Parcel 2 and 3 are owned by county and state. They can get them when needed.
Quote from: guckyfan on 08/31/2014 01:35 pmParcel 2 and 3 are owned by county and state. They can get them when needed.Parcel 3 is private property
Parcel 1 has changed since this was written. Parcel 1 has grown from 4 acres to 9.5 acres.
Quote from: Dave G on 08/31/2014 01:28 pmParcel 1 has changed since this was written. Parcel 1 has grown from 4 acres to 9.5 acres. Since the Final EIS?
Quote from: kamilfredo on 08/30/2014 07:32 pmQuote from: Scylla on 08/30/2014 06:55 pmThe New Residents: Renovation planned for house linked to SpaceXhttp://www.valleymorningstar.com/news/local_news/article_1a1b2c44-2fef-11e4-aa5d-0017a43b2370.htmlStart of SpaceX employee housing?Here is that place from the photo...https://www.google.com/maps/@25.992313,-97.182783,3a,75y,88.89h,90t/data=!3m4!1e1!3m2!1sus-PJ_5ttHN5ITte7UEYOw!2e0If there are renovations. maybe there are plans.. but really I don't think this house will the launch control, so maybe we should just leave it as housing .. and find something more exciting
Quote from: Scylla on 08/30/2014 06:55 pmThe New Residents: Renovation planned for house linked to SpaceXhttp://www.valleymorningstar.com/news/local_news/article_1a1b2c44-2fef-11e4-aa5d-0017a43b2370.htmlStart of SpaceX employee housing?Here is that place from the photo...https://www.google.com/maps/@25.992313,-97.182783,3a,75y,88.89h,90t/data=!3m4!1e1!3m2!1sus-PJ_5ttHN5ITte7UEYOw!2e0
The New Residents: Renovation planned for house linked to SpaceXhttp://www.valleymorningstar.com/news/local_news/article_1a1b2c44-2fef-11e4-aa5d-0017a43b2370.htmlStart of SpaceX employee housing?
Dogleg Park LLC picked up an additional five lots, adding to the 75 tracts of land that it now owns at and around the proposed launch site and control center. The added acreage hikes its ownership to more than 100 acres of land.
"There are a lot of regulations and clearances and restrictions, which I think hinders the processing of commercial satellites here," Wade said in an interview at Cape Canaveral ..."Even though our processing has gone well, it's not been without some frustrations from the various teams just having to deal with some of the bureaucracy of the government in working at the Cape," Wade said. "Unfortunately, I think that's one of the reasons that SpaceX is looking at doing commercial launches on their own satellite base down in Texas."
The tight launch trajectory envelope out of Brownsville does not bode well for flexible operations. Rendezvous in LEO will be possible only for satellites near 26.3° inclination. Reaching GEO will be practical, but launch windows targeting cislunar and interplanetary destinations will be only a handful of minutes in duration. Because some interplanetary destinations require launch into LEO at inclinations considerably greater than 26.3° [Ref. 2, Figure 5], initiating those missions from Brownsville will not be practical. At times, destinations like Mars will be unavailable to Brownsville launches without propulsive penalties or transit delays. Other launch locations would not be subject to those penalties or delays.In conclusion, the decision to launch rockets from the vicinity of Brownsville, Texas targeting destinations in LEO and beyond appears highly problematic if historic range safety standards apply. Some of these standards appear to be absent from considerations documented in the FAA's environmental impact statement for this launch site. At best, full assessment of range safety standards would permit only a narrow range of departure ground tracks from Brownsville at inclinations to Earth's equator near 26.3°.
Wow! The conclusion of Adamo's range safety issues paper raises a number of troubling questions.QuoteThe tight launch trajectory envelope out of Brownsville does not bode well for flexible operations. Rendezvous in LEO will be possible only for satellites near 26.3° inclination. Reaching GEO will be practical, but launch windows targeting cislunar and interplanetary destinations will be only a handful of minutes in duration. Because some interplanetary destinations require launch into LEO at inclinations considerably greater than 26.3° [Ref. 2, Figure 5], initiating those missions from Brownsville will not be practical. At times, destinations like Mars will be unavailable to Brownsville launches without propulsive penalties or transit delays. Other launch locations would not be subject to those penalties or delays.In conclusion, the decision to launch rockets from the vicinity of Brownsville, Texas targeting destinations in LEO and beyond appears highly problematic if historic range safety standards apply. Some of these standards appear to be absent from considerations documented in the FAA's environmental impact statement for this launch site. At best, full assessment of range safety standards would permit only a narrow range of departure ground tracks from Brownsville at inclinations to Earth's equator near 26.3°.
Wow! The conclusion of Adamo's range safety issues paper raises a number of troubling questions.QuoteThe tight launch trajectory envelope out of Brownsville does not bode well for flexible operations. Rendezvous in LEO will be possible only for satellites near 26.3° inclination. Reaching GEO will be practical, but launch windows targeting cislunar and interplanetary destinations will be only a handful of minutes in duration. Because some interplanetary destinations require launch into LEO at inclinations considerably greater than 26.3° [Ref. 2, Figure 5], initiating those missions from Brownsville will not be practical. At times, destinations like Mars will be unavailable to Brownsville launches without propulsive penalties or transit delays. Other launch locations would not be subject to those penalties or delays.In conclusion, the decision to launch rockets from the vicinity of Brownsville, Texas targeting destinations in LEO and beyond appears highly problematic if historic range safety standards apply. Some of these standards appear to be absent from considerations documented in the FAA's environmental impact statement for this launch site. At best, full assessment of range safety standards would permit only a narrow range of departure ground tracks from Brownsville at inclinations to Earth's equator near 26.3°.Presumably, SpaceX considered these issues before signing onto the Brownsville site. What would be their justification for choosing Brownsville if range safety will dramatically restrict their launch trajectory options?
SpaceX optimise for cost, not performance.
Quote from: IslandPlaya on 09/08/2014 08:43 pmSpaceX optimise for cost, not performance.I understand, but if range safety drastically limits what missions they can launch from Brownsville, won't that cut into their revenue significantly?
They have been clear that Brownsville is only for GEO missions.
Quote from: billh on 09/08/2014 08:45 pmThey have been clear that Brownsville is only for GEO missions.Ah. Perhaps that explains it. Odd that the author wouldn't have known that; else, why would he have written this paper, which looks at launches to LEO.