Last I heard, SpaceX won't be using Boca Chica for Falcon 9/Heavy launches. So they do have their own launch facility, and they do have their own rockets, but they don't currently have any rockets that they can launch from their LF (which isn't ready yet)
Spacex lease LC39 and LC40 at Cape Canaveral. They are exclusively used for Spacex's launches. SpaceX need approval for launches obviously, but they have full control of the cadence and timetable. NASA and US Air Force are just customers (albeit with higher priority). They don't own the land like they do with Boca Chica, but from the operational perspective they are the same.
That's not quite how things are in practice. At the Cape and Vandenberg they need to submit a scheduling request to the range. In the past, the Air Force wouldn't allow launches within 72 hours of each other. This caused some conflicts as SpaceX (and to a lesser extent ULA and Orbital/Northrop) upped their launch cadence over the last year. In theory with the Falcon's automated FTS they can launch more frequently than that, but I don't think that has actually happened.
Leasing the pad also prevents SpaceX from making certain modifications and puts some infrastructure constraints on them
I am curious about this as well. Was the propulsion the problem? Did they just want a water landing? Did they specifically want an ocean landing to increase the acceptable margin for error in the splash down location? Is there some specific property to the salt water like buoyancy that is important? Would a landing in fresh water like the Great Lakes (or Lake Victoria if they need something more equatorial) meet NASA…
This is Space X.... let's go for a splash down in a water park in Wisconsin too!
Eventually, SpaceX will improve the accuracy so much that they will be able to get random celebrities to pay for having splashdowns in their private Beverly Hills swimming pools. :)
They are unlikely to do this at this point. The big problem is that while the capsule will be reusable, since NASA killed the propulsive landing for Dragon 2, it now needs to splash down in saltwater and therefore is not considered safe for humans after the first use. This makes Dragon 2:s too expensive for large-scale space tourism. Unless there is suddenly a huge market for this, I think SpaceX would prefer to sell…
Incidentally why does NASA prefer splashing down in the water, rather than a soft landing in dry land like the Russians do?
Boeing starliner will do a land based return.
Different capsule, different costs and development.
They are unlikely to do this at this point. The big problem is that while the capsule will be reusable, since NASA killed the propulsive landing for Dragon 2, it now needs to splash down in saltwater and therefore is not considered safe for humans after the first use. This makes Dragon 2:s too expensive for large-scale space tourism. Unless there is suddenly a huge market for this, I think SpaceX would prefer to sell…
> NASA killed the propulsive landing for Dragon 2 Are you sure NASA was to blame for it? I remember Elon saying they are not perusing propulsive landing anymore because of the amount of resources it would take to develop and validate the design. From what I gather, it was SpaceX's decision.
Falcon 9’s landing on land tech can’t be used in dragon?
Cannot it be reused because of the splash or because of the salt? What about splash landing in a natural/artificial lake?
or something non liquid - plastic balls, foam pit etc.
After flying on parachutes it's pretty hard to land on a pre-determined place, and the smaller the place the higher chance of missing it. Falcon-9 first stages have more control authority, and even they sometime miss the landing zone if the wind is particularly unfavorable; but they are unmanned and the stakes are lower, in worst case they just won't land softly. Can't have that with manned capsules, so has to have parachutes, so is subjected to winds...
> NASA killed the propulsive landing for Dragon 2 Are you sure NASA was to blame for it? I remember Elon saying they are not perusing propulsive landing anymore because of the amount of resources it would take to develop and validate the design. From what I gather, it was SpaceX's decision.
Falcon 9’s landing on land tech can’t be used in dragon?
This is related to rocket engines, not ballistic descent capsules.
Ballistic descent capsules such as the Dragon have rocket engines in them.
True. However some capsules have rather small engines, and small available delta-v, so the whole propulsion package can be made, say, replaceable. Soyuz, for example, lands using only about 30 kilograms of hydrogen peroxide to help with control during reentry. Maybe Crew Dragon can evolve to have this subsystem serviceable.
Let's also not forget about the climate impact of turning rockets into business class travel. It's pretty ridiculous. If we want any change and chance for this planet we should squash initiatives like this in the butt.
Fuel them with Hydrogen/Oxygen produced from electrolysis with solar power.
Or with methane synthesized from CO2 taken from air. You're going to always have CO2 in air, plants need that, so a healthy loop of using it as an energy storage may eventually make sense, today's climate crisis notwithstanding.
So I'm a fan of spacex in the sense that they're taking an atraditional approach to space exploration and colonization. However, our current ride to space has been operating reliably since 1978, we've been building and sending large space stations up since the early 70s. Spacex only very recently got their closed cycle engine working, the pinnacle of rocket efficiency, catching up to, again, early 1970s Russian techn…
I like how you list all these things and entirely leave out the landing an orbital class rocket, which no private company nor governmental agency has ever done. They're also pretty much doing it all themselves for a fraction of the price due to vertical integration, which is also unique. Raptor is a full-flow staged combustion engine. Others have been made, yes, but none have flown. Right now Raptor is the only metha…
Agree. As it's usually the case, they achieve a lot by standing on the shoulders of giants, but they achieve nevertheless. Space Shuttle was splashing down solid boosters since early 80's - but SpaceX lands softly liquid first stages, which require much less pampering to prepare for the next flight. Capsules are built and flown since early 60's - but SpaceX first tests a capsule for more than 3 people. And reuses a cargo spacecraft after splashdowns. And has lots of launches per year of a rather heavy rocket (previously some years have seen similar activities with Soyuz rockets, but then a government was fully behind it). And all of that in commercial environment, not when a government first articulates the orders, even though SpaceX has to adapt to then a great deal.
SpaceX is an antidote to the idea that home food delivery is great innovation. It’s a beacon to nerds everywhere. You may not be able to build a space company, but spend at least some of your time and skills doing things that are truly new .
Well, just to play devil's advocate, if the world as a whole switches to home food delivery, I think this would have profound repercussions for the world's economics. I believe this could catalyse a series of second-order effects on the order of those from the introduction of the shipping container.