News
SpaceX’s Starship/Super Heavy rocket needs a launch pad and work is already starting
According to SpaceX job posts published early this month, the company has already begun the process of looking for the engineer or engineers that will be responsible for preparing both Starship/Super Heavy and its prospective pad facilities for the rocket’s inaugural launches.
Per one of those posts, Starship/Super Heavy’s “initial launch capability” will be achieved at Kennedy Space Center’s historic Launch Complex 39A (also known as Pad 39A), a facility SpaceX has leased since 2014 and launched from since 2017. Originally constructed in the 1960s to support Saturn V, the largest operational US rocket ever built, Pad 39A spent another three decades supporting dozens of Shuttle launches until the latter was also retired, after which SpaceX took over the historic facility. Although SpaceX has specifically discussed plans to ultimately turn its South Texas outpost into a full-fledged orbital launch site, that will be an extremely slow and expensive endeavor and Pad 39A makes sense for several reasons.
Building rocket launch facilities is hard
Even though SpaceX has still tended to aggressively outperform its competitors and peers, the process of building a new launch complex from scratch is extremely challenging. For example, after SpaceX suffered a catastrophic failure of Falcon 9 at Pad 40 (LC-40) in September 2016, the company had to conduct extensive refurbishment and even tacked on some pre-planned upgrades. Still, a large portion of the pad remained intact, including the flame trench (with minor damage), hangar facilities, and more.
Ultimately, it took SpaceX more than 10 months and $50M to repair, rebuild, and upgrade LC-40. The biggest single ticket item was likely the new transporter/erector and its associated launch mount and water deluge system, followed by new plumbing and communications infrastructure throughout the pad. By far the most time-consuming and expensive process, however, is laying a foundation for the launch pad itself, most of which SpaceX was able to skip at Pad 40 after some relatively minor repairs and modifications.
Although Blue Origin is as tightlipped as space startups come, owner Jeff Bezos has indicated that the companies large-scale LC-36 pad – built from a clean slate – was part of an overall investment of “more than $1 billion”. That is split between LC-36, a new factory, and a more general-use campus in and around Cape Canaveral, Florida. Building a factory is even more expensive than launch facilities, so the overall cost of building LC-36 from scratch is likely somewhere between $150M and $300M, although it could be even more expensive.
LC-36 is being built for New Glenn, a rocket that will produce roughly 75% as much thrust as Falcon Heavy and ~25% as much thrust as Starship’s Super Heavy booster at liftoff. This is all to make a simple point: if SpaceX means to do so, building a new Super Heavy-class launch pad at Boca Chica is going to take a bare minimum of a year and $100M+ (assuming Blue Origin has been somewhat inefficient, as usual). SpaceX’s current setup is unambiguously dedicated to far lower-thrust Starhopper (and maybe Starship) test flights, whereas an orbital launch complex capable of surviving Super Heavy liftoffs would be at least 5X larger and involve extensive foundation-laying and far more concrete.
All things considered, it’s thrilling that SpaceX is already in the process of designing and – soon – constructing the launch complex (or add-on hardware) that will support the first suborbital and orbital launches of Starship and Super Heavy. Per the aforementioned Launch Engineer job post, it seems all but certain that visible work at Pad 39A could begin at any moment, regardless of whether SpaceX has plans to subtly modify the existing 39A facilities or build something entirely new within its borders.
According to SpaceX VP of Commercial Sales Jonathan Hofeller, “the goal is to get orbital as quickly as possible, potentially even this year, with the full stack operational by the end of next year and then customers in early 2021.” In short, Starship and Super Heavy-compatible launch facilities are going to be needed at 39A (and, eventually, Boca Chica) far sooner than later. Even if it’s likely that the vehicle development will suffer delays that could push Starship’s orbital launch debut into 2021 or beyond, launch pad design and construction is challenging and slow but still fairly predictable. and it is certainly better to be early than to be late. In short, the next 12 months are going to be wild.
Check out Teslarati’s Marketplace! We offer Tesla accessories, including for the Tesla Cybertruck and Tesla Model 3.
Elon Musk
The Starship moon landing number NASA and Elon Musk can’t agree on
Musk disputes NASA estimate of 22 Starship launches for Moon landing, predicting 6 to 8.
Elon Musk is disputing a new NASA safety panel estimate of how many Starship launches it will take to put astronauts on the Moon, saying the real number will be less than half the panel’s figure.
On Thursday, NASA’s Aerospace Safety Advisory Panel held its quarterly public meeting. Panel member Charlie Precourt, a former NASA astronaut, flagged the fueling process for SpaceX’s lunar lander as a major risk for Artemis IV, the mission planned to land a crew on the Moon in 2028. “We need to keep our eyes on numerous required fuelings for the lander,” Precourt said, according to Ars Technica. “I think the last estimate is around 22 flights.”
Ars Technica’s Eric Berger posted the comment on X, and Musk replied. “That’s way too high,” Musk wrote. “Actual number will be more like 6 to 8.”
The disagreement comes down to a basic problem with sending a ship as large as Starship to the Moon. Starship burns nearly all of its propellant just reaching Earth orbit, so it cannot continue on to the Moon without stopping for a refill. SpaceX’s answer is a gas station in space. First, a Starship that works as a storage tank, called a depot, is launched into orbit. Then a series of tanker Starships launch one at a time, dock with the depot and pump their leftover propellant into it. Once the depot is full, the lunar lander version of Starship launches, docks, fills up and heads for the Moon.
Every tanker trip is its own full rocket launch, which is why the count matters. More launches mean more time, more cost and more chances for something to go wrong before astronauts ever leave Earth. Berger estimated that even if SpaceX reaches twice weekly Starship launches by the end of 2027, filling a depot at the panel’s number would still take roughly three months.
How many tankers are needed depends mostly on how much propellant each one can carry to orbit and how much is lost along the way. Starship’s fuel and oxygen are stored at extremely cold temperatures, and some of it slowly boils off while waiting in orbit. More is lost in each transfer. NASA appears to be working from what Starship can lift today, while Musk’s range assumes a more capable rocket.
Musk has pushed back on higher counts before. In 2021, after a government document suggested 16 launches, he called that “extremely unlikely” and said eight tankers would be the most required.
Much of the answer depends on hardware SpaceX has not finished flying. As Teslarati noted earlier this year, the company plans to carry out the refueling process with its upgraded V3 Starship, and Precourt described Artemis IV as carrying “a large number of firsts.” He also praised NASA Administrator Jared Isaacman’s team for working to clear obstacles for both SpaceX and Blue Origin, whose Blue Moon lander does not rely on orbital refueling for its first mission.
Elon Musk
Tesla’s secretive “Project Crystal Sun” gets a big green light in Texas
Fort Bend County approved four incentive agreements Thursday for Tesla’s proposed $10.1 billion solar factory.
Fort Bend County commissioners on Thursday approved a package of tax incentives for Tesla’s proposed $10.1 billion solar cell factory near Needville, Texas, giving the company one of the last local approvals it needs before it decides where to build. All four Tesla agreements passed 4 to 0.
The votes covered a property tax abatement inside Reinvestment Zone No. 34, a Chapter 381 economic development agreement, a foreign trade zone non-objection paired with payments in lieu of certain taxes, and a separate payment in lieu of taxes “true up” agreement, according to agenda notes from the Fort Bend Commissioners Court meeting.
The project, known internally as “Project Crystal Sun,” would make solar cells and finished modules on roughly 3,000 acres near FM 762 and FM 1994, south of the Brazos River. As Teslarati reported when the filing first surfaced in August, Tesla’s application under the state’s JETI Act splits the investment into $1.5 billion in real property and $8.6 billion in equipment, with 9,712 permanent jobs projected by 2033 and commercial operations targeted for the first quarter of 2029. The plant would handle the full chain from ingot and wafer production through cell testing.
Inside Tesla’s secretive $10 Billion “Project Crystal Sun” filing
Thursday’s approval does not lock in the site. Tesla has told the Texas Comptroller it is still weighing other locations, and site selection adviser David Dennison told Lamar Consolidated ISD trustees in September that the race had narrowed to Fort Bend and one out of state rival with a “very compelling package,” according to the Houston Chronicle. Tesla hopes to decide before the end of 2026, and the incentives still need sign off from the Comptroller and the Governor’s office.
Local officials have now done nearly everything within their control. Commissioners created the reinvestment zone in an August 24 special meeting, with Interim County Judge Daniel Wong formally withdrawing himself over his engineering firm’s past work with Tesla. Lamar CISD trustees voted 7 to 0 on September 15 to advance a JETI agreement that would tax Tesla’s qualifying property at 50 percent of its value for maintenance and operations from 2029 through 2038.
The plant lines up with a target Elon Musk set on Tesla’s Q4 2025 earnings call in January, when he said the company would “work toward getting 100 GW a year of solar cell production, integrating across the entire supply chain from raw materials all the way to finished solar panels.” In March, Tesla was reported to be negotiating a $2.9 billion purchase of Chinese solar manufacturing equipment bound for Texas. The Houston area already hosts Tesla’s Megafactory in Brookshire, where Megapack 3 production has started. Tesla said on its Q3 call that Megapack supply for 2027 is nearly sold out, and Musk wrote on X Thursday that the company is “increasing production of Megapacks as much as possible,” as demand from data centers climbs.
Tesla revealed plans to develop its own maps internally to fix Navigation issues and give owners more control over their routing.
On the company’s Q3 2026 Earnings Call, a question was asked about FSD Navigation issues, particularly speed limit recognition, parking, and routing. These are issues that surface from version to version and seem to be seriously challenging for Tesla’s AI team to resolve.
Tesla’s Head of AI, Ashok Elluswamy, said in response to the question:
“You’re totally right that we shouldn’t be depending on external people’s maps. So we are building our own maps, but not like the same way as OneMoreMap. We are building an entirely new architecture with essentially AI-based mapping and navigation.”
He continued:
“It’s going to be super awesome. It’s going to be integrated with voice. You can talk to it, ask for different routes. It’s going to learn your personalized preferences, plus the fleet preferences. The collective intelligence of all the cars is going to flow into making the maps and navigation super cool.”
Elluswamy said this issue should be confronted, and the mapping should be available for people by the time the v15 release starts deploying to customers.
“And over the next several months,” he added, “it’s just going to take over all of the navigation functions, parking, destination handling. And it will know you better than you know yourself in some regard for the driving task, and then handle it fully.”
Tesla Summon got insanely good in FSD v14.3.2 — Navigation? Not so much
Navigation is perhaps the most notable complaint with FSD, and although it has gotten better, it is still flawed. Much of the time, FSD will take people on routes that are not preferred by the driver, but Tesla tried to combat this with a routing feature in the Summer 2026 Update.
Tesla currently relies on Google for map data, but it is sort of counterintuitive to believe the company would rely on a third party for this. These improvements will be welcome, as routing and navigation have been such a pain point for so many owners for so long.
Quotes via Motley Fool
The Starship moon landing number NASA and Elon Musk can’t agree on
Tesla’s secretive “Project Crystal Sun” gets a big green light in Texas
