SpaceX’s Starship Program Just Cleared a Major Hurdle – But Can It Meet Its Ambitious Goals?
SpaceX has finally received the green light to build a Starship launch complex at Space Launch Complex-37 (SLC-37) after completing the required Environmental Impact Statement (EIS). This approval paves the way for a significant expansion of SpaceX’s capabilities, but it also raises questions about the company’s ability to meet its ambitious launch schedule. And this is the part most people miss: while the EIS outlines an impressive 76 Starship launches per year from SLC-37, achieving this frequency will depend on a multitude of factors, from construction timelines to operational efficiency.
The final EIS, available at https://spaceforcestarshipeis.com/, details plans for up to 76 static fires of both ships and boosters annually, supporting the proposed launch cadence. However, these numbers assume every vehicle undergoes a static fire before flight—a practice unlikely to continue as the program matures, similar to SpaceX’s Falcon 9 operations. At maximum capacity, this would mean 152 landings at SLC-37 each year, split evenly between day and night. SpaceX has also factored in a 20% scrub rate to account for weather, ground, or vehicle issues.
But here's where it gets controversial: while the EIS accounts for ship and booster landings primarily at the launch site, it leaves open the possibility of expended missions and drone ship landings. Critics argue that SpaceX’s current lack of infrastructure for drone ship landings—such as a dedicated drone ship or oil rig—could limit the program’s flexibility. What do you think? Is SpaceX biting off more than it can chew, or is this a calculated risk worth taking? Let us know in the comments.
SLC-37 marks only the second launch pad location approved for Starship operations, with LC-39A’s EIS still in the post-draft phase. Construction at SLC-37 has already begun, starting with the demolition of the old SLC-37B pad used for Delta IV Heavy. With the site cleared, SpaceX is set to build the foundations for two launch towers, beginning with Continuous Flight Auger (CFA) piles for the tower base and flame trench. Once the pile cap cures, SpaceX will likely use its speed core design—hollow steel walls filled with concrete—for the tower base, similar to Pad 2 at Starbase.
And this is the part most people miss: while the EIS estimates construction will take 12 months, SpaceX’s experience with Pad 2 at Starbase—which has taken over 20 months and is still ongoing—suggests this timeline may be overly optimistic. Building two full launch pads and a tank farm in a year is a monumental task. If construction begins in Q1 2026, SpaceX could have four or five operational Starship launch pads by Q2 or Q3 2027, alongside two Gigabays and two Starfactories at both Starbase and Roberts Road.
The tank farm at SLC-37 is another critical component, with a storage capacity of approximately 16,500 tons of Liquid Oxygen (LOX), 6,500 tons of Liquid Nitrogen (LN2), and 5,000 tons of Liquid Methane (LCH4). This is about 2.5 launches’ worth of propellant—twice the capacity at Starbase. To streamline operations, SpaceX will build a Methane Liquifier and Natural Gas area to produce methane on-site, as well as an Air Separation Unit (ASU) to extract and purify oxygen, nitrogen, and argon from the atmosphere.
One notable omission from the site plan is the catch towers, landing pads, and ship static fire stands, which will likely be added later. The final EIS also includes a mapped breakdown of leased areas, with SpaceX gaining additional land around the horizontal integration facility for future infrastructure.
As SpaceX moves forward, the company must finalize its lease with the Space Force and secure a vehicle operator’s license to begin launches. With these pieces in place, SLC-37 will play a pivotal role in supporting America’s national security and Artemis goals. But the question remains: can SpaceX meet its ambitious timeline and launch cadence? Only time will tell. What’s your take? Share your thoughts below!
