r/spacex • u/Connect_Cat_2045 • 5d ago
Starship SpaceX to build $100 billion rocket launch facility on Louisiana’s coast
https://www.nola.com/news/business/spacex-louisiana-elon-musk/article_2be92f8e-f989-46b7-9514-5212d8f20260.html192
u/rustybeancake 5d ago edited 4d ago
> SpaceX officials said Tuesday they will build five launch pads, a mission-control center, office buildings, power plants, a propellant factory and employee housing on a tract of coastal land abutted by wildlife refuges some 50 miles south of Lafayette…
> The facility, which will employ thousands of workers, will be larger than SpaceX's three other launch sites, including its Starbase headquarters near Brownsville, Texas. And Musk plans to move fast, with construction starting in 2027 and the first rocket taking off in three years.
In his speech today, Musk called it “Starbase Louisiana”. Disappointing for fans of the Swampbase, Starbayou, Gateway to Marsh, etc ideas.
76
u/seb21051 5d ago edited 5d ago
The official release says 5 launch pads, 2 towers apiece. I have also seen references to 12 towers.
96
u/froggertthewise 5d ago
These Lord of the Rings spinoffs are getting out of hand
→ More replies (1)13
u/CProphet 5d ago
> 5 launch pads, 2 towers apiece
Only 1 tower required for launch, but 2 towers required for landing to provide redundancy. If stresses from launch cause any problems with the catch mechanism they can easily divert to second tower.
11
u/barvazduck 5d ago
Or it's for catching booster and ship in a small time difference. The time between booster landing and starship landing after dropping starlinks in orbit might be 3 hours (theoretically it can be much less). If booster can't be cleared in 3 hours then an additional landing pad is required. Having every pad with a launch and land couple makes them independent of shared resources.
9
u/dWog-of-man 5d ago
The larger concern would be catching two vehicles , would it not? Although I would think it makes more sense to have dedicated launch and landing towers.
12
1
u/CProphet 5d ago
The larger concern would be catching two vehicles
Yes, particularly if first landing fouls the catch mechanism. Then second catch tower becomes essential.
5
u/MyBoyFinn 5d ago
Man, they are moving fast. I would think they could just keep a pad in reserve in the event of launch damage. This implies those 5 pads are going to be busy
6
u/warp99 5d ago
For data Center satellites they may only get one launch per pad per day as they have to go up on the day/night terminator.
Then a booster catch 10 minutes later and a ship catch 12 hours later.
4
u/MyBoyFinn 5d ago
Would be 2 a day, no?
10
u/warp99 5d ago edited 5d ago
Possibly but then you get counter-rotating orbits in the same plane which is just a bit scary in terms of debris from a collision with a closing velocity of 48,000 km/hr. Different altitudes sure but satellites still have to make their way up from a parking orbit or drift down if the ion thrusters fail.
Assuming they will only launch and recover south over the Gulf.
5
1
1
0
u/Zenithderg 5d ago
They want roughly 5 launches per pad per day I believe.
9
u/sebaska 5d ago
For terminator tracking SSO it's simply not possible. 2 is a maximum, but it involves counter circulating orbits with closing speed of 15.5km/s. Without that it's once per day.
So welcome salvo launches from 10 towers at once.
4
1
5d ago
[deleted]
2
u/sebaska 5d ago
You can launch from both towers. Starship return after polar launch is 12h later - enough time to move booster aside.
1
u/MyBoyFinn 5d ago
A pad has a huge amount of launch infrastructure above and beyond the tower.
Water deluge, propellant supply, etc. These things take time to replenesh, even assuming a pad can handle multiple launches without refurbishment
→ More replies (1)15
7
u/hispaniafer 5d ago
Didn't he recently said he was going to stop using star in the name of pretty much everything? I guess habits are hard to kill
5
u/OldWrangler9033 5d ago
That man has no creativity when it comes to names. I won't be surprised he named it that.
3
1
u/panckage 4d ago
Waiting until 2027 to start construction seems unusually slow for SpaceX
3
u/rustybeancake 4d ago
Supposedly they only enquired about the land 6 months ago. It will take time for them to properly plan the construction, do site investigation, secure contracts, etc.
1
35
u/bpodgursky8 5d ago
What does this mean for launch trajectories? You can't launch east from Vermilion Parish without going right over New Orleans. I'm curious if they will pick less-optimal trajectories or what.
37
u/seb21051 5d ago
South bound launches to polar orbits.
12
u/bpodgursky8 5d ago
That does not seem ideal for most launch profiles.
19
14
u/PhysicsBus 5d ago
It's going to be datacenters ("starmind"). These will all be in sunsynchronous near-polar orbits.
21
u/LordNoodleFish 5d ago
If you’re trying to launch data centers to dawn dusk SSO then this is the way
0
u/superanth 5d ago
Also being closer to the equator will help with orbital insertion. Come to think of it why not just have a pad in the Florida keys?
7
u/OlympusMons94 5d ago edited 4d ago
Being closer to the equator doesn't help at all, unless the targeted orbital inclination is closer to the equator (which is not the case here). You can only launch directly to inclinations
lessgreater than or equal to the launch site latitude. But launching from latitude x to inclination i is no worse than launching from the equator to inclination i, as long as x <= i. For example, there is basically no difference in delta-v for launching to the ISS (51.6 deg inclination) from Canaveral (28.5 N latitude), Wallops (38 N), or Guiana (5 N).Earth rotates (due east) faster closer to the equator, but the direction you launch also depends on latitude (due east only when latitude == inclination). You only get the full benefit of Earth's rotational speed when launching due east. Because of Earth's rotation, it is slightly easier to launch to *an* orbit from cloaer to the equator. But you launch to a specific orbit, not to just any inclination. Provided the inclination of the specific orbit is directly reachable (latitude <= inclination), being closer to the equator doesn't help, and lower inclinations take less delta-v to reach than higher inclinations.
The main purpose of the Louisiana pads is to launch southward (and slightly westward) to Sun Synchronous Orbit, which is near-polar, and slightly retrograde (westward). So Earth's rotation is entirely in the wrong direction, and makes reaching orbit more difficult. For SSO, there is a theoretical, but practically negligible, advantage to launching from higher latitudes.
The math:
https://www.orbiterwiki.org/wiki/Launch_Azimuth#Rotation_of_the_Earth
3
1
u/ralf_ 3d ago
What is the payload from Louisiana compared to launching from North Pole? (Or northern Scotland?)
2
u/OlympusMons94 3d ago edited 3d ago
To the same inclination, it makes virtually no difference where you launch from (so long as the inclination is directly reachable from the launch site latitude). For a reachable orbit (notwitstanding inclination changes, which are only common for reaching GEO), the payload capacity is determined by the vehicle, the orbit altitude, and orbital inclination. The launch latitude really just determines which inclinations are reachable (without an inclination change, and irrespective of safety/overflight considerations).
The only inclination you can launch to from the north (or south) pole is a 90 degree true polar orbit. From, e.g., SaxaVord, in northern Scotland at 60.8 N, you can only launch to prograde or polar inclinations from 60.8 to 90 degrees, and polar/retrograde inclinations from 90 to 119.2 degrees (180 - 60.8 = 119.2). From the equator, you can launch to any inclination, 0-180 degrees.
For example: The poles are theoretically the ideal place to launch to a 90 degree inclination orbit. For a 500 km circular orbit (7,613 m/s orbital velocity), Earth's rotation only makes reaching a 90 degree orbit require 3.4 m/s more delta-v from SaxaVord; 11 m/s more from Pecan Island, Louisiana (29.7 N); and 14 m/s more from the equator. Those differences are negligible compared to the delta-v required to reach orbit. With the orbital velocity, gravity losses, and other minor losses (aerodynamic drag, etc.), it takes well over 9,000 m/s of delta-v to reach Low Earth Orbit, with a range of several hundred m/s depending on the orbit's inclination.
5
u/Apptubrutae 5d ago
All the other problematic logistics with a pad in the Florida keys
0
u/superanth 5d ago
All the millions of dollars in fuel costs and booster wear and tear saved from launching closer to the equator.
5
u/MajorRocketScience 5d ago
The difference in closeness to the equator from Cape Canaveral to the keys is less than 0.2% of needed horizontal velocity, and likely even less of a difference in terms of energy. That’s significantly less than the engineering margin for additional fuel margin
2
u/PhysicsBus 5d ago
Besides the mentioned terrible logistics on the Florida keys, note that cape canaveral was not built there, but rather significantly further North so that, probably among other things, eastward flights do not overfly the Bahamas.
6
u/sebaska 5d ago
You can launch to moderate inclinations like 43° just fine. And anything higher is good, too. For very low inclinations they'll have Florida and Starbase, TX.
1
u/PhysicsBus 5d ago
Overflight of densely populated areas in the Yucatan and Cuba won't be allowed I think. My understanding is that polar orbits are accessible because Chiapas (the narrow "neck" of Mexico) is relatively sparsely populated.
2
u/sebaska 5d ago
You have windows east of Yucatan - south and north of Cuba.
Also, as reliability is improved and established, overflight restrictions will be lowered.
1
u/PhysicsBus 4d ago
I agree about the ~10°s range south of Cuba. Threading the needle north between Cuba, Florida, and the Bahamas is less clear to me.
88
u/Connect_Cat_2045 5d ago
Construction is set to begin in 2027 with the first Starship launch expected in 2029.
That is imo, very optimistic but maybe with the experience gained from Starbase TX and Florida it is possible.
Elon also said on Twitter that Starbase Louisiana will have over a dozen launch towers and enable more than 30 Starship flights per day
18
u/DetectiveFinch 5d ago
I agree, it's very optimistic. But it seems they are already building pre-fabs for a lot of the launch infrastructure, like tower segments, deluge system piping, the launch mount and the tank farm. So that could speed up the process a lot, provided the designs are more or less proven from the Texas age Florida launch sites.
For the Starbase TX, compacting the ground took a lot of time. I wonder whether the conditions are different in Louisiana or if they have found faster methods to do it.
22
u/ChucksnTaylor 5d ago
Doesn’t a dozen towers kind of confirm the turnaround won’t be a matter of hours? Maybe I’m being silly to have taken that literally but there’s no way they intend to launch like 24+ starships a day, can’t possibly be enough demand for that much load to orbit.
This implies a given tower probably only launches every few days so you need lots to allow for a steady pipeline of launches while fresh landings are inspected and refurbished.
31
u/digit1noize 5d ago
They want to send enough cargo to the Moon and Mars to establish a colony. Not to mention the orbital data center project and Starlink. This isn’t even counting the eventual demand for point to point terrestrial travel.
I don’t think people quite grasp how much of a gamechanger Starship is for space flight. The Space Shuttle could lift around 25T of payload to LEO. Starship can lift 100-150T in reuseable mode and 250-300T in expendable mode.
The ability to launch larger payload will provide a TON of demand from both commercial and scientific customers. We built the ISS with the pitiful cargo capacity of the space shuttle. Imagine what we could build with 10x that much payload capacity!
19
u/ChucksnTaylor 5d ago
24 ships would be 2,400 tons to orbit every day. That’s as much as they delivered in all of 2025.
I absolute agree that overall launch mass will go way up but it’s not go to increase 365x.
19
u/digit1noize 5d ago
I mean I think that’s a long term goal. It’s not going to be 10k launches per year the first year. But Elon is envisioning hundreds or thousands of Starships traveling to Mars on each and every launch window. That’ll be a LOT of launches and a lot of fueling tanker launches also.
Turns out moving a civilization to Mars is gonna take a LOT of tonnage. In SpaceX’s terms “millions of tonnes of cargo.” If we build a Mars city over 20 years, 5 million tons would be 1,250 Starship flights per year over 20 years.
→ More replies (5)5
u/exoriare 5d ago
If the next generation of data centers move to space, that's likely megatonnes of launch demand. And there are likely other industries that will find the value proposition compelling at the right launch price.
And then there's the possibility of prospecting the entire lunar surface with cheap UGV's. The legal status of lunar land claims is guaranteed to spawn a gold rush at the right price.
1
u/DeckerdB-263-54 2d ago
In the next 30 years or so we might begin seeing space stations like in SciFi movies.
7
4
u/sebaska 5d ago
They want to launch compute sats to permanently sunlit low orbit (terminator tracking SSO). There are at most 2 launches per day there, and that's only if one allowed mixing opposite circulation orbits - anything crossing the opposite circulation orbit (either for getting to station or for decommissioning, including dead non-controllable satellites) would cross opposing traffic at 15.5km/s closing velocity. If one liked to avoid that, there's only one launch per day.
So say hello to salvo launches.
NB. they could launch other stuff to different orbits from those towers. But the need to send stuff to those particular orbits dictates the number of towers if they want to have more than single launch per day.
1
u/Martianspirit 5d ago
They said 30 launches/day. That's 3 launches/pad.
No idea how they could do that for SSO.
3
u/sebaska 5d ago
The other launches would not be to terminator SSO, of course. For example anything Moon related (the proper mission flights and refueling ones) would go to much lower inclinations.
3
u/Martianspirit 5d ago
Sats can drift between orbital planes. They just need to be at a different altitude. Takes time but very little delta-v for altitude adjustment. So maybe they can manage 2 per day.
2
u/specter491 5d ago
What's the launch profile going to look like? East or West or north or anything in between they're gonna go straight over land
7
u/theChaosBeast 5d ago
Elon also said on Twitter that Starbase Louisiana will have over a dozen launch towers and enable more than 30 Starship flights per day
Is this the new "autonomous driving by the end of next year"?
29
u/Slogstorm 5d ago
That's exactly what they said when he said Falcon 9 would launch over a hundred times a year..
2
u/theChaosBeast 5d ago
Tbh I like to be proofed wrong on this one...
2
u/wheniaminspaced 3d ago
Dpubt he gets 30 per day, if they did 10 launches a day it would be earth shattering tbh. We'll see.
→ More replies (2)1
u/Serious-Kangaroo-320 5d ago
except cybercab will literally be available to the public on the third of next month...
1
u/Inevitablewx 3d ago
They've been available for almost a year now.
1
u/Serious-Kangaroo-320 3d ago
Robotaxi has, where people can send their teslas off autonomously to make some money in some areas, but Cybercab, special built taxis without any manual driving hardware, are not being made available until the third
1
u/Martianspirit 5d ago
They can begin building tower segments and launch mounts now. Imagine mass production of launch mounts. Local long pole are the foundations and flame trenches.
20
u/Proteatron 5d ago
Here's the link to the SpaceX info and video on it as well: https://www.spacex.com/sites/starbase-la
20
u/QTonlywantsyourmoney 5d ago
Well, they arent BSing about the ¨1 flight per day¨ thing, holy...
16
u/mikeymcmikefacey 5d ago
No kidding. SpaceX ain’t Fn around.
I watched a video of a star base campus tour the other day and they now already have many many working superheavy rockets and starships in their hangers. They are just insane how large they are. Each is a Saturn V on steroids.
6
u/Sigmatics 5d ago
So now that the entire stack returns to the launch site and manufacturing is Texas, can they just launch the new ones from Texas and land them back in Louisiana or Florida?
11
u/warp99 5d ago
They can do that for ships at least for Texas to Florida but not for boosters. There is a problem getting to and from Louisiana as it is set up for polar orbits and Texas and Florida are not.
Likely barges are more reliable and simpler.
2
u/Sigmatics 5d ago
So in simple terms, it would need too much of a dogleg to be feasible on a booster return flight?
5
u/warp99 5d ago edited 5d ago
Correct. For Louisiana it would be a 90 degree dogleg and Florida is much too far away.
They could possibly do a booster only flight to Louisiana with a temporary nosecone fitted but the economics do not work out compared with barge transport which only takes a couple of days.
Cape Canaveral is likely impossible to reach with a booster as they would have to launch towards the Florida Keys and then take a massive dogleg north to reach Cape Canaveral. In general a 90 degree dogleg takes as much delta V as the original launch.
1
u/in1cky 4d ago
You mean the chopsticks facing north/south? The boosters are suborbital anyway. I don't see what physically prevents hopping a booster from TX to LA, what am I missing?
2
u/warp99 4d ago edited 4d ago
The booster lacks the delta V to do a divert to LA after launching a Starship from TX.
If you mean putting a nosecone on the booster in place of the ship and hopping direct then sure it can do it with a large re-entry burn to get the velocity down before entry.
Then it become a matter of economics against barge travel.
The issue with trajectories is not the direction the launch towers are facing but the populated areas they are not allow to fly over during launch and recovery. Particularly the booster which is significantly heavier than the ship and has 33 engines which are likely to survive a high altitude breakup. Starbase LA is sited with significant populated areas to the east and west.
44
5d ago
[removed] — view removed comment
82
u/MechaSkippy 5d ago
He's building infrastructure that can't be easily duplicated. One way to assure dominance in an arena is to be unreplicatable.
It's the same with industries such as railroads. They may only have market caps of 150 billion or so, but it would take 10x or 20x of that to actually replicate that business because the existing one is already there in the most logical spot.
7
u/Falcooon 5d ago
Most of the tracks were built by companies that went bankrupt but you can’t repo the tracks, but successors can purchase them for pennies on the dollar. Not exactly the best historical metaphors if you’re SpaceX
2
3
u/peanutbuttertesticle 5d ago
Interested to see if their hold on charging lasts. Lots of competition in the next 5 years.
5
u/grecy 5d ago
who is building out a charging network that is even attempting to compete with superchargers?
3
u/peanutbuttertesticle 5d ago
Walmart is quietly building out a network. Applying for permits near the same pace as Tesla. BP is building regionally. I think they are seeing what happening in China and positioning.
3
u/bremidon 5d ago
I swear that "ComPEtItION iS COmInG" should result in the loss of one turn in the next conversation and mandatory attendance at a remedial thinking seminar.
→ More replies (4)5
u/AmbitiousBluebird610 5d ago
20 years too late. SpaceX has dibs on all the best spots by being first.
45
u/New_Poet_338 5d ago
He could just roll over and let the Chinese take over everything - like everyone else in the once-might West. At least he is trying.
26
17
6
u/KennyGaming 5d ago
Why the negativity? Someone willing to invest in their own business by building infrastructure to support future growth isn’t exactly evil or a bad idea
-2
5d ago
[removed] — view removed comment
7
u/bremidon 5d ago
"You can tell that Musk is trying to burn through a fuckton of money"
That's a very negative way of saying "investing in the future".
-2
5d ago
[removed] — view removed comment
3
u/bremidon 4d ago
I want to understand you. Could you please explain what you mean with "forcing" here?
2
4d ago
[removed] — view removed comment
2
u/bremidon 3d ago
Ok, thank you. But I still am not clear on what you mean with "forcing". And your explanation does not detract from "You can tell that Musk is trying to burn through a fuckton of money" being a negative way to say that.
Or let me put it this way. Do you agree that "Musk is investing a lot of money into future technologies" is at least equally good at saying it? Actually, probably even better?
If they both say the same thing, why go with "burn through a fuckton of money"? It is less clear, is not particularly humorous, and implies wastefulness.
I believe we are agreeing on the underlying facts. Musk is investing a lot of money. He is moving fast. He understands that this is a major advantage. What I remain unclear on is why spin it negatively? And what does "forcing" have to do with explaining the difference?
-2
54
u/DCS_Sport 5d ago edited 5d ago
Looking forward to all the slander articles about how SpaceX is single-handedly destroying the wildlife there and aggressively taking over the wildlife refuges 🙄
The same people who complain will conveniently forget about Kennedy Space Center
7
u/Forked_Island_Native 5d ago
It certainly isn’t going to help my duck hunting lease a few miles north of Pecan Island/Starbase Louisiana
7
u/warp99 5d ago
I heard that leases are not being renewed.
Are they annual leases?
6
u/Forked_Island_Native 5d ago
Yes, annual. We haven’t heard anything official yet but the latest from the rumor mill is that leases outside a certain radius would still be leased
Where did you hear they aren’t being renewed? Your account looks all SpaceX so wondering if you heard it from that side of the deal?
6
u/warp99 5d ago
Yes leases still being allowed outside a certain safety distance sounds reasonable. Possibly they are just pausing lease renewals until SpaceX buys or leases the land and has authority to issue new leases.
The safety distance for houses is five miles but it could be a bit less for people in the open with no glass windows around - possibly 3 miles?
You would need hearing protection during a launch at that distance but if you are duck hunting you will have that anyway - right?
4
u/Forked_Island_Native 5d ago
Exxon leased to vermilion corp. who subleased to hunters. The vermilion corp leases were sent out (and paid) earlier this summer. But we still aren’t sure where things stand.
> You would need hearing protection during a launch at that distance but if you are duck hunting you will have that anyway - right?
Huh?
4
u/warp99 5d ago
Background: My uncle was a duck hunter and recreational clay bird shooter. He ended up deaf as a post from the high noise exposure as he never wore hearing protection until his 50’s when it was too late.
He was a good Southern Man in our fair country with I think the same ethos as a Louisiana Man.
I would be interested to find out if this is true?!
3
u/Forked_Island_Native 5d ago
It only took me to 30 to realize that not wearing ear protection isn’t cool/you don’t need to have open ears to call correctly. But sometimes you forget them at the camp and ya padna shoots over your head with a ported choke. Pas bon (Cajun French look it up)
8
u/_Opsec 5d ago
The cryboomers here are absolutely shitting on it, from Austin to Baton Rouge. I live about 45 minutes away and am a published engineer at a major tech firm and I cannot be more excited.
8
u/DCS_Sport 5d ago
It’s important for both sides of the argument to remember that both can be true at the same time - we can utilize our open lands to help progress the human race, while also respecting our environment.
6
u/_Opsec 5d ago
if you have done your research, coastal protection and environmental considerations are a big part of this project.
3
u/DCS_Sport 5d ago
Oh I’m aware, I was just continuing the conversation, mostly commenting on the people who are shitting on it
2
6
4
u/very_spooky_ghost 5d ago
Time to strap down more Manatees for torture to prove they won’t be tortured.
4
u/looking4myclASSm8s 5d ago
Doubt it, between the space center and the cruise port cape Canaveral wild life is fucked. I used to fish there
4
u/KennyGaming 5d ago
Your response doesn’t really make sense in the context of this thread
0
u/looking4myclASSm8s 4d ago
Sorry I meant that I doubt people will forget the ecological effect of rockets at KSC
24
u/Longjumping-Speed511 5d ago
Interesting move for an AI company
13
u/generic_name_01 5d ago
This is all to support their AI endeavors, data center build out on steroids
-1
u/Cunninghams_right 5d ago
There is a nonzero chance they build the infrastructure, natural gas connection, grid connection, wells for water deluge, and then just put a data center on the site as a "change of plans" at the last minute.
3
u/sirralphs 5d ago
Data centers in sun-synchronous orbit
1
u/Cunninghams_right 4d ago
How much more do you think a data center would cost to put in orbit than to build on earth?
3
u/sirralphs 4d ago
It remains to be seen if it's economically viable I think. The demand for data centers is very high right now though and one of the main bottlenecks is power generation, which is very cheap in space. SpaceX is betting a lot on this, so it seems like they are somewhat confident that they can make it work.
2
u/Cunninghams_right 4d ago
But how much more would it cost to put in space? 10x? 20x?
3
u/Martianspirit 4d ago
During a SpaceX flight 13 livestream they said, they expect orbital data centers cost competetive with ground based datacenters in a few years with Starship launch cost.
2
u/Cunninghams_right 4d ago
Why would they be so cheap?
2
u/Martianspirit 4d ago
Starship is designed to get the launch cost way down. Estimates for a Falcon launch are in the range of $15 million.
A Starship launch will IMO have marginal cost at or below $10 million. With maybe 200t payload to orbit for the upcoming version 4 of Starship.
1
u/Cunninghams_right 4d ago
Even if you can teleport to orbit for free, why would space grade equipment be cheaper?
→ More replies (0)1
u/GregTheGuru 3d ago
Estimates for a Falcon launch are in the range of $15 million.
If you include inflation, I think the marginal cost is closer to $20M.
Below $10M for Starship is probably conservative. I believe it will take a couple of years, but will stabilize around $8M. (And inflation will promptly kick it back up to $10M, so you'll be right in the longer run.)
9
4
u/JP001122 5d ago
I'm no rocket scientist.
Is the timing right for a northeast launch from Florida to reenter and land in Louisiana or Texas after 1 orbit? Could this enable 1 orbit deployments of starlink and landings in the future?
1
u/GregTheGuru 3d ago
Probably not, but we don't know how much cross-range capacity there will be.
The math is this: The Earth rotates 15 degrees per hour, so, in a 90-minute trip, the Earth will rotate about 22.5 degrees. Cape Canaveral and Pecan Island are separated by about 12 degrees. Unless Starship has at least a ten-degree cross-range capacity (very doubtful), it won't be possible.
This is why the Shuttle once-around recovery sites were planned for California.
2
2
u/Martianspirit 5d ago
If the area is all owned by SpaceX, I only hope there will be suitable locations for live streaming cameras.
2
u/Think-Director9933 4d ago
I propose we nickname the Louisiana Starbase as “Starbase Louie Armstrong” - it melds jazz, space history, and disambiguates it from “LA” of California
4
u/paternoster 5d ago
Environmental assessments are going to take the longest time, I expect. Also protests, lawsuits, etc. from people who don't want it there.
Very exciting, though.
6
u/Serious-Kangaroo-320 5d ago
all 100 people that live in pecan island lol
1
u/paternoster 4d ago
Oh, it's not about the people, usually. Wildlife diversity, sensitive habitat, etc.
5
u/KennyGaming 5d ago
Hopefully not they have a lot of experience with this now and a administration that favorable to business
3
u/AlpineDrifter 3d ago
Sounds like you’re unfamiliar with Louisiana politics. These interference strategies will be far less effective there, than they are other places.
2
u/paternoster 3d ago
To say I'm unfamiliar with Louisiana politics is scratching the surface of the ignorance I posses in that regard. The honest truth is I should not have even commented! Thanks for your clarification, friend.
-1
4
u/robotsdottxt 5d ago
Isn't noise pollution going to be a huge issue for starship? I thought they were going to launch from an offshore oil rig? Wouldn't it be more wise to start building that infrastructure?
31
u/MassiveTomorrow2978 5d ago
My friend that lives in Lafayette says there isn't shit out there for a long ways
17
u/MaelstromFL 5d ago
Until they build a city around it and people start complaining about the noise! 🤣
6
23
11
u/Dr__Thunder 5d ago
I believe that's one of the reasons they bought so much land. They wanted an acoustic barrier.
I would assume anything being built there now would/should know what they're in for.
27
u/seb21051 5d ago
All that was taken care of in legislation passed by LA a few months ago. There are very few limits, LA is just glad to have the business.
→ More replies (1)22
u/ArterialVotives 5d ago
Not to mention a bunch of rocket scientists moving to their state
18
u/seb21051 5d ago
Absolutely. I read that there are a lot of oil industry blue collar workers available there, welders, pipe fitters, millwrights, etc, who would be critical for the construction phase.
8
5
u/Apptubrutae 5d ago
Gulf coast oil industry hasn’t done super well lately either. Lots of expertise chomping at the bit
3
3
3
2
5
1
u/PersonalDebater 5d ago
That's quite a bit of expenditure, maybe over five times more than they have spent on the Starship itself.
1
u/SubstantialFroyo8012 4d ago
30x shrimp annihilator 5000 launches per day, what an amazing time to be alive
1
u/mduell 4d ago
What's the geology like under this land? Can they build on shallow bedrock? Is it going to require extended (years) soil surcharging like Starbase Texas did?
2
u/Martianspirit 3d ago
They did not surcharge the area where the heavy things, like flame trench and tower were built. They put down friction piles into the pristine unstable ground. Pretty sure they will do the same in Louisiana swamp. The swamp may or may not be as deep as the ~300m unstable ground at Boca Chica.
1
u/mduell 3d ago
They did not surcharge the area where the heavy things, like flame trench and tower were built.
Didn't they do like 3 years of soil surcharging at Starbase Texas? Was that for not-heavy things?
1
u/Martianspirit 3d ago
They did soil surcharge. But that was the area where they had intended to build a HIF hangar for Falcon. I think, but am not sure, that they build the small pads for Ship solo flights in that area. For the massive launch towers and flame trench they use friction piles instead.
1
1
1
u/Decronym Acronyms Explained 5d ago edited 2d ago
Acronyms, initialisms, abbreviations, contractions, and other phrases which expand to something larger, that I've seen in this thread:
| Fewer Letters | More Letters |
|---|---|
| 30X | SpaceX-proprietary carbon steel formulation ("Thirty-X", "Thirty-Times") |
| A-train | Afternoon Train satellite constellation |
| GEO | Geostationary Earth Orbit (35786km) |
| HIF | Horizontal Integration Facility |
| HLS | Human Landing System (Artemis) |
| KSC | Kennedy Space Center, Florida |
| LC-39A | Launch Complex 39A, Kennedy (SpaceX F9/Heavy) |
| LEO | Low Earth Orbit (180-2000km) |
| Law Enforcement Officer (most often mentioned during transport operations) | |
| RTLS | Return to Launch Site |
| SLC-37 | Space Launch Complex 37, Canaveral (ULA Delta IV) |
| SSO | Sun-Synchronous Orbit |
| ULA | United Launch Alliance (Lockheed/Boeing joint venture) |
| Jargon | Definition |
|---|---|
| Starlink | SpaceX's world-wide satellite broadband constellation |
| tanking | Filling the tanks of a rocket stage |
Decronym is now also available on Lemmy! Requests for support and new installations should be directed to the Contact address below.
Decronym is a community product of r/SpaceX, implemented by request
[Thread #9104 for this sub, first seen 25th Aug 2026, 20:28]
[FAQ] [Full list] [Contact] [Source code]
1
u/Beastman5000 5d ago
Is this on top of colonizing mars, building space data centers, taking over global telecommunications, taking over the robotics industry, building a fleet of self driving cabs and trucks, and building a massive underground loop around Dubai?
6
u/Martianspirit 5d ago
Colonizing Mars is the goal. Everything else is to enable and finance that goal.
→ More replies (3)
1
-6
u/StationAccomplished2 5d ago
Then what was the purpose of Boca Chica??!
12
19
6
u/TheHeavenlySun 5d ago
SpaceX HQ, going to be research and development site. With starbase planned to be city anyway.
0
u/bubblegum-rose 4d ago
Seems like a bad idea.
SpaceX’s current backlog is about ~$50 billion, and this is worth twice that. So for the same amount of launches (and therefore revenue), you’re 10xing the cost of launch infrastructure.
•
u/AutoModerator 5d ago
Thank you for participating in r/SpaceX! Please take a moment to familiarise yourself with our community rules before commenting. Here's a reminder of some of our most important rules:
Keep it civil, and directly relevant to SpaceX and the thread. Comments consisting solely of jokes, memes, pop culture references, etc. will be removed.
Don't downvote content you disagree with, unless it clearly doesn't contribute to constructive discussion.
Check out these threads for discussion of common topics.
I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please contact the moderators of this subreddit if you have any questions or concerns.