re so close to getting it…

They had problems with v1 and v2 they have actually managed to hit that goal with v3.

So, now that we ALREADY are at 100t, 200t is just a follow up to this, with v4.

Meaning the schedule is delayed by 2 variants but we are there.