SpaceX to start making their own fuel supply

If SpaceX is going to launch as often as they say they want to, there's a big problem they need to address.  We got a hint about this in Flight Test 10 - after two days being scrubbed because of weather, on the third day, the coverage team said if it couldn't launch on that day, they couldn't try again the next day.  The cryogenic fuel and oxidizers were used up and it takes many days worth of deliveries to refill their tanks.  

Let's start with what seems to be a very obvious disconnect here.  SpaceX has spent years and millions on the building called Starfactory, that was designed to produce one Starship per day.  That's nothing short of an astounding number.  Remember the talk before FT-10 about "the machine to build the machine?"  That's Starfactory.  But what about the fuel?

Tanker trucks have typically delivered rocket propellant to launch pads at America's busiest spaceports in Florida and California. SpaceX has used the same method of bringing propellant for the first several years of operations at Starbase.  There are tons of reports that the road to Starbase those tanker trucks take are falling apart with potholes and cracked pavement everywhere. 

But a reusable Starship's scale dwarfs that of other rockets. It stands more than 400 feet tall, with a capacity for more than a million gallons of super-cold liquid methane and liquid oxygen propellants. SpaceX also uses large quantities of liquid nitrogen to chill and purge the propellant loading system for Starship.

It's not just Starship's size. SpaceX has the green light from the Federal Aviation Administration to launch Starships up to 25 times per year from South Texas, and is seeking regulatory approval to fly up to 120 times from new launch pads on Florida's Space Coast. Eventually, SpaceX eyes daily launches of Starship, or even more, as the company deploys a fleet of ships traveling to low-Earth orbit, the Moon, and Mars. 

To accommodate one Starship launch, more than 200 tanker trucks traveling from distant refineries are needed to deliver all of the methane, liquid oxygen, and liquid nitrogen.   Now imagine one launch every hour for a full day.  4,800 trucks?   I'll just say can't be done.  Ain't gonna happen. The answer SpaceX chose is to create their own fuels.

The company recently received approval from local authorities to build an air separation plant across the highway just north of the Starbase launch pads. Construction of the plant began this summer. Once operational, this facility will take in air, condense it, and separate it into oxygen and nitrogen. The resulting liquid oxygen and liquid nitrogen will flow about 1,000 feet through a pipeline into ground storage tanks at the launch site.   

This, of course, is only part of their needs.  There's no mention of fuel (methane).  

The answer to this problem is a pair of methane liquefaction facilities to convert natural gas—initially delivered by truck or a future pipeline—into pure liquid methane, and eventually, a methane generation plant co-located with Starbase's dual launch pads. 
...
A public notice released by the US Army Corps of Engineers on August 27 describes SpaceX's plans, and an accompanying map illustrates the changes coming to the Starbase launch site. 

This map published by the US Army Corps of Engineers shows SpaceX's proposed expansion at Starbase. The launch site's existing footprint is in blue, and SpaceX's proposed expansion is in white. Credit: US Army Corps of Engineers

The plans for the Kennedy Space Center are behind this level of completeness as the launch facilities are behind the Starbase, Texas level of completeness, and the Corps of Engineers is soliciting comments and feedback on the plans.

Plans for Starship's future launch pads in Florida, still undergoing environmental reviews, show SpaceX intends to produce its own propellant there, too. The Army's public notice for SpaceX's plans at Starbase didn't include any details on how the air separation unit and methane liquefaction facility will work. But a draft environmental impact statement published by the Federal Aviation Administration last month lays out how SpaceX will bring the on-site propellant generation capability online at NASA's Kennedy Space Center.

In the interest of keeping this to be a shorter read, I've left out much of the commentary that's in the original story at Ars Technica.  As always, you'll get more details out of the original story than I excerpt.

A New Meeting in Congress to "Save the SLS"

I feel like I should be doing a disclaimer here: I swear I'm not making this up.  While I've regularly referred to the SLS as an abbreviation for the "Shuttles' Leftover Shit" that's a relatively new version of that acronym.  Before that it was known as the "Senate Launch System" - as in "it only exists because enough Senators were bought."  My proof I'm not making this up is the link to Eric Berger's story at Ars Technica.   

All of the original US senators who created and sustained NASA's Space Launch System rocket over the last 15 years—Bill Nelson, Kay Bailey Hutchison, and Richard Shelby—have either retired or failed to win reelection. However, a new champion has emerged to continue the fight: Texas Republican Ted Cruz.  

The only surprising aspect of Ted Cruz taking over to fight to keep SLS is that fact that he's considered to be a conservative, but the bitter truth is that SLS is good for the recipients of the billions of dollars spent on an SLS launch and he's simply doing the same things that Bill Nelson, Kay Bailey Hutchison, Richard Shelby and hundreds of senators down through time have done: he wants to take taxes from people in all 50 states to pay for government programs that benefit only a small percentage of his constituents.  

Now Cruz is taking a position that makes this seem like a small thing.  He's selling it as the only way we can beat China to the moon.   

Earlier this year, Cruz crafted the NASA provision tacked onto President Trump's "One Big, Beautiful Bill," which included $10 billion in funding for key space programs, and in two notable areas directly undermined White House space policy goals.

As part of its fiscal year 2026 budget, the White House sought to end funding for the Space Launch System rocket after the Artemis III mission, and also cancel the Lunar Gateway, an orbital space station that provides a destination for the rocket. The Cruz addendum provided $6.7 billion in funding for two additional SLS missions, Artemis IV and Artemis V, and to continue Gateway construction.  

In various addresses and statements this year, Cruz has emphasized that his priorities for NASA are to beat China to the moon and start permanent settlements there.  I think I can agree with the priorities, it's how he plans to do it that give me heartburn.  I consider every penny spent on SLS to be as close to absolute waste as we can get short of melting them down and throwing out the zinc and while we might need to use SLS for the next launch or two, we can't get rid of SLS fast enough for me.  And by the way, that $6.7 billion for two more Artemis launches probably isn't enough, since a number closer to $4.5 billion per launch is regularly thrown around. 

This week, Cruz will hold a hearing titled, "There’s a Bad Moon on the Rise: Why Congress and NASA Must Thwart China in the Space Race." It is scheduled for 10 am ET on Wednesday.   

If you go to the link in that paragraph, you'll see that while the hearing is scheduled for September 3rd, the rest of the website is dated August 27, the Wednesday before the hearing.  One of the "interesting" developments in who will be attending since that notice is that all attendees who had links to the commercial space world have been dropped or uninvited.  

It's conceivable - though hard to believe - that Ted Cruz thinks NASA is doing this by themselves with the major contractor of SLS, Boeing with no commercial space involvement at all.  He would have to be remarkably uninformed to not realize the both SpaceX with Starship and Blue Origin with their Mark II have been contracted to deliver lunar landers.  Not coincidentally, both Starship and Blue Origin's New Glenn are reusable - unlike SLS.  That means both Starship and New Glenn are likely to be able to launch to the moon more often than SLS, which so far hasn't been able to meet a launch date for its first crewed launch, Artemis 2.  As you'll recall Artemis 1 launched in November of '22, so we're coming up on a three year turnaround and the advertised date is next spring, so more like 3-1/2 years between launches.

Another spaceflight advocacy organization, the Space Frontier Foundation, said it is healthy for Congress to have a robust debate about how the country should compete with China on the Moon. However, to do so, there should be a wide variety of viewpoints.

"The topic of our country’s strategy for competing for this new territory on the Moon, not just for the first footprint but the longer-term impact, is extremely important," said Sean Mahoney, executive director of the foundation. "We need better than just window dressing. We need an honest, realistic discussion about the costs, the risks, and the alternatives. It’s too important for this to just be something that gets a little bit of attention and then pushed through." 

I couldn't agree more.

This is the launch vehicle for Artemis II, photo from their factory in New Orleans before it was shipped to Florida.  One of the Shuttles' Leftover engines had to be replaced, bottom right in this picture.  Image credit: NASA