hph6203 said:

---

Taiwanese rocket test straight to the "space is hard" hall of fame pic.twitter.com/HGAp0ZeWcW

— Chris Combs (iterative design enjoyer) (@DrChrisCombs) August 21, 2026

---

Surprised they were not able to scuttle it when it went out of control like that.

Was hoping to see more on Pecan Island plans this week. Oh well. My guess is they will build at least 5 launch pads at the site(s).

SpaceX Louisiana Purchase: 136,000 acres
Cape Canaveral Space Force Station: 16,000 acres
(metric: 550 vs 65 km²)

SpaceX is about to acquire the equivalent of EIGHT AND A HALF Cape Canaverals for its Starship operations 🤯 https://t.co/ZnjMYbsGej

— algernon79 (@algern0n79) August 21, 2026

For data centers I think the trajectory will be pretty advantageous from what I've read, though I am dubious of returns coming in from the north over the whole continent. From a grok post earlier this month;

Quote:

---

Pecan Island (~29.6N) allows near-due-south launches over open Gulf water into high-inclination polar/SSO paths (~98). Starbase faces Mexico almost immediately south; Cape has historically restricted polar corridors due to land/population overflight (Cuba etc.). Higher latitude also means slightly less eastward rotational velocity to cancel on the retrograde SSO. Clear safety corridor plus barge/LNG access makes it practical for high-cadence Starship SSO flights.

---

More;

Quote:

---

A Launch Corridor With Nowhere to Hit

Starship's flight path is the starting point for any site decision. A breakdown of the site's likely launch geometry puts rockets launched from the Louisiana coast on southerly trajectories, angled roughly 115 to 190 degrees from north, keeping the vehicle over open Gulf water for most of its ascent before it would ever approach land near Mexico's Yucatn Peninsula. That mirrors the same basic geometry Starship already flies out of Starbase in Texas, climbing nearly straight up before pitching over and arcing downrange across the Gulf. A long stretch of open water under the flight path also opens up a wider range of achievable orbits, including the near-polar, sun-synchronous paths SpaceX uses for Starlink launches.

Room for a Buffer Zone the Size of a Small County

Starbase in Texas covers about 140 acres and employs roughly 3,400 people. The Vermilion Parish tract runs more than 900 times that footprint. Only a small fraction of the acreage would ever hold a launch pad or production building; the rest functions as distance between the hardware and anyone who might be affected if something goes wrong.

That kind of margin is nearly impossible to assemble along developed coastline. It comes cheap in a marsh most people never had reason to build on in the first place.

Getting the Hardware There Without Trucking It
Starship boosters and ship stages are too large to move by road in one piece. The Vermilion Parish site sits directly on the Gulf Intracoastal Waterway, roughly halfway between SpaceX's Starbase facility in Brownsville and Cape Canaveral, Florida, which would let the company barge stages and tower components between sites instead of trucking or shipping them around the open ocean. One aerospace watcher who visited the area reported an existing but largely unused dock on Freshwater Bayou near the proposed site, and the Freshwater Bayou Lock connects that waterway system to the Gulf under the control of the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers.

---

Drawing parallels between this Louisiana purchase / Starship mission to Mars and the current season of Silo is not hard to do.

I know that storyline follows books so it's not a direct correlation, but sometimes life does imitate art.

txags92 said:

---

hph6203 said:

---

Taiwanese rocket test straight to the "space is hard" hall of fame pic.twitter.com/HGAp0ZeWcW

— Chris Combs (iterative design enjoyer) (@DrChrisCombs) August 21, 2026

---

Surprised they were not able to scuttle it when it went out of control like that.

---

Yeah, there ought to have been a range safety officer to detonate it once it started gyrating.

torrid said:

---

txags92 said:

---

hph6203 said:

---

Taiwanese rocket test straight to the "space is hard" hall of fame pic.twitter.com/HGAp0ZeWcW

— Chris Combs (iterative design enjoyer) (@DrChrisCombs) August 21, 2026

---

Surprised they were not able to scuttle it when it went out of control like that.

---

Yeah, there ought to have been a range safety officer to detonate it once it started gyrating.

---

We all know friends like that

Once Starship is flying reliably several times per week, it makes sense to shift super scarce SpaceX engineering and production resources to Starship to get launch rate to several times per day, which means winding down Falcon

— Elon Musk (@elonmusk) August 22, 2026

They've been consistent about that for years really. And they have to be very diligent with F9 as it involves human spaceflight and NSSL/Nasa payloads alike.

Dealing with the government makes things expensive/slow. That's not helpful given where SPCX is and their broader goals. Personally, I think if they had their druthers they'd get out of the HLS contract as well, but there are risks to ticking off regulators/gov't types as we all know.

On the idea that the U.S. gov has leverage over SpaceX via NSSL - worth flagging from SpaceX’s S1:

“For those reasons and in order to achieve our orbital compute goals, we may prioritize our own launch payloads over additional U.S. government contracts or third-party customers.” https://t.co/sMRSCjLd4D pic.twitter.com/DEY9uP6dDb

— Joey Roulette (@joroulette) August 17, 2026

The mystery to me though is why they have continued to invest in expanding Vandenberg for F9 launches on an interim basis, making it even the primary F9 launch gateway looking ahead. I know, I know, the orbital trajectories are easier to SSO etc. there but it seems short-sighted. In any case, they are still selling commercial F9 flights at this time and I doubt that changes for at least 24 months.

Launch is constrained, so we bought a Falcon 9 to control our own destiny for our first Supernova mission in 2028, called Motus Via Sol pic.twitter.com/LByeE9PDjo

— Ian Vorbach (@IanVorbach) August 20, 2026

nortex97 said:

---

Personally, I think if they had their druthers they'd get out of the HLS contract as well, but there are risks to ticking off regulators/gov't types as we all know.

---

It seems like that but I think that developing HLS is directly in the technology path to getting to Mars and only helps SpaceX get to mars faster.

I think SpaceX will find a lot of opportunities on the moon as well.

Mass drivers on the moon with a plant to assemble AI satellites is an ambitious goal, but I am not sure the resources for HLS is truly advantageous toward that goal. I could easily be wrong, of course. They do need to advance HLS design/testing/development in the next 6 months if they are going to be ready by 2028.

I'm also, frankly, skeptical about Martian colonization plans absent nuclear thermal power but that's perhaps a further stretch.

TexAgs91 said:

---

nortex97 said:

---

Personally, I think if they had their druthers they'd get out of the HLS contract as well, but there are risks to ticking off regulators/gov't types as we all know.

---

It seems like that but I think that developing HLS is directly in the technology path to getting to Mars and only helps SpaceX get to mars faster.

I think SpaceX will find a lot of opportunities on the moon as well.

---

The moon very well could become a refueling depot outside of Earth's deep gravity well. Not sure on all of pros and cons with starting from the moon vs earth

Interesting points here and if those economics are right it's eye-opening why SpaceX would obviously prefer to be their own launch customer with Starlink and/or orbital compute vs payload ferrying for others.

Moving forward they cannot maintain F9 just for the sake of keeping it going. The best and brightest in their teams will see it as a dead end. The ones assigned to it will know it's a career dead end.

The economic numbers in the video show how much more profitable it is to launch for themselves. They needed NASA 10-15 years ago, and truth is it didn't really cost NASAanything. Now NASA needs them, and it costs SpaceX lost revenue to dedicate launch resources to them.

Pre-flight testing with Hungry Hippo is underway 🦛 We're opening and closing the Hippo's two permanently attached fairing halves under flight-like conditions to simulate how they'll perform for Stage 2 deployment and Neutron's return to Earth.

After testing, Hippo will return… pic.twitter.com/Y6WiDI5NNA

— Rocket Lab (@RocketLab) August 23, 2026

...in your best Scottish accent...

Kenneth_2003 said:

---

Interesting points here and if those economics are right it's eye-opening why SpaceX would obviously prefer to be their own launch customer with Starlink and/or orbital compute vs payload ferrying for others.

Moving forward they cannot maintain F9 just for the sake of keeping it going. The best and brightest in their teams will see it as a dead end. The ones assigned to it will know it's a career dead end.

The economic numbers in the video show how much more profitable it is to launch for themselves. They needed NASA 10-15 years ago, and truth is it didn't really cost NASAanything. Now NASA needs them, and it costs SpaceX lost revenue to dedicate launch resources to them.

---

That is why I suggested they license out the construction and operation of F9 to somebody who is capable, and would benefit from the revenue.

While plausible SPCX has never licensed out or sold any of their engine tech to other companies, and I am sure they have been asked many times. And, pad spaces are quite valuable, so 'leaving' them to another company to operate for instance at the F9 KSC pads long term would also be counter to their AI/business objectives. Finally, SPCX now has the ability to raise capital very efficiently as a publicly traded company, so the cash flow benefits of a spin off probably don't matter to them (and will matter even less after a merger with TSLA).

I just don't see it happening, and Elon himself certainly has given a pretty clear signal as to the path for F9.

I believe this is the first public indication of an imminent Falcon 9 wind down.

(SpaceX has largely frozen new F9 commercial sales post 2028)

Some questions I have on moving commercial payloads to Starship:

- Will there be gap between F9 and Starship commercial launch?
-… https://t.co/ynw7uwpP9r

— Jack Kuhr (@JackKuhr) August 23, 2026

Elon and team must be REALLY confident they can get super heavy ready by ~2029. I am guessing they can, just seems a little weird to sunset a known commodity before being 100% sure you have a replacement.

But I am a nobody with no knowledge on their internals. So what do I know?

will25u said:

---

Elon and team must be REALLY confident they can get super heavy ready by ~2029. I am guessing they can, just seems a little weird to sunset a known commodity before being 100% sure you have a replacement.

But I am a nobody with no knowledge on their internals. So what do I know?

---

If I was planning to retire something I wouldn't sell space on it either. If it pushes I'm sure they will have people lined up for the launches. And they will know long before that time

nortex97 said:

---

Mass drivers on the moon with a plant to assemble AI satellites is an ambitious goal, but I am not sure the resources for HLS is truly advantageous toward that goal. I could easily be wrong, of course. They do need to advance HLS design/testing/development in the next 6 months if they are going to be ready by 2028.

I'm also, frankly, skeptical about Martian colonization plans absent nuclear thermal power but that's perhaps a further stretch.

---

Mass drivers on the moon with a plant to assemble AI satellites isn't HLS. I'm just talking about HLS being on the direct technology path to Mars:

Orbital Rendezvous
Moon: Check
Mars: Check

Orbital Refueling
Moon: Check
Mars: Check

Boil-off Prevention
Moon: Check
Mars: Check

Human Rating
Moon: Check
Mars: Check

Crew Environmental Systems
Moon: Check
Mars: Check

Crew Habitat
Moon: Check
Mars: Check

Landing
Landing without atmosphere vs landing with atmosphere

Deploying Payloads to the Surface
Moon: Check
Mars: Check

Surface Ops
Moon: Check
Mars: Check

Nasa has funding to whoever wants to advance nuclear power on the moon so SpaceX could take advantage of that as well.

I posted the wrong video yesterday.... Though I'll keep it up as it does cover a lot of the basic tenants regarding the importance of being the first mover in the new frontier that is Space.

This video dives into the economics of both Falcon 9 and what it leads to in Starship; why SpaceX loses money on launches for other parties (governments and other companies). The exception to that might be the comms constellation they are launching for Space Force IF there is an ongoing operation agreement with Dept of War.

NASA’s Roman Space Telescope was encapsulated into Falcon Heavy’s fairing this past week ahead of launch on Sunday, August 30 from pad 39A in Florida → https://t.co/oacS4jED83 pic.twitter.com/Qg3Ui1AL46

— SpaceX (@SpaceX) August 24, 2026

SpaceX, in partnership with Nvidia, has designed a space-optimized Vera Rubin NVL72 system for launch to orbit in Q4 next year, with significant scale in 2028 https://t.co/qdDq8YBkzl

— Elon Musk (@elonmusk) August 24, 2026

SpaceX now owns 1.5 percent of Grimes Co.

https://www.kbtx.com/2026/08/24/spacexs-grimes-county-land-holdings-nearly-double-just-four-days/

ZQ-3 crash landing footage of its first landing attempt back in 2025. via CCTV clipped from an interview of the ZQ-3's chief director. pic.twitter.com/naMcJ3V08L

— Ace of Razgriz (@raz_liu) August 25, 2026

That article demonstrates an embarrassingly low level understanding of Texas real estate records and basic math skills. Not surprising I guess from KBTX.

normaleagle05 said:

---

That article demonstrates an embarrassingly low level understanding of Texas real estate records and basic math skills. Not surprising I guess from KBTX.

---

Not defending KBTX, but what's the issue?
I don't care that SpaceX (or in this case an affiliate LLC) is buying up land from presumably willing buyers. Are these sellers outside of the former TMPA and coal mine boundaries? Are these land owners that were previously mined and subsequently remediated? Is this buffer land around the facility? Are these greenfield sellers?

I read the article and just saw dry commentary with an apparent screenshot from the county but little to no interpretive commentary.

First, a 2/3 gain is a not a 2x gain.

Second, the appraisal district is not where land transactions get filed and recorded. There's a delay between recordation and useful information from the CAD. Anyone trying to track land holdings in real time should figure out how to read the source data at the County Clerk, not delayed information from a secondary source. It's really bad real estate practice and worse journalism. And the active/inactive property status from the CAD doesn't mean much of anything, let alone any legally combining adjacent tracts.

Thanks...

I'm in the Oil and Gas space, but I leave the land work up to the land people so I've never done any courthouse work. I didn't catch they were using the Appraisal District and not the County Clerk.

But you're right and looks like a typical rage bait swing and a miss by KBTX. I have to appreciate how "surprised" they seem to be by every development and can't seem to fathom that this was all set in motion loooong before the public ever got wind of it. I'm not implying shady or back-room dealings, but i suspect there were a lot of highly punitive NDA's put in place regarding land proposals and agreements

This may be the last chance to grab SPCX in the $130 range, unless flight 14 goes awry imho.

If you’re a $SPCX investor, you have to bookmark this and read it line by line.

JPMorgan just reiterated an Overweight rating on SpaceX with a $240 price target, and the driver here is pure enterprise AI momentum around Grok.

The biggest catalyst is the acquisition of Cursor,… https://t.co/vvVF83Rst6 pic.twitter.com/wuugrZjOtY

— Nicholas Mugalli (@RealNickMugalli) August 25, 2026

I sell data center capacity for a living. The conversation with customers has changed completely in the last eighteen months.

It used to start with price per kW. Now the first question out of everyone’s mouth is when can you actually give me power, and the honest answer in most… https://t.co/j8yWB5OdWm

— Timbo (@Timboo) August 24, 2026

Buckle up, buckaroos.

I did not see this coming today. Makes some sense with the next Starship flight likely to begin deployment of operational V3 sats.

This morning’s @SpaceX mission from pad 40 was the last planned Falcon 9 Starlink launch from Florida (and it launched on the fleet leading booster!!), marking the end of an era for these launches on the East Coast. From here on, Starlink missions out of Florida will fly on… pic.twitter.com/VG9rTdLg0G

— Kiko Dontchev (@TurkeyBeaver) August 25, 2026

I knew the Starship tower at 39A is getting close but it must be closer than I thought.

I know Elon recently said that Flight 14 would now not include a catch attempt, but I agree they're almost committing to going orbital so they can carry operational V3's and begin the network constellation replacement.

Broke the record for consecutive flights without issue on Friday (326). Fairing half re-use on the next flight on Saturday (40), and booster reuse today (37).

Introducing Starbase, Louisiana – a high-cadence launch site that will enable Starship to open a pathway to the stars for humanity.

Thank you to @LAGovJeffLandry and the great people of Louisiana for all of their support as we work together on this audacious project →… pic.twitter.com/hq308hvg2g

— SpaceX (@SpaceX) August 25, 2026

SpaceX has just officially announced Starbase, Louisiana, a new $100+ billion spaceport in South Louisiana near Pecan Island.

Construction starts in 2027, with the first Starship launch from the new site planned for 2029.

Starbase, Louisiana will be built to support thousands… pic.twitter.com/uacCLKg7CG

— Sawyer Merritt (@SawyerMerritt) August 25, 2026

10 launch pads in their renders in pairs of two. If they hit their once every hour cadence you're talking about a launch every 6 minutes. Between launches and landings it's probably going to be a continuous rumble.

hph6203 said:

---

10 launch pads in their renders in pairs of two. If they hit their once every hour cadence you're talking about a launch every 6 minutes. Between launches and landings it's probably going to be a continuous rumble.

---

Imagine the size of the air separation facility or facilities they are going to need to support fueling at that cadence.