NASASpaceFlight.com Forum
SpaceX Vehicles and Missions => SpaceX Early Days Archive Section => Topic started by: Zond on 04/09/2012 03:19 pm
-
The FAA is preparing an EIS to analyze the potential environmental impacts of SpaceX’s proposal to launch orbital and suborbital launch vehicles from a private site in Cameron County in southern Texas. The EIS will consider the potential environmental impacts of the Proposed Action and reasonable alternatives, including the No Action Alternative. The successful completion of the environmental review process does not guarantee that the FAA would issue launch licenses and/or experimental permits to SpaceX. The project must also meet all FAA safety, risk, and indemnification requirements.
https://s3.amazonaws.com/public-inspection.federalregister.gov/2012-08556.pdf (https://s3.amazonaws.com/public-inspection.federalregister.gov/2012-08556.pdf)
As part of the Proposed Action, SpaceX proposes to construct a vertical launch area and a control center area. The proposed vertical launch area site is currently undeveloped and is located directly adjacent to the eastern terminus of Texas State Highway 4 (Boca Chica Boulevard) and approximately 3 miles north of the Mexican border on the Gulf Coast. It is located approximately 5 miles south of Port Isabel and South Padre Island. At the vertical launch area, the new facilities required would include: an integration- and processing-hangar, a launch pad and stand with its associated flame duct, propellant storage and handling areas, a workshop and office area, and a warehouse for parts storage.
Approximate location (http://maps.google.com/maps?hl=en&ll=26.001716,-97.160683&spn=0.097972,0.161362&t=h&z=13)
-
Falcon 9 and Falcon Heavy from a Texas launch site. There you go, I guess that was the answer we were waiting for as far as a third launch site. I'm sure this will be breaking news in the Texas media.
-
Reading between the lines of the pdf, I think the primary motivation for this launch site is to create a safe test area for grasshopper and other suborbital research derivatives.
Being similar to the F9 first stage, the infrastructure required for grasshopper tests is probably pretty similar to a full launch complex anyway, so laying the groundwork for full scale launchers later on is probably just an investment for the future.
Grasshopper or its successors will have significant range. I think everyone would prefer that it is tested out over the gulf of Mexico where any mishap is a whole lot safer than over land. This Texas coastal site allows SpaceX to do this.
I'd conclude that actually launching F9 and F9H from Texas is an afterthought for the time being.
-
Falcon 9 and Falcon Heavy from a Texas launch site. There you go, I guess that was the answer we were waiting for as far as a third launch site. I'm sure this will be breaking news in the Texas media.
You are overblowing this. It is just an assessment.
-
Reading the pdf I agree that this is about Grasshopper. BUT I would not call the F9/FH part an afterthought. Seems to be fully orbital infrastructure from the start.
But it is also clear that Grasshopper will fly from this site only.
-
Falcon 9 and Falcon Heavy from a Texas launch site. There you go, I guess that was the answer we were waiting for as far as a third launch site. I'm sure this will be breaking news in the Texas media.
You are overblowing this. It is just an assessment.
So how many assessments did SpaceX have that were not followed by "action"?
-
You are overblowing this. It is just an assessment.
So how many assessments did SpaceX have that were not followed by "action"?
They did an environmental assessment for flying the Falcon 9 from Kwajalein.
-
Should be nice launch views from South Padre Island.
-
This has to have been looked at before by other entities. Was there a consensus on how Range Safety would be handled, and by whom?
-
This has to have been looked at before by other entities. Was there a consensus on how Range Safety would be handled, and by whom?
By Spacex, it is their launch site. They just have to follow FAA rules.
-
You are overblowing this. It is just an assessment.
So how many assessments did SpaceX have that were not followed by "action"?
They did an environmental assessment for flying the Falcon 9 from Kwajalein.
Falcon 1 from SLC-3.
Then there is Falcon 5, Falcon-1E.
-
Falcon 9 and Falcon Heavy from a Texas launch site. There you go, I guess that was the answer we were waiting for as far as a third launch site. I'm sure this will be breaking news in the Texas media.
You are overblowing this. It is just an assessment.
So how many assessments did SpaceX have that were not followed by "action"?
Uh, Wallops.
-
Reading the pdf I agree that this is about Grasshopper. BUT I would not call the F9/FH part an afterthought. Seems to be fully orbital infrastructure from the start.
But it is also clear that Grasshopper will fly from this site only.
The document mentions a capsule but does not mention passengers, so for the moment this is cargo only.
-
But it is also clear that Grasshopper will fly from this site only.
I assume you mean above 11500 feet. They are planning to do flights from MacGregor with Grasshopper that go up to that height.
It also says a variety of suborbital vehicles. Not limited to just grasshopper.
"Up to 12 per year." My impression is that this includes sub-orbital flights based on the wording.
What advantages does this location have over Vandenberg and the Cape (from an orbital mechanics point of view) if any?
-
If they called it the KBH Spaceport, would she still hate them?
-
So flying the F9/FH East from South Texas. Any guess if the flight path is North or South of Cuba? My guess is the Southern route.
-
There's a ~225x75 meter pad beside TX 4 at 25.983 N, 97.190 W with what might be scorch marks. I wonder if the area was ever used for rocketry in past years.
-
So flying the F9/FH East from South Texas. Any guess if the flight path is North or South of Cuba? My guess is the Southern route.
Does anyone know at what distance the F9 1st stage hit the ocean at the first 2 launches?
-
I was wondering how many oil rigs / drilling platforms are located in that area of the gulf. Those guys are not going to want to move every time SpaceX wants to launch.
How many tropical storms / huricanes hit that part of the coast ? Probably 1 or 2 per year, right ? Just the chance of a big storm would shutdown operations.
-
Possible oil platform employee waiver? Or possible political solution?
-
Possible oil platform employee waiver? Or possible political solution?
It's not the employees I worry about. It's the ability to stop the flow of oil /gas into the Gulf ecosystem. Especially if they are using the pad for test launches, there is be an increase likely hood of something bad happening with an early prototype. Perhaps a flyback that doesn't quite back it all the way back.
-
It's not the employees I worry about. It's the ability to stop the flow of oil /gas into the Gulf ecosystem. Especially if they are using the pad for test launches, there is be an increase likely hood of something bad happening with an early prototype. Perhaps a flyback that doesn't quite back it all the way back.
Let me allay those fears for you. The shut-off valves are at the bottom of the ocean. There are much more robust procedures and regulations in place since the BP Macondo blowout which stemmed from a much more risky operation than temporarily shutting in production would be. Every active well in the GOM is equiped for this.
It is the cost of shutting in production for a launch window that is more likely to be prohibitive of such an option.
-
If the boosters are flying back, then the rigs will be less of an issue. Might be able to thread a path between them anyways. Or get out where its too deep for drilling.
If, if, if
-
If, if, if
I'll grant that this proposal is not what I was hoping to see. Consider some wind knocked out of my sails.
Still. In terms of how these things work: When you get a site assessment done, does it more or less tell you what the upper limits would be (in terms of frequency, size, etc.)?
Is the answer they get back more like: "Yup. You can do that."
or do they get info that indicates potential for growth such as:
"Well, your proposal is for 12 flights/year, and of rockets less than 230 feet tall. Our cumulative impact analysis suggests that 100 flights/year below 130 decibels when heard from 8 miles distance is permissible, and you can launch and/or land rockets up to 500 feet tall. Since you are below our allowable maximum's by a factor of X and Y and Z, you may do as you propose here."
-
More of the assessment is environmental: water useage, drainage, land useage, wildlife impacts, waste stream management, impacts from accidents, etc. Sound is a minor aspect.
think of a drilling permit at a virgin site.
-
http://www.spacenews.com/launch/120409-details-spacex-texas-site.html
Details about a launch facility Space Exploration Technologies Corp. (SpaceX) is considering building in Texas emerged April 9 in a Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) document detailing an environmental review that must precede construction.
The proposed launch site would be used “to launch orbital and suborbital launch vehicles from a private site in Cameron County in southern Texas,” according to the FAA’s notice of its intent to prepare an environmental impact statement. All launches from the proposed spaceport would fly east over the Gulf of Mexico, the document said.
The proposed facility would be built to handle up to 12 commercial launches a year and would support SpaceX’s Falcon 9 medium rocket and the company’s planned Falcon Heavy launcher for which SpaceX has no paying customers. Falcon 9 launches from the proposed facility would include launches of the Dragon space capsule, which SpaceX plans to begin launching this year from Cape Canaveral Air Force Station, Fla., to fly cargo to the international space station under a $1.6 billion contract with NASA.
The FAA document is to be printed in the federal register on April 10, according to a prepublication copy posted on federalregister.gov.
Besides orbital spacecraft, the Texas site would also support “a variety of smaller reusable suborbital launch vehicles,” the document said. That could include SpaceX’s Grasshopper vehicle, a test bed for reusable rocket stages comprising a Falcon 9 core stage fitted with landing gear.
-
There's a ~225x75 meter pad beside TX 4 at 25.983 N, 97.190 W with what might be scorch marks. I wonder if the area was ever used for rocketry in past years.
C-O-N-E-S-T-O-G-A?
;)
Maybe you're not old enough to remember. Oh well, you young ones
are fresh blood needed for the advancement of space travel.
-
There's a ~225x75 meter pad beside TX 4 at 25.983 N, 97.190 W with what might be scorch marks. I wonder if the area was ever used for rocketry in past years.
If they launch from there north-bound for the ISS they would fly right over Weems St and all the houses there. 8-)
That has got to be one of the strangest locations for a suburban American neighborhood. The launch pad wouldn't be in the middle of nowhere because the neighborhood already is.
-
There's a ~225x75 meter pad beside TX 4 at 25.983 N, 97.190 W with what might be scorch marks. I wonder if the area was ever used for rocketry in past years.
If they launch from there north-bound for the ISS they would fly right over Weems St and all the houses there. 8-)
That has got to be one of the strangest locations for a suburban American neighborhood. The launch pad wouldn't be in the middle of nowhere because the neighborhood already is.
The FAA PDF did say flights Eastward toward the Gulf of Mexico for GSO comsats. Think ISS flights will still fly from CCAFS.
-
Does anyone know at what distance the F9 1st stage hit the ocean at the first 2 launches?
About 400 miles, IIRC.
Edit: After checking again, F9-001 1st stage reportedly impacted about 700 miles out.
-
Heh, about as far south as you can get and still be "Texas"...
-
Long as Los Zetas doesn't start taking pot shots across the border with .50 BMG's or Barrett's ::)
-
"The BEDC has been working with Gov. Rick Perry’s office and SpaceX in luring the company to South Texas. Should the company decide to build such a launch site in Brownsville, it could cut the area’s unemployment rate by at least 1 percent, Salinas said".
http://www.themonitor.com/news/space-60007-brownsville-south.html
-
remember this is an assessment--could be used as a chip to get better terms at the cape or the west coast...
-
If SpaceX develops a South Texas launch site. Where would they locate the tracking posts for GSO comsat flights? And how many posts are required?
-
If SpaceX develops a South Texas launch site. Where would they locate the tracking posts for GSO comsat flights? And how many posts are required?
None, other than those at the launch site and TDRSS. See Sealaunch.
-
remember this is an assessment--could be used as a chip to get better terms at the cape or the west coast...
With who? The ranges? They have no incentive either way. The states (FL & CA)? They only can supply money but they have no means to affect operations.
-
What is the advantage of Texas? Why not another pad at the Cape?
-
Also, why another pad? Seems to me to be a bit premature as they are not able to utilize the capacity of the pad the have yet. Don't get me wrong I am not anti Space X. I hope to see them launching in FL, Virginia, VAFB etc. It's just that I wish they would spend the money the would spend on another launch site on an abort system for Dragon so the US can start flying again.
-
It's just that I wish they would spend the money the would spend on another launch site on an abort system for Dragon so the US can start flying again.
Yeah, that's what's holding Dragon Rider back. ::)
-
Also, why another pad? Seems to me to be a bit premature as they are not able to utilize the capacity of the pad the have yet.
Let's say, for the sake of argument, that Elon is convinced that he will achieve a very high flight rate in say...2015-2016 (http://www.spacex.com/launch_manifest.php). It might concern him that both of his major launch sites are closely controlled by the government and have never been geared towards high flight rates. Given that part of the equation of building trust with prospective clients is to give them a high degree of confidence that their payload will launch on schedule, it behooves him to take steps to guarantee that he can fit all the launches through the pipeline. To ensure that he has access to a launch location on the schedule he wants, he might want access to a location he controls.
So if the above is true, and there is no existing launch location that he feels meets his needs, ask yourself how far in advance he'd need to get the ball rolling on a completely virgin site with things like an environmental review, in order for that site to be completely ready to launch from in the timeframe he wants it.
Something like this isn't about their current launch volume, it is about him trying to arc the development of resources towards being ready in time to meet what he believes the need will be at some point in the future.
-
It would interesting if the talk of a Texas launch pad is only intended to soothe the criticisms from Kay Baily.
-
If that's the case it's a blunder of epic size. This story is now on almost every space news website and it's being picked up by Texas news organizations. It's one thing to be denied by the legislative process but, to call such a massive bluff would be an embarrassment to both SpaceX and Texas legislators. Remember, Governor Perry himself is helping to pitch this.
-
But then, maybe the point is to get the Texas state government on SpaceX's side to counter the Republicans in Congress who want to kill all private space endeavors.
Even though he blew the Presidential candidacy, Perry and Texas are still big players in the Republican party, so maybe Musk is trying to at least get some dissension within the party to give SpaceX a chance to compete. Otherwise, if they can lock out all commercial crew access to the ISS, it's going to be very difficult for anyone except traditional government contractors to be involved in manned space anytime soon.
-
What is the advantage of Texas? Why not another pad at the Cape?
As much as I feel like I'm missing something obvious by asking this question, is it less energy to land a stage in Florida than to perform a retrograde maneuver and go back to Texas? Kind of seems like it would be.
-
That location could make the recovery of RLV first stages and boosters easier.
The first stage from the first F9 launch crashed at 32 deg 07'N, 069 deg 15'W, about 1,160 km from the Cape.
A similar trajectory from the proposed new site go past Louisiana and ends some 100 km short of north Florida.
Not having to come all the way back to the launch pad would save a fair amount of delta-v.
-
"But then, maybe the point is to get the Texas state government on SpaceX's side to counter the Republicans in Congress who want to kill all private space endeavors.
Even though he blew the Presidential candidacy, Perry and Texas are still big players in the Republican party, so maybe Musk is trying to at least get some dissension within the party to give SpaceX a chance to compete. Otherwise, if they can lock out all commercial crew access to the ISS, it's going to be very difficult for anyone except traditional government contractors to be involved in manned space anytime soon".
Once again, the process of trying to develop a spaceport in Texas is no bluff. You don't involve these type of government officials in a bluff. This is serious business. It may not go SpaceX's way and they may be denied by the process or they may withdraw to go another way but, you don't bluff these type of people especially when you are already doing business at McGregor.
-
That location could make the recovery of RLV first stages and boosters easier.
The first stage from the first F9 launch crashed at 32 deg 07'N, 069 deg 15'W, about 1,160 km from the Cape.
A similar trajectory from the proposed new site go past Louisiana and ends some 100 km short of north Florida.
Not having to come all the way back to the launch pad would save a fair amount of delta-v.
If the trajectory works out, that would be a brilliant plan. I've always thought that the grasshopper concept would be more feasible if it launched from point A, landed downrange at point B, and was shipped back rather than being able to fly back to point A.
The only problem is that you need to find a launch site that launches over water until 'point B'. A Texas-Florida combo might be able to offer that.
Granted, it's pure speculation right now, but you get nowhere without dreaming first.
-The Optimistic Jim
-
Let's all try and keep politics out of this, or else the thread will go downhill fast, and would have to be moved to Space Policy.
-
Do we know, where the other two launch site proposals are? As claimed in the article http://www.themonitor.com/news/space-60007-brownsville-south.html it's one on Puerto Rico and one in Florida.
-
Does anyone know at what distance the F9 1st stage hit the ocean at the first 2 launches?
NASA Watch (http://nasawatch.com/archives/2010/06/falcon-9-nails.html) put the impact point of the June 2010 launch roughly 1150 km from the launch pad.
-
There's a moderate chance I'll be able to get to the hearing in Brownsville on May 15. Any suggestions for questions I should have ready in case the opportunity to ask them arises?
-
There's a moderate chance I'll be able to get to the hearing in Brownsville on May 15. Any suggestions for questions I should have ready in case the opportunity to ask them arises?
1) Potential for expansion from 12/year.
2) Potential for landing dragon or reusable stages from operational missions.
3) Potential for tourism (orbital or suborbital) from there eventually.
-
"But then, maybe the point is to get the Texas state government on SpaceX's side to counter the Republicans in Congress who want to kill all private space endeavors.
Even though he blew the Presidential candidacy, Perry and Texas are still big players in the Republican party, so maybe Musk is trying to at least get some dissension within the party to give SpaceX a chance to compete. Otherwise, if they can lock out all commercial crew access to the ISS, it's going to be very difficult for anyone except traditional government contractors to be involved in manned space anytime soon".
Once again, the process of trying to develop a spaceport in Texas is no bluff. You don't involve these type of government officials in a bluff. This is serious business. It may not go SpaceX's way and they may be denied by the process or they may withdraw to go another way but, you don't bluff these type of people especially when you are already doing business at McGregor.
You are really off base here. From the committee hearings that I have listened to, they are the most bi-partisan group around. The arguments in the hearings aren't divided among party lines. The arguments are both parties and both houses of Congress trying to get the Administration to follow the plan that all parties argreed to.
No need to sweet-talk Rick Perry. I don't think he would really care, unless you built it next to his favorite hunting lodge.
I assume you do need to get it past all of the federal regulators. I have no idea how compliant they will be. Someone might see a wildlife refuge 100 miles away, and refuse to give a permit because we have to protect some rare breed of mosquito. Or perhaps, SpaceX has lobbied with the correct people in Washington, and the review process will go thru quickly. You can never tell.
-
That location could make the recovery of RLV first stages and boosters easier.
The first stage from the first F9 launch crashed at 32 deg 07'N, 069 deg 15'W, about 1,160 km from the Cape.
A similar trajectory from the proposed new site go past Louisiana and ends some 100 km short of north Florida.
Not having to come all the way back to the launch pad would save a fair amount of delta-v.
I had the same thought. There are also a lot of oil rigs in the Gulf, presumably some that are at or near the end of their economic life and might be available for a very reasonable price. Given the length of the stage ground track, there should be a lot of choices.
Doing any kind of ballistic flight terminating anywhere near a populated area to effect a stage recovery still seems to me a very difficult proposal to get government(s) approvals for. Beyond formal approvals, there's the question of what popular opinion would be like. One close call or accident which resulted in a fireball anywhere near a town could shut the whole operation down permanently.
OTOH, landing at sea would both minimize the delta v and greatly simplify the approval process and public opposition I'd think. A failed landing would just make a splash.
A successfully recovered stage would also wind up at a good location for return to the launch site by ship.
-
Someone might see a wildlife refuge 100 miles away, and refuse to give a permit because we have to protect some rare breed of mosquito.
In Alberta, if everything else looks good, a blessing from the government is a lot more likely and speedy if companies make proactive promises. "We'll hire some biologists and implement their suggestions for minimally disturbing Caribou breeding." or "We'll exceed such and such portion of the regulations by X." or "Our reclaimation plan will include an increase in b ull-trout habitat of X%".
Would something proactive like sponsoring an on-site Bolson Tortoise and Bactrian Camel rewilding conservatory be likely to sway environmental approvers down there?
-
To get to KSC, you would be overflying Tampa and Orlando from the looks of it.
The good news is the stage would be nearly empty of propellants. Compared to what flies in and out of Orlando International fuel-wise, it would be very minimal. I agree it would be better to recover them on the west coast of Florida somewhere first but with sufficient flight experience, I do not see why recovery at KSC should be ruled out.
That location could make the recovery of RLV first stages and boosters easier.
The first stage from the first F9 launch crashed at 32 deg 07'N, 069 deg 15'W, about 1,160 km from the Cape.
A similar trajectory from the proposed new site go past Louisiana and ends some 100 km short of north Florida.
Not having to come all the way back to the launch pad would save a fair amount of delta-v.
I had the same thought. There are also a lot of oil rigs in the Gulf, presumably some that are at or near the end of their economic life and might be available for a very reasonable price. Given the length of the stage ground track, there should be a lot of choices.
Doing any kind of ballistic flight terminating anywhere near a populated area to effect a stage recovery still seems to me a very difficult proposal to get government(s) approvals for. Beyond formal approvals, there's the question of what popular opinion would be like. One close call or accident which resulted in a fireball anywhere near a town could shut the whole operation down permanently.
OTOH, landing at sea would both minimize the delta v and greatly simplify the approval process and public opposition I'd think. A failed landing would just make a splash.
A successfully recovered stage would also wind up at a good location for return to the launch site by ship.
-
"Sufficient flight experience" would have to be in the hundreds of sequential successful flights to consider allowing something like over-flight of a city like that. Not impossible, yet pretty darned difficult.
-
Yeah, I doubt there are any real environmental showstoppers if they've gotten this far. And the SpaceX pads so far have been pretty low-impact as launch pads go.
And just to document the numbers they're talking in the FAA request: up to twelve F9 or FH launches per year, not more than two of them FH, all of them commercial. I'm going to guess that that means they only think they can do one launch per month at CCAFS, and if they need more, Texas is for the overflow commercial sats. Optimistic, but not wildly so; Delta II had a number of years when it flew more than twelve times.
-
The impacts have to look at spacecraft processing.
The existing pads were low impact because they used existing facilities.
Delta II was supporting GPS/Iridium/Globalstar constellation build ups. No equivalent build up exists now.
-
Iridium is replacing its constellation with SpaceX as the provider. There are others as well.
R7 had/has a high launch rate partially because it did/does Salyut/Mir/ISS logistics. Falcon 9 does that, too, and Delta II never did that.
-
Iridium is replacing its constellation with SpaceX as the provider. There are others as well.
But Texas is not a very good location for the Iridium buildup. They will most likely fly from Vandenberg. Actually most LEO constellations will most likely require a high inclinations and will be better serviced by a Vandenberg pad.
<Yes, I know, Orbcomm can and will launch from Florida >
-
A successfully recovered stage would also wind up at a good location for return to the launch site by ship.
Speaking of such things and probably getting way ahead of where we should be, what would the logistics supporting the Boca Chica site be, in particular how to get the Falcon stages there?
My guess would be by truck from California, I-10 -> I-37 -> US 77 -> US 77/83 -> TX 4. But the Port of Brownsville is right there too, as is KBRO with a 2250 meter runway.
-
A successfully recovered stage would also wind up at a good location for return to the launch site by ship.
Speaking of such things and probably getting way ahead of where we should be, what would the logistics supporting the Boca Chica site be, in particular how to get the Falcon stages there?
My guess would be by truck from California, I-10 -> I-37 -> US 77 -> US 77/83 -> TX 4. But the Port of Brownsville is right there too, as is KBRO with a 2250 meter runway.
The stages would be coming from Waco, not CA.
-
There's a moderate chance I'll be able to get to the hearing in Brownsville on May 15. Any suggestions for questions I should have ready in case the opportunity to ask them arises?
The projected flight path for F9/FH and the disposal area for the spend 1st stages.
-
McGregor to Port Isabel: I-35 South - > I-37 South -> US-77 South.
-
There's a moderate chance I'll be able to get to the hearing in Brownsville on May 15. Any suggestions for questions I should have ready in case the opportunity to ask them arises?
The projected flight path for F9/FH and the disposal area for the spend 1st stages.
I think their answer would probably be that they'll land intact at the launch site.
-
McGregor to Port Isabel: I-35 South - > I-37 South -> US-77 South.
Or possibly:
I-35 -> I-410 -> I-37 -> US-281/I-69 Corridor -> US-82 -> TX-4
I drive that route probably twice a year to visit relatives in Edinburg.
By the way, when looking at the area in Google Maps, I see Boca Chica State Park, Las Palomas Wildlife Management Area, South Bay, Boca Chica Bay, and Brazos Island State Park. So where exactly is the private land that SpaceX wants to purchase for this space launch facility? I don't see it. It all looks like public land to me.
Mark S.
-
McGregor to Port Isabel: I-35 South - > I-37 South -> US-77 South.
I think their answer would probably be that they'll land intact at the launch site.
8) From MacGregor. ;)
-
Would Mexico's government have a say in this? Launch activity here looks like it would affect access to areas (waterways specifically) on both sides of the border.
1) Why would the waterways in Mexico be affected?
2) I bet some crafty Mexican's will set up bleachers. 3 miles from launch would be great viewing!
3) I hope there are SpaceX bleachers even closer! Like "waiver required" distances...
-
So where exactly is the private land that SpaceX wants to purchase for this space launch facility? I don't see it. It all looks like public land to me.
Don't know the ownership, but there's a dark tadpole-shaped area (25.998 N, 97.167 W) north of TX 4 that fits the location and already has some houses and other structures built on the west end of it. I'll try to get out that way next month and see what's there.
-
Would Mexico's government have a say in this? Launch activity here looks like it would affect access to areas (waterways specifically) on both sides of the border.
- Ed Kyle
Well, I trust there will be due discussions and won't be surprised if someone from the Mexican Consulate in Brownsville shows up at the May 15 meeting. But it's not as if Mexico has any very major ports in the area and the matter can probably be handled by existing IMO and ICAO procedures (i.e., issue NOTAMs, maybe send some Coast Guard boats out to shoo away fishermen who haven't gotten the message).
-
If the boosters are flying back, then the rigs will be less of an issue. Might be able to thread a path between them anyways. Or get out where its too deep for drilling.
If, if, if
Jim: think you said it better in another thread.
SpaceX has enough on their plate.
-
So where exactly is the private land that SpaceX wants to purchase for this space launch facility? I don't see it. It all looks like public land to me.
Don't know the ownership, but there's a dark tadpole-shaped area (25.998 N, 97.167 W) north of TX 4 that fits the location and already has some houses and other structures built on the west end of it. I'll try to get out that way next month and see what's there.
Only 6 permanent residents according to http://wikimapia.org/#lat=25.9905786&lon=-97.1833691&z=14&l=0&m=b&v=8&show=/11437064/Boca-Chica-Village-Formerly-Kopernik-Shores (http://wikimapia.org/#lat=25.9905786&lon=-97.1833691&z=14&l=0&m=b&v=8&show=/11437064/Boca-Chica-Village-Formerly-Kopernik-Shores)
-
That location could make the recovery of RLV first stages and boosters easier.
The first stage from the first F9 launch crashed at 32 deg 07'N, 069 deg 15'W, about 1,160 km from the Cape.
A similar trajectory from the proposed new site go past Louisiana and ends some 100 km short of north Florida.
Not having to come all the way back to the launch pad would save a fair amount of delta-v.
I had the same thought. There are also a lot of oil rigs in the Gulf, presumably some that are at or near the end of their economic life and might be available for a very reasonable price. Given the length of the stage ground track, there should be a lot of choices.
This could potentially result in patent problems between SpaceX and Blue Origin:
http://www.techflash.com/seattle/2011/01/how-to-catch-a-rocket-booster-jeff.html
http://appft1.uspto.gov/netacgi/nph-Parser?Sect1=PTO1&Sect2=HITOFF&d=PG01&p=1&u=%2Fnetahtml%2FPTO%2Fsrchnum.html&r=1&f=G&l=50&s1=%2220110017872%22.PGNR.&OS=DN/20110017872&RS=DN/2011001782
http://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=10685.msg685289#msg685289
-
Would Mexico's government have a say in this? Launch activity here looks like it would affect access to areas (waterways specifically) on both sides of the border.
- Ed Kyle
Well, I trust there will be due discussions and won't be surprised if someone from the Mexican Consulate in Brownsville shows up at the May 15 meeting. But it's not as if Mexico has any very major ports in the area and the matter can probably be handled by existing IMO and ICAO procedures (i.e., issue NOTAMs, maybe send some Coast Guard boats out to shoo away fishermen who haven't gotten the message).
Will SpaceX reimburse the Coast Guard for their services ? Who is guarding the border only 3 miles away, if they are busy chasing gawkers and fishing boats from down range ?
-
It is just an assessment.
So how many assessments did SpaceX have that were not followed by "action"?
Uh, Wallops.
So uhhh... What's the story on SpaceX's involvement with Wallops? I really would like them to launch F-9 from there.
I have selfish reasons: It's a much easier drive for me, than to, say, Kwaj...
-
That location could make the recovery of RLV first stages and boosters easier.
The first stage from the first F9 launch crashed at 32 deg 07'N, 069 deg 15'W, about 1,160 km from the Cape.
A similar trajectory from the proposed new site go past Louisiana and ends some 100 km short of north Florida.
Not having to come all the way back to the launch pad would save a fair amount of delta-v.
I had the same thought. There are also a lot of oil rigs in the Gulf, presumably some that are at or near the end of their economic life and might be available for a very reasonable price. Given the length of the stage ground track, there should be a lot of choices.
This could potentially result in patent problems between SpaceX and Blue Origin:
http://www.techflash.com/seattle/2011/01/how-to-catch-a-rocket-booster-jeff.html
http://appft1.uspto.gov/netacgi/nph-Parser?Sect1=PTO1&Sect2=HITOFF&d=PG01&p=1&u=%2Fnetahtml%2FPTO%2Fsrchnum.html&r=1&f=G&l=50&s1=%2220110017872%22.PGNR.&OS=DN/20110017872&RS=DN/2011001782
http://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=10685.msg685289#msg685289
No, because SpaceX is not planning on landing their rockets on barges, their reusable stages would land on land based pads. Not even sure this patent is enforceable because, Boeing, Lockheed Martin, Masten and Armadillo have done previous designs for reusable landing craft. So, the only part of the patent that would be enforceable would be the landing on a barge part. A good patent lawyer could punch holes in this all day long.
-
Even landing on a barge has prior-art discussion in the public domain on a few occasions. It's not likely enforceable.
-
Nowadays patents do the opposite of their original design: they prevent innovation.
IBM has the most ridiculous patents on software and most are worth close to nothing. Just because they have a patent for it doesn't mean it will hold in court. But they have so much money behind them that they can ruin any company while the decision goes to court, so it is settled outside court quickly.
-
Since Elon Musk has said that he wants a commercial Cape Canaveral, is there any chance he might support Blue Origin's launcher (or others) when it's ready?
Yes, Bezos is his competitor, but if Musk were profiting off of every launch Blue Origin makes from that site, why not?
-
That location could make the recovery of RLV first stages and boosters easier.
The first stage from the first F9 launch crashed at 32 deg 07'N, 069 deg 15'W, about 1,160 km from the Cape.
A similar trajectory from the proposed new site go past Louisiana and ends some 100 km short of north Florida.
Not having to come all the way back to the launch pad would save a fair amount of delta-v.
I had the same thought. There are also a lot of oil rigs in the Gulf, presumably some that are at or near the end of their economic life and might be available for a very reasonable price. Given the length of the stage ground track, there should be a lot of choices.
This could potentially result in patent problems between SpaceX and Blue Origin:
http://www.techflash.com/seattle/2011/01/how-to-catch-a-rocket-booster-jeff.html
http://appft1.uspto.gov/netacgi/nph-Parser?Sect1=PTO1&Sect2=HITOFF&d=PG01&p=1&u=%2Fnetahtml%2FPTO%2Fsrchnum.html&r=1&f=G&l=50&s1=%2220110017872%22.PGNR.&OS=DN/20110017872&RS=DN/2011001782
http://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=10685.msg685289#msg685289
No, because SpaceX is not planning on landing their rockets on barges, their reusable stages would land on land based pads. Not even sure this patent is enforceable because, Boeing, Lockheed Martin, Masten and Armadillo have done previous designs for reusable landing craft. So, the only part of the patent that would be enforceable would be the landing on a barge part. A good patent lawyer could punch holes in this all day long.
You can't patent a generic concept of operations.
If so, I'll take one out for airport operations and landing horizontally, unloading crew/cargo, turning the aircraft around and taking-off horizontally again and make every airport on the planet pay me.
-
You can't patent a generic concept of operations.
If so, I'll take one out for airport operations and landing horizontally, unloading crew/cargo, turning the aircraft around and taking-off horizontally again and make every airport on the planet pay me.
Ask Microsoft, IBM and others. They have patented every key on a keyboard, they have patented any web page with advertisement (IBM) and such abstract concepts as a "button", "window", etc.
If current patent laws are not changed, soon you will have patents over any operations.
-
Will SpaceX reimburse the Coast Guard for their services ? Who is guarding the border only 3 miles away, if they are busy chasing gawkers and fishing boats from down range ?
It might be fair for SpaceX to reimburse the CG (now part of DHS), but I don't know how such matters are handled. Probably there are precedents for the CG keeping traffic out of areas made dangerous by privately conducted activities.
As for diverting the CG from guarding the border/Keeping Us Safe, that activity could probably be combined with short-duration range safety activities.
-
Will SpaceX reimburse the Coast Guard for their services ? Who is guarding the border only 3 miles away, if they are busy chasing gawkers and fishing boats from down range ?
It might be fair for SpaceX to reimburse the CG (now part of DHS), but I don't know how such matters are handled. Probably there are precedents for the CG keeping traffic out of areas made dangerous by privately conducted activities.
As for diverting the CG from guarding the border/Keeping Us Safe, that activity could probably be combined with short-duration range safety activities.
the cost for CG services is in the Cape range fee
-
Is Coast Gaurd really mandatory?
-
You can't patent a generic concept of operations.
If so, I'll take one out for airport operations and landing horizontally, unloading crew/cargo, turning the aircraft around and taking-off horizontally again and make every airport on the planet pay me.
Ask Microsoft, IBM and others. They have patented every key on a keyboard, they have patented any web page with advertisement (IBM) and such abstract concepts as a "button", "window", etc.
If current patent laws are not changed, soon you will have patents over any operations.
Or for an example that Bezos was involved with, Amazon's successful suit against Barnes & Noble for one-click shopping: http://articles.cnn.com/2002-03-08/tech/amazon.bn.dispute.idg_1_patent-dispute-software-patents-patent-claim?_s=PM:TECH
It we want to discuss the patent issue further though, it might be worthwhile to create a different thread.
-
Is Coast Gaurd really mandatory?
Dunno, but I suspect SpaceX' lawyers would regard it as very, very desirable and would be more than happy to pay for the service.
-
Do we know, where the other two launch site proposals are? As claimed in the article http://www.themonitor.com/news/space-60007-brownsville-south.html it's one on Puerto Rico and one in Florida.
Could the one in Florida be Cecil Field?
-
Do we know, where the other two launch site proposals are? As claimed in the article http://www.themonitor.com/news/space-60007-brownsville-south.html it's one on Puerto Rico and one in Florida.
Could the one in Florida be Cecil Field?
Umm...not likely, since Cecil field is just west Jacksonville...
~Jon
-
Does anyone know or have an informed guess what the surface wind speed limitations are on launching Falcon 9 and, in the future, Falcon Heavy?
I ask because the south Texas coast is pretty windy (there's a reason wind farms are being built there). 10-20 mph from the SSE is common, higher sustained speeds and gusts aren't rare.
http://www.srh.noaa.gov/bro/?n=2008event_ceaselesswind
-
Is Coast Gaurd really mandatory?
Dunno, but I suspect SpaceX' lawyers would regard it as very, very desirable and would be more than happy to pay for the service.
SpaceX won't pay for anything that they don't see as a necessity or adding value to their product. Not sure what CG would add. They did their own fishing out of Dragon last time.
-
SpaceX won't pay for anything that they don't see as a necessity or adding value to their product. Not sure what CG would add. They did their own fishing out of Dragon last time.
It's all fun and games until an errant Falcon 9 sinks a south american drug sub. The Coast Guard does not recover the Dragon, it keeps people and property out of danger zones during a launch.
-
Is Coast Gaurd really mandatory?
Dunno, but I suspect SpaceX' lawyers would regard it as very, very desirable and would be more than happy to pay for the service.
SpaceX won't pay for anything that they don't see as a necessity or adding value to their product. Not sure what CG would add. They did their own fishing out of Dragon last time.
It has nothing to do with recovery
The CG would clear and keep people from entering the launch area. Or would you prefer the Chinese method of clearing launch areas.
-
It's all fun and games until an errant Falcon 9 sinks a south american drug sub.
+1. (You owe me a new keyboard and a fresh cup of coffee!)
-
Is Coast Gaurd really mandatory?
Dunno, but I suspect SpaceX' lawyers would regard it as very, very desirable and would be more than happy to pay for the service.
SpaceX won't pay for anything that they don't see as a necessity or adding value to their product. Not sure what CG would add.
The value added by CG is reduced liability for third-party damages on the range. If SpaceX doesn't see the value of that now, they will after the first lawsuit.
-
The value added by CG is reduced liability for third-party damages on the range. If SpaceX doesn't see the value of that now, they will after the first lawsuit.
Exactly.
-
Or would you prefer the Chinese method of clearing launch areas.
You mean the "natural selection" method?
-
... Or would you prefer the Chinese method of clearing launch areas.
That's funny in a grim sort of way.
-
Or would you prefer the Chinese method of clearing launch areas.
You mean the "natural selection" method?
it does have a certain certain symmetry lacking in the US method, when they "fire" bad managers, party hacks, and bureaucrats at dawn, after a failed launch ;-)
edit, "after a failed launch"
-
... Or would you prefer the Chinese method of clearing launch areas.
That's funny in a grim sort of way.
Not if you have a front row seat. The primary purpose of having a range is to protect people and property from unplanned events on the range.
SpaceX has to ensure the safety of people and property when it launches. They will contract with the only people who have authority, the Coast Guard to clear the launch safety zones.
So can we get back on topic and start discussing SpaceX again.
So if they launch from Texas, what are the chances of having some illegals cut through the pad areas during a launch. Oooh, that flame trench looks like a great place to hide out from the border patrol ;)
-
Is this location or nearby area a possibility for producing larger diameter stages or fairings in order to slay transport costs? With Corpus Christi nearby, there should be housing...
You need a new pair of glasses. Your prescription is wrong and you are seeing and looking for things that are not there.
-
Is this location or nearby area a possibility for producing larger diameter stages or fairings in order to slay transport costs? With Corpus Christi nearby, there should be housing...
You need a new pair of glasses. Your prescription is wrong and you are seeing and looking for things that are not there.
Well, to be fair about fairings, LockMart had and (I think) still has a facility at the Harlingen airport to build fairings, interstage structures and maybe other stuff for Atlas V and, formerly, Titan IV. What potential relevance that might have to SpaceX I couldn't say, but the area does support some aerospace industry.
-
Titan IV.
not Titan
-
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=U6xx_AwpIwI
-
I was wondering, if the Boeing MP702SP are successful, and there's a general trend for commercial satellites to go SEP, wouldn't the orbital plane change be less important, specially if left on a GTO+ orbit? At the same time, the crafts would be smaller. Would this make any impact on this plan?
Having a single launch azimuth for the range, would make it cheaper and or simpler?
-
Titan IV.
not Titan
Hmm. I could swear I'd seen they did Titan work, but looking around it seems not.
-
I'm not sure if this is alarmism, or if the author is genuinely concerned.
http://space.brevardtimes.com/2012/04/will-space-x-texas-site-pose-hazard-to.html (http://space.brevardtimes.com/2012/04/will-space-x-texas-site-pose-hazard-to.html)
I would think any potential flights out of the Brownsville area would head south far enough to clear Florida.
-
I'm not sure if this is alarmism, or if the author is genuinely concerned.
http://space.brevardtimes.com/2012/04/will-space-x-texas-site-pose-hazard-to.html (http://space.brevardtimes.com/2012/04/will-space-x-texas-site-pose-hazard-to.html)
He answers that himself. Alarmism.
He doesn't mention routes that don't go over Florida. Perhaps he should mention the chances of Florida folks dying of sugar-related heart disease, or hurricanes for some perspective.
Quote from the article:
the possibility of a payload crashing down on Florida is extremely remote because the launch failure would have to occur within a window measured in milliseconds at the altitude necessary for a payload to reach Florida. But ever since the creation of NASA, space flight is shaped more often by politics rather than practicality (which is why NASA has centers spread across the U.S. to curry favor for funding from politicians). Most people would rather have a 0 percent chance of having a satellite crash on them than a .00000000000001 chance.
-
I just noticed an interesting thing about the site in Google Maps: it shows streets and a ton of lots as if someone had contemplated building vacation bungalows there. The actual situation is more modest, leading me to suspect that SpaceX found a would-be developer who would give them a deal on the land. Some research in the Cameron County courthouse might fill out the story.
-
the possibility of a payload crashing down on Florida is extremely remote because the launch failure would have to occur within a window measured in milliseconds at the altitude necessary for a payload to reach Florida. But ever since the creation of NASA, space flight is shaped more often by politics rather than practicality (which is why NASA has centers spread across the U.S. to curry favor for funding from politicians). Most people would rather have a 0 percent chance of having a satellite crash on them than a .00000000000001 chance.
It has to be <0.0003 (30E-6)
-
I just noticed an interesting thing about the site in Google Maps: it shows streets and a ton of lots as if someone had contemplated building vacation bungalows there. The actual situation is more modest, leading me to suspect that SpaceX found a would-be developer who would give them a deal on the land. Some research in the Cameron County courthouse might fill out the story.
It was a community development sold to ill-informed foreigners by fly-by night developer. There is no water supply for the 6 current permanent residents. Google Kopernik Shores or Boca Chica Village.
-
the possibility of a payload crashing down on Florida is extremely remote because the launch failure would have to occur within a window measured in milliseconds at the altitude necessary for a payload to reach Florida. But ever since the creation of NASA, space flight is shaped more often by politics rather than practicality (which is why NASA has centers spread across the U.S. to curry favor for funding from politicians). Most people would rather have a 0 percent chance of having a satellite crash on them than a .00000000000001 chance.
It has to be <0.0003 (30E-6)
Why? I assume that you mean that some agency / legislation requires it, and that the figure has some underlying rationale rather than being arbitrarily chosen?
-
It was a community development sold to ill-informed foreigners by fly-by night developer. There is no water supply for the 6 current permanent residents. Google Kopernik Shores or Boca Chica Village.
Oh! Thanks!
http://www.texasescapes.com/TexasGulfCoastTowns/Kopernik-Shores-Texas.htm
Although Kopernik Shores does sound good for a space launch site... :D
-
This gives a flavor of the state of the "village":
"After some 24 miles the road ends abruptly at the beach. Boca Chica lies on the east-side of the road, pretty close to the beach.
Now, if you expect a thriving sea resort you'd be disappointed. The village is in a major state of disrepair. In fact the visible decay is hard to describe. broken windows, damaged doorways, fallen-down gutters, pieces of roofs gone missing, old car wrecks parked on "main street" and weeds sprouting through old broken pavement everywhere. This village qualifies for the title "Ghost Town". And, unbelievably, there are still living a few die-hard's between the rubble."
http://american-traveler.blogspot.co.uk/2011/07/july-16-boca-chica-village-port.html (http://american-traveler.blogspot.co.uk/2011/07/july-16-boca-chica-village-port.html)
-
I just noticed an interesting thing about the site in Google Maps: it shows streets and a ton of lots as if someone had contemplated building vacation bungalows there. The actual situation is more modest, leading me to suspect that SpaceX found a would-be developer who would give them a deal on the land. Some research in the Cameron County courthouse might fill out the story.
SpaceX probably has a contract with the current land owners, but because they haven't bought the land I doubt it would have to be filed with the courthouse.
The contract is probably one where SpaceX has the sole right to purchase the land for a given price before a given date. If SpaceX doesn't purchase the land, they may have to pay the land owners something.
That's a huge simplification, there could be all sorts of conditions as to who pays who if local regulators nix the deal. I don't believe SpaceX would have filed public paperwork without first having a contracted right to buy the land. It would be nuts were they to have done otherwise, they'd just feed speculators and end up costing themselves a lot of money.
-
Most people would rather have a 0 percent chance of having a satellite crash on them than a .00000000000001 chance.
Most people don't understand very large or very small numbers.
-
SpaceX probably has a contract with the current land owners, but because they haven't bought the land I doubt it would have to be filed with the courthouse.
The contract is probably one where SpaceX has the sole right to purchase the land for a given price before a given date. If SpaceX doesn't purchase the land, they may have to pay the land owners something.
That's a huge simplification, there could be all sorts of conditions as to who pays who if local regulators nix the deal. I don't believe SpaceX would have filed public paperwork without first having a contracted right to buy the land. It would be nuts were they to have done otherwise, they'd just feed speculators and end up costing themselves a lot of money.
Good points, thanks. So SpaceX could just exchange contractual papers, perhaps notarized, with the current owners and, should it come to that, either of the parties could use those as the basis for legal action?
-
I'm not sure if this is alarmism, or if the author is genuinely concerned.
http://space.brevardtimes.com/2012/04/will-space-x-texas-site-pose-hazard-to.html (http://space.brevardtimes.com/2012/04/will-space-x-texas-site-pose-hazard-to.html)
I would think any potential flights out of the Brownsville area would head south far enough to clear Florida.
Yes, you're right. The central trajectory line shown on the Brevard Times map goes due east along the line of latitude to Florida. That isn't a ballistic trajectory. A due east launch would curve to the south.
-
The contract you're talking abut is called an option.
-
Why? I assume that you mean that some agency / legislation requires it, and that the figure has some underlying rationale rather than being arbitrarily chosen?
US Federal Code
Title 14: Aeronautics and Space
PART 417—LAUNCH SAFETY
417.107 Flight safety
(1) A launch operator may initiate the flight of a launch vehicle only if the risk associated with the total flight to all members of the public, excluding persons in waterborne vessels and aircraft, does not exceed an expected average number of 0.00003 casualties (Ec≤ 30 × 10−6 ) from impacting inert and impacting explosive debris, (Ec≤ 30 × 10−6 ) for toxic release, and (Ec≤ 30 × 10−6 ) for far field blast overpressure. .....
(2) A launch operator may initiate flight only if the risk to any individual member of the public does not exceed a casualty expectation (Ecof 0.000001 per launch (Ec≤ 1 × 10−6 ) for each hazard.
It copies what the USAF uses.
-
The contract you're talking abut is called an option.
I know, but not everyone does.
-
The contract you're talking abut is called an option.
I know, but not everyone does.
you mean contingency.
-
Houston Chronicle.... (http://www.chron.com/news/houston-texas/article/Private-space-company-considers-Texas-launch-site-3472821.php)
>
.... Rick Tumlinson, president and founder of the Texas Space Alliance....
>
His organization has asked the Legislature to provide tax breaks .... as well as pass laws to give spaceflight companies immunity ....
>
"It is up to Texas to make this happen or blow it," ....
>
-
Houston Chronicle.... (http://www.chron.com/news/houston-texas/article/Private-space-company-considers-Texas-launch-site-3472821.php)
"Other states seeking to attract the commercial space industry have already adopted these measures, he said." I think this statemet refers mostly to the interior States like Colorado & New Mexico.
Is Hawaii a reasonable possibility?
-
Is Hawaii a reasonable possibility?
The problem as I have always seen is flying due east through some highly used long haul air routes. Good luck keeping all the commercial traffic out of the range during launch.
-
The contract you're talking abut is called an option.
I know, but not everyone does.
you mean contingency.
Either, both. Large commercial contracts don't always follow the rules of residential real estate. In this case, there could be multiple property owners, which would complicate matters further.
-
Houston Chronicle.... (http://www.chron.com/news/houston-texas/article/Private-space-company-considers-Texas-launch-site-3472821.php)
"Other states seeking to attract the commercial space industry have already adopted these measures, he said." I think this statemet refers mostly to the interior States like Colorado & New Mexico.
What amazes me, and what no one wishes to talk about is the “need”.
The good people of the State of Florida, and the US Gov. has given SpaceX sweetheart deals and they are not happy and will move on.
-
The contract you're talking abut is called an option.
I know, but not everyone does.
you mean contingency.
Either, both. Large commercial contracts don't always follow the rules of residential real estate. In this case, there could be multiple property owners, which would complicate matters further.
They could even use Eminent Domain if they have one or two that don't want to sell. The Supreme Court allowed them even for private developments.
-
The contract you're talking abut is called an option.
I know, but not everyone does.
you mean contingency.
Either, both. Large commercial contracts don't always follow the rules of residential real estate. In this case, there could be multiple property owners, which would complicate matters further.
They could even use Eminent Domain if they have one or two that don't want to sell. The Supreme Court allowed them even for private developments.
The Supreme Court issue your talking about is a sore spot for many Americans.
-
"Other states seeking to attract the commercial space industry have already adopted these measures, he said." I think this statemet refers mostly to the interior States like Colorado & New Mexico.
What amazes me, and what no one wishes to talk about is the “need”.
The good people of the State of Florida, and the US Gov. has given SpaceX sweetheart deals and they are not happy and will move on.
I'm not sure what you mean here. Need? Do you mean it as in SpaceX needs more range flexibility, or better weather, or location specific de-risking of possible future State tax grabs, and stuff like that?
-
1. Do you mean it as in SpaceX needs more range flexibility, or
2. better weather,
3. or location specific de-risking of possible future State tax grabs,
1. 15 months between launches, hardly a reason.
2. No, more susceptible to hurricanes
3. No florida.
All lame excuses. Musk just wants his own sandbox
-
Musk just wants his own sandbox
Best reason of them all.
-
Musk just wants his own sandbox
Best reason of them all.
Best explanation for it but it doesn't mean it is a good reason.
-
Why? I assume that you mean that some agency / legislation requires it, and that the figure has some underlying rationale rather than being arbitrarily chosen?
US Federal Code
Title 14: Aeronautics and Space
PART 417—LAUNCH SAFETY
417.107 Flight safety
(1) A launch operator may initiate the flight of a launch vehicle only if the risk associated with the total flight to all members of the public, excluding persons in waterborne vessels and aircraft, does not exceed an expected average number of 0.00003 casualties (Ec≤ 30 × 10−6 ) from impacting inert and impacting explosive debris, (Ec≤ 30 × 10−6 ) for toxic release, and (Ec≤ 30 × 10−6 ) for far field blast overpressure. .....
(2) A launch operator may initiate flight only if the risk to any individual member of the public does not exceed a casualty expectation (Ecof 0.000001 per launch (Ec≤ 1 × 10−6 ) for each hazard.
It copies what the USAF uses.
Thanks. And the other half of my question?
-
Why? I assume that you mean that some agency / legislation requires it, and that the figure has some underlying rationale rather than being arbitrarily chosen?
US Federal Code
Title 14: Aeronautics and Space
PART 417—LAUNCH SAFETY
417.107 Flight safety
(1) A launch operator may initiate the flight of a launch vehicle only if the risk associated with the total flight to all members of the public, excluding persons in waterborne vessels and aircraft, does not exceed an expected average number of 0.00003 casualties (Ec≤ 30 × 10−6 ) from impacting inert and impacting explosive debris, (Ec≤ 30 × 10−6 ) for toxic release, and (Ec≤ 30 × 10−6 ) for far field blast overpressure. .....
(2) A launch operator may initiate flight only if the risk to any individual member of the public does not exceed a casualty expectation (Ecof 0.000001 per launch (Ec≤ 1 × 10−6 ) for each hazard.
It copies what the USAF uses.
Thanks. And the other half of my question?
I stated it. the USAF derived it. I can't help if you can extrapolate that was from the USAF operating ranges over many years.
-
I don't understand why people can't do their own internet searches
http://www.wsmr.army.mil/RCCsite/Documents/321-10%20Common%20Risk%20Criteria%20Standards%20for%20National%20Test%20Ranges/321-10%20Common%20Risk%20Criteria%20Standards%20For%20National%20Test%20Ranges.pdf
-
Why? I assume that you mean that some agency / legislation requires it, and that the figure has some underlying rationale rather than being arbitrarily chosen?
US Federal Code
Title 14: Aeronautics and Space
PART 417—LAUNCH SAFETY
417.107 Flight safety
(1) A launch operator may initiate the flight of a launch vehicle only if the risk associated with the total flight to all members of the public, excluding persons in waterborne vessels and aircraft, does not exceed an expected average number of 0.00003 casualties (Ec≤ 30 × 10−6 ) from impacting inert and impacting explosive debris, (Ec≤ 30 × 10−6 ) for toxic release, and (Ec≤ 30 × 10−6 ) for far field blast overpressure. .....
(2) A launch operator may initiate flight only if the risk to any individual member of the public does not exceed a casualty expectation (Ecof 0.000001 per launch (Ec≤ 1 × 10−6 ) for each hazard.
It copies what the USAF uses.
Thanks. And the other half of my question?
I stated it. the USAF derived it. I can't help if you can extrapolate that was from the USAF operating ranges over many years.
Such a friendly place, this is. ::)
-
Is Hawaii a reasonable possibility?
The problem as I have always seen is flying due east through some highly used long haul air routes. Good luck keeping all the commercial traffic out of the range during launch.
That's why previous schemes using Hawaii (such as Nova) have focused on the far southern end of the Big Island, since air routes are to the north. From the southern tip, Kailua-Kona is 30 and Hilo is 45 miles away, and more to the point there are virtually no air routes that go to the south east from the big island, unless you're on that one-a-day from Buenos Ares. So no, air routes are not a big factor. Kilauea, on the other hand is, and the trade winds blow the ash that direction. So you would see the occasional "Vog" scrub, as well as the occasional "volcanic earthquake scrub", along with the odd Hurricane now and then.
Then again, why would any company willingly move their expensive business to a high-regulation, high-labor cost, logistically troublesome place like the big island of Hawaii? It's an insane idea fiscally.
I'm not even sure the Harlingen area makes sense unless you're launching every other week at the cape.
Hey--here's an idea that would make astronomers hate you. You could launch from the top of Mauna Loa and cut out the first 2 miles of atmosphere! Haul your rocket to the top with unleaded. You could probably even get a little better expansion ratio on the first stage! ;-)
-
Thanks. And the other half of my question?
I stated it. the USAF derived it. I can't help if you can extrapolate that was from the USAF operating ranges over many years.
You've given me a link to some legislation and a link to a document that references the legislation. I understand that this legislation is what will affect SpaceX's proposed launch operations. Neither of these documents explain how the magic threshold of 3e-6 fatalities per launch was derived!
Can anyone else give me any pointers to info on how this value was arrived at as a tolerable level of risk?
-
I don't understand why people can't do their own internet searches
http://lmgtfy.com/
-
I don't understand why people can't do their own internet searches
http://lmgtfy.com/
In general, when pouring scorn on someone's Internet-searching skills, I find condescension to be optimised by both providing the search terms used and actually finding the information they're looking for. This also minimizes the risk of looking silly.
-
Thanks. And the other half of my question?
I stated it. the USAF derived it. I can't help if you can extrapolate that was from the USAF operating ranges over many years.
You've given me a link to some legislation and a link to a document that references the legislation. I understand that this legislation is what will affect SpaceX's proposed launch operations. Neither of these documents explain how the magic threshold of 3e-6 fatalities per launch was derived!
Can anyone else give me any pointers to info on how this value was arrived at as a tolerable level of risk?
Congress wrote it in the US code, supposedly, and the FAA definitely published it in the CFR. Interestingly, the FAA apparently didn't bother to update the legal authority for the regulation, because a search of the CFR table of authorities gets nothing for "14 Part 417," which is the regulation in question. So strictly speaking this is an unenforceable regulation until the FAA provides the authority, which is probably USC Title 49 Subtitle IX, Chapter 701.
The "How come lazy people can't even google?" thing gets old though.
I challenge anyone to do an internet search for "Why does the probability of a rocket stage crashing into someone have to be <0.0003 (30E-6)?" and find anything resembling an answer or even correctly identifying the legislative language you need.
Even a specific search for "US code relating to space vehicle crashes and safety of the public" and such won't even get you in the ballpark.
Point being, we get it, nearly everything about why government regulations are in place is somewhere on the internet already... IF you know what it's actually called and IF you have enough experience to be able to know what to emphasize in the search or where to go, and how best to play keyword bingo. If you want to educate, provide the key keywords rather than the answer.
-
Thanks. And the other half of my question?
I stated it. the USAF derived it. I can't help if you can extrapolate that was from the USAF operating ranges over many years.
You've given me a link to some legislation and a link to a document that references the legislation. I understand that this legislation is what will affect SpaceX's proposed launch operations. Neither of these documents explain how the magic threshold of 3e-6 fatalities per launch was derived!
Can anyone else give me any pointers to info on how this value was arrived at as a tolerable level of risk?
Congress wrote it in the US code, supposedly, and the FAA definitely published it in the CFR. Interestingly, the FAA apparently didn't bother to update the legal authority for the regulation, because a search of the CFR table of authorities gets nothing for "14 Part 417," which is the regulation in question. So strictly speaking this is an unenforceable regulation until the FAA provides the authority, which is probably USC Title 49 Subtitle IX, Chapter 701.
The "How come lazy people can't even google?" thing gets old though.
I challenge anyone to do an internet search for "Why does the probability of a rocket stage crashing into someone have to be <0.0003 (30E-6)?" and find anything resembling an answer or even correctly identifying the legislative language you need.
Even a specific search for "US code relating to space vehicle crashes and safety of the public" and such won't even get you in the ballpark.
Point being, we get it, nearly everything about why government regulations are in place is somewhere on the internet already... IF you know what it's actually called and IF you have enough experience to be able to know what to emphasize in the search or where to go, and how best to play keyword bingo. If you want to educate, provide the key keywords rather than the answer.
I don't know if this is what you are looking for or not, but it was an interesting read none the less:
(Bottom of Pg 18 and Most of Pg 19)
http://books.google.com/books?id=-YzAOq2IcqkC&pg=PA19&lpg=PA19&dq=launch+risk+casualty+acceptance&source=bl&ots=_gFlmGpneP&sig=2wnuhG8D4kHQUZF6u0HiR4WKvYg&hl=en#v=onepage&q=launch%20risk%20casualty%20acceptance&f=true
-
The contract you're talking abut is called an option.
I know, but not everyone does.
you mean contingency.
Either, both. Large commercial contracts don't always follow the rules of residential real estate. In this case, there could be multiple property owners, which would complicate matters further.
They could even use Eminent Domain if they have one or two that don't want to sell. The Supreme Court allowed them even for private developments.
And in response, several U.S. state legislatures have passed specific laws prohibiting the use of eminent domain for private development. Don't know if Texas is one of them, but I would be quite surprised if it wasn't.
-
The contract you're talking abut is called an option.
I know, but not everyone does.
you mean contingency.
Either, both. Large commercial contracts don't always follow the rules of residential real estate. In this case, there could be multiple property owners, which would complicate matters further.
They could even use Eminent Domain if they have one or two that don't want to sell. The Supreme Court allowed them even for private developments.
And in response, several U.S. state legislatures have passed specific laws prohibiting the use of eminent domain for private development. Don't know if Texas is one of them, but I would be quite surprised if it wasn't.
I doubt it. Can't build private pipelines without eminent domain. Texas likes pipelines.
-
How to Get Eminent Domain in Texas (Just Check This Box) (http://stateimpact.npr.org/texas/2012/03/06/how-to-get-eminent-domain-in-texas-just-check-this-box/)
(it's a little tougher than that)
-
The contract you're talking abut is called an option.
I know, but not everyone does.
you mean contingency.
Either, both. Large commercial contracts don't always follow the rules of residential real estate. In this case, there could be multiple property owners, which would complicate matters further.
They could even use Eminent Domain if they have one or two that don't want to sell. The Supreme Court allowed them even for private developments.
And in response, several U.S. state legislatures have passed specific laws prohibiting the use of eminent domain for private development. Don't know if Texas is one of them, but I would be quite surprised if it wasn't.
Eminent Domain is a Constitution Granted power to the States. You'd only need a new state Law, or even a Legislature voted exemption or addend to the law to pass it.
Btw, they could simply apply their ED right and get said properties state owned and then lease them for the private space port. As usual, if there's a strong will of the government to put this plan forward, there are little chances of it blocking it.
Most probably they could use ED to pressure the owners to actually sell. It's not like the land is premium price.
-
I doubt it. Can't build private pipelines without eminent domain. Texas likes pipelines.
Utilities are treated differently under the law than the run of the mill private company.
-
The contract you're talking abut is called an option.
I know, but not everyone does.
you mean contingency.
Either, both. Large commercial contracts don't always follow the rules of residential real estate. In this case, there could be multiple property owners, which would complicate matters further.
They could even use Eminent Domain if they have one or two that don't want to sell. The Supreme Court allowed them even for private developments.
And in response, several U.S. state legislatures have passed specific laws prohibiting the use of eminent domain for private development. Don't know if Texas is one of them, but I would be quite surprised if it wasn't.
Eminent Domain is a Constitution Granted power to the States. You'd only need a new state Law, or even a Legislature voted exemption or addend to the law to pass it.
Btw, they could simply apply their ED right and get said properties state owned and then lease them for the private space port. As usual, if there's a strong will of the government to put this plan forward, there are little chances of it blocking it.
Most probably they could use ED to pressure the owners to actually sell. It's not like the land is premium price.
You don't need to try to educate me about Constitutional law. Trust me. ;)
-
I doubt it. Can't build private pipelines without eminent domain. Texas likes pipelines.
Utilities are treated differently under the law than the run of the mill private company.
A private oil pipeline is not a utility.
But anyway, the Keystone pipeline is in court since Texas residents whose property is being taken away for the project via eminent domain are arguing that it's not lawful for their property to be taken away for a private development like the Keystone pipeline.
-
I doubt it. Can't build private pipelines without eminent domain. Texas likes pipelines.
Utilities are treated differently under the law than the run of the mill private company.
A private oil pipeline is not a utility.
Depends on the company and the state involved, especially since pipelines generally (not always) supply private energy companies, many of which are in fact operating as regulated utilities.
As I said to Baldusi, don't try to educate me on law.
-
Off topic boredom on pipelines? Locked for cleaning and moderation.
(Will be cleaned up later).
-
Willacy County out, Brownsville still a contender:
http://www.brownsvilleherald.com/articles/willacy-139383-race-raymondville.html
posted in a new thread since the old one is still locked for moderation...
-
This previous news story is mentioned in the more recent one:
Brownsville in running for commercial space launch site,
April 09, 2012 10:32 PM
http://www.brownsvilleherald.com/news/space-138935-brownsville-gateway.html
The area under consideration is the eastern end of State Highway 4, about three miles north of the Mexican border on the Gulf Coast, which is about five miles south of Port Isabel and South Padre Island.
EDIT to add FAA link:
http://www.faa.gov/about/office_org/headquarters_offices/ast/environmental/nepa_docs/review/documents_progress/spacex_texas_launch_site_environmental_impact_statement/
-
Texas Launch Site - 90 degrees Launch
26.000 degrees north
Simulated Falcon 9 GTO Launch Profile
Profile is marked from Ignition to SII MECO
-
That's a neat graphic.
Looking at that it looks like the launch azimuths out of that corner of Texas are very restricted if you wish to avoid overflying land. The trajectory shown would be OK for GTO missions, though.
-
That's a neat graphic.
Looking at that it looks like the launch azimuths out of that corner of Texas are very restricted if you wish to avoid overflying land. The trajectory shown would be OK for GTO missions, though.
I submitted some launch azimuths/stage impact areas questions to the FAA in the hopes that the topic will get addressed in the May 15 meeting in Brownsville.
BTW, if they launch Dragons from Boca Chica, is there any reason they should or shouldn't recover them in the Gulf of Mexico vs the Pacific? Or would that just depend on the particular circumstances?
-
That's a neat graphic.
Looking at that it looks like the launch azimuths out of that corner of Texas are very restricted if you wish to avoid overflying land. The trajectory shown would be OK for GTO missions, though.
I submitted some launch azimuths/stage impact areas questions to the FAA in the hopes that the topic will get addressed in the May 15 meeting in Brownsville.
BTW, if they launch Dragons from Boca Chica, is there any reason they should or shouldn't recover them in the Gulf of Mexico vs the Pacific? Or would that just depend on the particular circumstances?
Because of efficiency and the Dragon refurb taking place in a centralized location, currently Hawthore, all Dragons would land at the same location regardless of launch location. In the current case that would be off the CA coast being close to the refurb facility.
-
Also a Pacific landing would prevent any potential debris from the trunk reaching land during entry.
-
Also a Pacific landing would prevent any potential debris from the trunk reaching land during entry.
It seems to me that the trunk could be put on a significantly different re-entry path by being pushed by dragon if there was sufficient fuel. After the trunk re-entry push, dracos could move the dragon to go elsewhere. But that would be wasteful as a baseline plan.
Also, how much of the trunk would actually make it to the surface?
-
Lets rephrase that, recovery off the coast of California completely side steps the overflight issue. If Something goes wrong on re-entry the debris should end up feeding the fishes, not in someones backyard.
Though, to play devils advocate, if the burn cuts out early and dragon goes long, you could end up over land.
-
Are there any rules that SpaceX would have to follow with respect to overflying Mexico? That's between them and Mexico. Correct? I'm think in terms of landing. Not launching.
Because for the proposed Texas launch site it isn't like they'd be overflying a lot of Americans.
Plus the profile could be fairly sharp. Could they re-enter essentially over that skinny part of Texas (100 miles or so) and descend very steeply? Or is that infeasible?
Is 100 lateral miles enough to get in and get down? (Which would remove Mexican concerns)
-
Texas Launch Site - 90 degrees Launch
26.000 degrees north
Simulated Falcon 9 GTO Launch Profile
Profile is marked from Ignition to SII MECO
Nice, thanks!
Night launches should provide quite a show from the coast of Louisiana...
-
Texas Launch Site - 90 degrees Launch
26.000 degrees north
Simulated Falcon 9 GTO Launch Profile
Profile is marked from Ignition to SII MECO
Nice, thanks!
Night launches should provide quite a show from the coast of Louisiana...
We should be able to see MECO from south florida too.
The red lines are the launch azimuths for the ISS orbit but don't take into account the earth's rotation. Will update with a plot for ISS and a couple other options I think they may be able to do from there. Will also add the estimated path of the 1st stage.
-
Plus the profile could be fairly sharp. Could they re-enter essentially over that skinny part of Texas (100 miles or so) and descend very steeply? Or is that infeasible?
Is 100 lateral miles enough to get in and get down? (Which would remove Mexican concerns)
Looks like it would average about 2 g's. So I think it seems realistic that they would still be in space above Mexico. And essentially no one lives along the flight path across Texas.
Any experts care to speculate?
-
Texas Launch Site - 90 degrees Launch
26.000 degrees north
Simulated Falcon 9 GTO Launch Profile
Profile is marked from Ignition to SII MECO
Nice, thanks!
Night launches should provide quite a show from the coast of Louisiana...
We should be able to see MECO from south florida too.
The red lines are the launch azimuths for the ISS orbit but don't take into account the earth's rotation. Will update with a plot for ISS and a couple other options I think they may be able to do from there. Will also add the estimated path of the 1st stage.
-
-
@modemeagle great work, but what motivated the selection of 31.5 deg? Isn't 28.5 (KSC latitude) the more interesting inclination? Somewhat like the attached?
-
@modemeagle great work, but what motivated the selection of 31.5 deg? Isn't 28.5 (KSC latitude) the more interesting inclination? Somewhat like the attached?
I was looking for the inclination going north that would cross Florida in its least populated belt and then did the same inclination south. My guess is Texas will be used mostly for low inclination (below 32-33 degrees unless they fly over the Yucatan) LEO or GTO launches. I figured they will fly all manned from LC-40 or KSC. Since a large number of launches are GTO then it makes the most sense to me to use the commercial site for those. If they want their own site for 51.6 degrees then moving up the coast of Texas will yield a southern path between Cuba and the Yucatan. Would be a waste though since the ISS will not be there forever.
-
Ric Barrera, an attorney in Brownsville, has set up a Facebook page to promote the Boca Chica site:
http://www.brownsvilleherald.com/articles/spacex-139439-brownsville-project.html
http://www.facebook.com/supportspacexcomingtobrownsville
-
This seems another publicity stunt with little regard to the realities (i.e. not building a vertical payload integration capability at LC-40).
There is a reason why rocket launches fly out over open water... SpaceX will need to show that the first stage doesn't fall on an oil rig under worst case conditions... Liability and environmental impact will be too great. Secondly to meet the personal liability laws the first stage won't be allowed to overfly land, including Mexico. This isn't Russia where you can drop rockets on remote villages without consequence. Considering the high population of oil rigs off of Louisiana that will limit the first stage to no further north than ~27.7 deg Latitude. When you consider that, and avoid over flights of major Caribbean islands how limited do the launch azimuths become.
-
As long as there's a viable azimuth for a GTO orbit, what else matters? Vandy will still do the polar launches, Canaveral will still do ISS launches.
-
As long as there's a viable azimuth for a GTO orbit, what else matters? Vandy will still do the polar launches, Canaveral will still do ISS launches.
Exactly. But even a 51.6 Inc launch south should drop the 1st stage ~ 90km north west of Ciudad del Carmen, Mexico per my simulation, actual results would vary ;). That's also 900 km down range.
-
For northward launch to higher inclinations it seems difficult to believe, even with the first stage dropping in the Gulf, that they could meet the "standard" range safety criterion of Ec less than 30×10−6 with the second stage in powered flight while the instantaneous impact point trace crosses Florida.
The southward launches to moderate inclinations (e.g. allowing rendezvous with a payload launched from Canaveral) do look safe enough, as the populations on islands and oil rigs don't appear large enough to substantially bump Ec. And to emphasize a prior comment, all they really need is the trajectory which passes through the 90 mile wide gap between Key West and Cuba on it's way to GTO.
-
What if they do develop a flyback first stage? Particularly, if they do a lofted trajectory? That might do two things:
1) On the nominal case, the stage would fly back (i.e. no problem).
2) On the worse contingency, the drop zone would be closer.
Of course you'd lose performance, but may be it's performance you were going to lose anyway with a flyback stage. I do recall a Russian document showing that for a flyback first stage, the optimum trajectory was very lofted. So I'm assuming here's the same case.
This is highly speculative, but I highly doubt SpaceX would start to develop this site without a successful development of the flyback first stage.
-
This is highly speculative, but I highly doubt SpaceX would start to develop this site without a successful development of the flyback first stage.
Good point, though I can see that the site might be developed on the way to a flyback system rather than depend on it initially.
This has been brought up in earlier discussions, but I think it needs to be kept in mind: Mr. Musk does not think small, and a TSTO RLV out of Texas might be something he has in mind. Although it's entirely plausible that initial Falcon 9/H operations could pave the way.
-
The announcement of the intent to create an Environmental Impact Statement was quite clear about the vehicles in question. Reusable was mentioned, F9 was mentioned, along with up to two flights per year of FH.
GTO missions rather require a high energy upper stage that SpaceX doesn't (yet) have. But what if the FH flights carried mini-stations that could rendezvous with crewed F9/Dragon flights originating at the Cape?
-
I highly doubt SpaceX would start to develop this site without a successful development of the flyback first stage.
It's a good place to propulsively land dragons from orbit too.
-
There's an article on the Brownsville possibility in the San Antonio newspaper today:
http://www.mysanantonio.com/news/local_news/article/Texas-could-land-private-launch-site-3537561.php
I found the following passage slightly curious and wonder what, if anything, is behind the apparent lack of interest in Austin.
“We are pretty interested in the possibility of Texas and building a spaceport there,” said Elon Musk, founder and CEO of SpaceX.
But Musk says that interest has yet to be reciprocated by Texas officials.
“There's been a lot of good action by the authorities in the Brownsville area. There's not been that much at the state level, and we'd certainly appreciate more from the state level,” Musk said.
Texas does have an official, Keith Graf, assigned to promote commercial space development in the state. He is director for aerospace and aviation within the governor's office of economic development and tourism.
He did not respond to a request for comment on state efforts to attract the SpaceX spaceport. Instead, he forwarded the query to Lucy Nashed, a Perry spokeswoman.
“Our office policy is not to discuss any potential negotiations, so unfortunately I can't confirm anything for you,” Nashed said.
-
It's called 'managing expectations' on both sides; if a negotiating partner knows you really, really want what they're selling they are less likely to give you concessions. It also reduces the community reaction if the deal falls through.
-
Or... It may indicate that the state and national reps who represent Houston where JSC is have a lot of power and aren't terribly keen on giving freebies to SpaceX (which is how I interpret what SpaceX would consider "showing interest) the way New Mexico was to Virgin Galactic or Virginia was to OSC. The freebies always come back to bite both parties in the end. I like the Texas approach. If it's financially a good decision, it doesn't require "incentives" from the state government to happen.
-
No doubt that's part of it, but I bet it has more to do with getting help with the regulations and waivers necessary to open something like that up.
Or... It may indicate that the state and national reps who represent Houston where JSC is have a lot of power and aren't terribly keen on giving freebies to SpaceX (which is how I interpret what SpaceX would consider "showing interest) the way New Mexico was to Virgin Galactic or Virginia was to OSC. The freebies always come back to bite both parties in the end. I like the Texas approach. If it's financially a good decision, it doesn't require "incentives" from the state government to happen.
-
Some tidbits from the Brownsville newspaper. Another story indicates that Perry's office told SpaceX about the Boca Chica site around a year ago.
http://www.brownsvilleherald.com/news/spacex-139857-support-city.html
City backs SpaceX proposal
May 04, 2012 4:50 AM
By LAURA B. MARTINEZ/The Brownsville Herald
The City Commission has thrown in its support for SpaceX coming to Brownsville by passing a resolution in support of the $3 billion company.
"It’s a win-win situation for everyone," Mayor Tony Martinez said. He is encouraging city commissioners to talk to their constituents and rally support for SpaceX, or Space Exploration Technologies. Should the company decide to come to Brownsville, it could mean hundreds of jobs to the city...
Gilbert Salinas, executive vice president of the Brownsville Economic Development Council, which is working with SpaceX, said the company could bring about 600 direct jobs to the area with a minimum annual salary of $55,000...
The salaries SpaceX could bring would be about 80 percent above the county’s average wages, Salinas said...
The proposed site, which is privately owned, sits just south of State Highway 4 not far from Boca Chica beach. The area is nothing but a grassy field with lots of sand.
"They (SpaceX) want to know that they are wanted in the community, and we want them to know that they are wanted in this community," Martinez said.
Salinas said SpaceX found out about the South Texas area through Texas Gov. Rick Perry’s office, which in turn connected SpaceX founder Elon Musk with area officials...
Edit: Add
http://www.texasobserver.org/snakeoil/a-major-player-in-the-private-space-movement-is-considering-a-launch-site-in-brownsville
Local Boosters Hope Texas Shows SpaceX Some Love
by Patrick Michels
Published on: Thursday, April 19, 2012
Gilbert Salinas, executive vice president of the Brownsville Economic Development Council, says it was the governor’s office that first tipped him off to SpaceX’s interest in launching out of Cameron County, about a year ago. He says they’ve been busy getting to know the private space industry since then.
-
It looks like someone in the Brownsville area has started up a "Support Space X Coming to Brownsville" FB page, currently at 323 likes:
https://www.facebook.com/supportspacexcomingtobrownsville
This page was started by Ric Barrera from Harlingen, Texas, to make Space X feel welcome and appreciated regarding their possible arrival to Cameron County. Ric Barrera is not an Agent of Space X nor is he a legal representative of them.
Description
This Facebook page is meant to get the word out on Space X possibly coming to Cameron County. On this page, there will be updates and information from various users regarding support of the project and events and articles that one could support.
Currently, Space X is considering a launch site in Brownsville, Texas of Cameron County. Florida and Puerto Rico are also in the running. Brownsville is the last site in Texas to make the cut.
Support Space X Coming to Brownsville!
-
Misspelling the company's name doesn't bode well for their chances.
-
Brownsville, Texas spaceport news -
http://www.brownsvilleherald.com/articles/brownsville-140215-spacex-cameron.html
>
Salinas said Perry’s office is the one that connected SpaceX with Brownsville officials.
"The lead came from the governor’s office and there is no doubt in my mind that there is going to be support across the board for this project, including the governor’s office, which has bent backwards" for this project, Salinas said.
http://www.spacenews.com/launch/120409-details-spacex-texas-site.html
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=U6xx_AwpIwI
-
Brownsville, Texas spaceport news -
Thanks for that.
We're off to Brownsville tomorrow. Last call for things to look for, questions to ask, pictures to take, people to listen to at the FAA scoping meeting. I'll post a trip report.
Unfortunately, my real reason for going to the Valley isn't going to allow time to visit the Boca Chica site itself.
-
Looks like Elon wants more 'interest' at the state level for the proposed Boca Chica Launch site.
http://www.spacenews.com/commentaries/120507-fromwires-officials-little-tx.html
-
Looks like Elon wants more 'interest' at the state level for the proposed Boca Chica Launch site.
http://www.spacenews.com/commentaries/120507-fromwires-officials-little-tx.html
"The state of Texas ought to be on it like a duck on a June bug," said Tom Moser,
So true Tom Moser. So true. I think (I've never witnessed a duck on a June bug).
-
http://www.brownsvilleherald.com/news/spacex-139857-support-city.html
The proposed site, which is privately owned, sits just south of State Highway 4 not far from Boca Chica beach. The area is nothing but a grassy field with lots of sand.
I just noticed an interesting thing about the site in Google Maps: it shows streets and a ton of lots as if someone had contemplated building vacation bungalows there. The actual situation is more modest, leading me to suspect that SpaceX found a would-be developer who would give them a deal on the land. Some research in the Cameron County courthouse might fill out the story.
OK, possibly stupid question, but most of the media reports indicate a possible launch site just south of the terminus of state route 4 on private property, but Boca Chica village is north of the road. It's clearly right around here, but do we really know the correct location yet? Is anyone going to the Tuesday night meeting?
-
It's a bit late and I need to review my notes to be sure initial impressions are correct. But for now
-- The scoping meeting had a very large (several hundred people) turnout, SRO with maybe 300 seats set out.
-- The attendees were from a broad scope of the local populace.
-- The attitude was mostly positive or at least neutrally curious.
-- Local and state politicians were there, very supportive, said that other non-local state politicians, including Gov Perry, were behind the proposal and had (in a way I didn't catch) committed $3.2 million to help it.
-- And they at last showed where the site is going to be and its lay-out. I'm surprised it's so close to the water. When asked, a SpaceX representative said it sturdy enough to resist hurricanes, and is raised enough to resist flooding. I raise an eyebrow at that, but am not a civil engineer.
Pictures of the site, the venue, and cute kiddies attached. (The times on the pictures are an hour too early.)
More later, or maybe the Brownsville Herald will do it for me.
-
Awesome. Thank you!
I've attached a GoogleEarth placemark of the location in the photos.
-
Awesome. Thank you!
I've attached a GoogleEarth placemark of the location in the photos.
Thanks to both of you. ChileVerde, especially. We very much appreciate your trip out there.
I am astonished how close to the road this is. I guess this is where it had to be based on the description, but I just thought there was no room to put it there. If they ever actually build this, and assuming they don't close the road permanently, you would be able to get a fantastic view of the launch pad as you drove to the beach. I'm not sure I can tell what orientation the flame duct is, but it looks like you could almost leave a well anchored stick in place on the side of the road and roast marshmallows every time they launch. (Measuring on Google Maps gives you ~430 feet from the road to the center of the pad.)
-
Straightened, cropped, colors & gamma toyed with, etc. -
-
The posters and meeting factsheet are available at the bottom of this page.
http://www.faa.gov/about/office_org/headquarters_offices/ast/environmental/nepa_docs/review/documents_progress/spacex_texas_launch_site_environmental_impact_statement/ (http://www.faa.gov/about/office_org/headquarters_offices/ast/environmental/nepa_docs/review/documents_progress/spacex_texas_launch_site_environmental_impact_statement/)
-
THANKS!!
Do yourselves a favor: copy/paste the (huge!) images out of the PDF's into image software then crop to the vehicles & pad.
Interesting.
-
Boca Chica Village is less than 2 miles away. Google says a there are 6 year round residents. Seems like they will have to move, maybe this is part of the "support" SpaceX needs at the "state level".
-
Boca Chica Village is less than 2 miles away. Google says a there are 6 year round residents. Seems like they will have to move, maybe this is part of the "support" SpaceX needs at the "state level".
That particular subject didn't come up, but the SpaceX representative who was available at the poster session was conveying the general impression that the project would have minimum impact on the existing situation. One thing that I forgot to mention last night is that, according to the representative, the road from Brownsville is adequate as is and won't need improvement.
-
More later, or maybe the Brownsville Herald will do it for me.
Story here:
http://www.brownsvilleherald.com/news/hearing-140279-hundreds-public.html
I thought Rep. Oliveira said $3.2M rather than $2.2M, but the floor statements were recorded and there was a court reporter present, so that can be determined.
BTW, of the politicians speaking, Mr. Oliveira gave much the most informative 3-minute talk, going into the history of the proposal a bit and naming some of the other Texas politicians who helped out. Unfortunately, I couldn't keep up, but that will also be on the record. The Brownsville mayor, Mr. Martinez, also gave a bit of history and emphasized that his office had done a lot of due diligence to see if the fairly strange idea of a launch facility at Boca Chica held up. The other politicians said the sort of things one expects politicians to say.
-
More later, or maybe the Brownsville Herald will do it for me.
Story here:
http://www.brownsvilleherald.com/news/hearing-140279-hundreds-public.html
I thought Rep. Oliveira said $3.2M rather than $2.2M, but the floor statements were recorded and there was a court reporter present, so that can be determined.
BTW, of the politicians speaking, Mr. Oliveira gave much the most informative 3-minute talk, going into the history of the proposal a bit and naming some of the other Texas politicians who helped out. Unfortunately, I couldn't keep up, but that will also be on the record. The Brownsville mayor, Mr. Martinez, also gave a bit of history and emphasized that his office had done a lot of due diligence to see if the fairly strange idea of a launch facility at Boca Chica held up. The other politicians said the sort of things one expects politicians to say.
The talk in that article from that fifth grade teacher Mr. Salazar of: "Not only rockets being ignited but Students' dreams being ignited" is just absolutely inspiring.
-
Why does the pad have a redundant flame trench? Indeed, it looks sized to fit two Falcon Heavies bolted together...
-
Thanks for the heads up on those posters, lots of detail.
There don't seem to be any rail tracks.
Would the sound suppression system water pipe turn 90 degrees at the bottom of the tower like shown or would it be more of a long sweep turn?
-
Why does the pad have a redundant flame trench? Indeed, it looks sized to fit two Falcon Heavies bolted together...
Possibly future growth? They could build another Hangar and road at the opposite end to have 2 FH ready to go? One comes in from the left and one from the right a few days or weeks later?
-
Why does the pad have a redundant flame trench? Indeed, it looks sized to fit two Falcon Heavies bolted together...
Possibly future growth? They could build another Hangar and road at the opposite end to have 2 FH ready to go? One comes in from the left and one from the right a few days or weeks later?
It says in the PDF no more than 1 launch per month
-
There don't seem to be any rail tracks.
The rails would be recessed into the concrete (to allow road vehicles to drive over them; see below), and so probably below the resolution of the rendering.
http://mediaarchive.ksc.nasa.gov/detail.cfm?mediaid=58582
-
Thanks Simon, that would make sense.
-
Why does the pad have a redundant flame trench? Indeed, it looks sized to fit two Falcon Heavies bolted together...
Possibly future growth? They could build another Hangar and road at the opposite end to have 2 FH ready to go? One comes in from the left and one from the right a few days or weeks later?
It says in the PDF no more than 1 launch per month
One launch per month yes, but the FH will be rolled out to the pad prior to the day of the next launch obviously. So it stands to reason that they can have 2 FH in processing at either side of the launch pad. One launches, then roll the next one out for WDR etc..So you are still talking about being able to occupy the pad within weeks perhaps in some cases days after a launch.
-
There don't seem to be any rail tracks.
Vandenberg pad is not using rails
-
Really, what are they using, rubber tires, caterpillar tracks?
Are there pics anywhere?
-
Why does the pad have a redundant flame trench? Indeed, it looks sized to fit two Falcon Heavies bolted together...
Possibly future growth? They could build another Hangar and road at the opposite end to have 2 FH ready to go? One comes in from the left and one from the right a few days or weeks later?
It says in the PDF no more than 1 launch per month
One launch per month yes, but the FH will be rolled out to the pad prior to the day of the next launch obviously. So it stands to reason that they can have 2 FH in processing at either side of the launch pad. One launches, then roll the next one out for WDR etc..So you are still talking about being able to occupy the pad within weeks perhaps in some cases days after a launch.
Bold mine
Can someone briefly describe the 'maintenance' needed to the pad after a launch? How does coming from the one side of the pad get around the issues from the previous launch on the other side?
-
A dual HIF would not be possible at this site because the second HIF would be placed under the flight path to the east of the pad.
-
A dual HIF would not be possible at this site because the second HIF would be placed under the flight path to the east of the pad.
Not to mention that it would be in the water... :)
This is a great development and I hope it goes through. The local interest was much more than I would have expected, with the SRO crowd at the meeting. Brownsville is not exactly a high-tech place, but the people there clearly see the positive impact that this launch site could have on their area.
Mark S.
-
So that brings us back to Simons question, what is the dual flame trench that looks like it could handle two Falcon Heavies for?
-
There's only one "flame duct", see diagram. These early concepts are good for overall layout, not details.
-
Close up of the launch pad
-
I believe that this image was what was being referred to:
(http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v455/mongo62aa/Brownsville2wcropped.jpg)
As far as I know, the flame ducts are the two openings visible near the bottom of the pad.
-
As far as I know, the flame ducts are the two openings visible near the bottom of the pad.
Sorry, no. See the diagram.
-
Those two openings look like drainage.
-
Thanks corrodedNut, looks like the details are lacking in the the poster for sure.
In fact it looks like the flame duct isn't even depicted in the poster if your diagram is accurate.
Which begs the question, what are those 4 squares holes in the poster that we assumed were the flame ducts?
-
Thanks Jason, posted before reading your reply.
-
Which begs the question, what are those 4 squares holes in the poster that we assumed were the flame ducts?
They remind me of the openings in the Shuttle pads.
-
Which begs the question, what are those 4 squares holes in the poster that we assumed were the flame ducts?
They remind me of the openings in the Shuttle pads.
Which are for?
-
As far as I know, the flame ducts are the two openings visible near the bottom of the pad.
Sorry, no. See the diagram.
I see it now. I was only looking at the image on the easel from the linked article that had the right side of these images being obscured by the presenter.
This set-up is absolute gold for SpaceX. They own the immediate range and all that implies. This represents the true promise of Commercial Space! And GO Texas for hopefully pulling this one in. Thank all that is good that we still have a few states that know how to properly support the private sector.
I would think this site could help speed up development by allowing SpaceX to test prototypes early and often.
-
Does the road need closing during a launch?
Has SpaceX purchased the surrounding land so that a rival company cannot build a second launch pad near by?
-
1. Does the road need closing during a launch?
2. Has SpaceX purchased the surrounding land so that a rival company cannot build a second launch pad near by?
1. No,they are going to put up bleachers along the road and sell tickets.
2. No, they want to replicate
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/0/0f/Aerial_View_of_Missile_Row_-_GPN-2000-000610.jpg
-
1. Does the road need closing during a launch?
2. Has SpaceX purchased the surrounding land so that a rival company cannot build a second launch pad near by?
1. No,they are going to put up bleachers along the road and sell tickets.
2. No, they want to replicate
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/0/0f/Aerial_View_of_Missile_Row_-_GPN-2000-000610.jpg
;D :D
Nice picture of the cape.
-
Perhaps I don't get it, but why should an own launch range cheaper than one on which the fixed costs are divided between different customers? And 12 or more flights a year should be no problem at the cape, as it was done before in the 60ties...
-
I believe it has more to do with the current range scheduling conflicts.
-
1. Does the road need closing during a launch?
2. Has SpaceX purchased the surrounding land so that a rival company cannot build a second launch pad near by?
1. No,they are going to put up bleachers along the road and sell tickets.
2. No, they want to replicate
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/0/0f/Aerial_View_of_Missile_Row_-_GPN-2000-000610.jpg
Jim,
God Bless You.
And as for the Aerial View of Missile Row, it made me happy and sad. Happy to see what we once had and could accomplish. Sad because it is what we once had and accomplished.
Leave it to AM to spit diet coke all over a new 27 inch monitor.
One question - was anything spoken to in reference to turn around times? I am just catching up. My apologies if the question is redundant.
VR
RE327
-
With an approximate timeline of 6 months to 1 year depending on EPA and FAA studies involved, permits would be issued ~April 2013. Then 1 year to construct the site, so earliest probable operational capability for this site would be ~April 2014. It is possible but not probable it could be operational earlier by severl months or ~Jan 2014, but it is extreemly unlikely it could be operational before that date. The first launch would be ~3 months to 6 months after construction completion, which includes all equipment installs, checkouts and corrections of any problems with the ground systems which put first launch with a probable NET of July-Oct 2014.
The launch manifest shows a jump to 9 in year 2014 from 5 in 2013, so being able to do 2 or 3 launches from this site in 2014 could alieviate problems with launching from the cape.
-
1. Does the road need closing during a launch?
2. Has SpaceX purchased the surrounding land so that a rival company cannot build a second launch pad near by?
1. No,they are going to put up bleachers along the road and sell tickets.
2. No, they want to replicate
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/0/0f/Aerial_View_of_Missile_Row_-_GPN-2000-000610.jpg
Jim,
God Bless You.
And as for the Aerial View of Missile Row, it made me happy and sad. Happy to see what we once had and could accomplish. Sad because it is what we once had and accomplished.
Leave it to AM to spit diet coke all over a new 27 inch monitor.
{snip}
They were sensible questions. SpaceX is not a government agency so if traffic on a public road needs stopping during a take off this is the time to obtain special permission.
-
Thanks corrodedNut, looks like the details are lacking in the the poster for sure.
In fact it looks like the flame duct isn't even depicted in the poster if your diagram is accurate.
Which begs the question, what are those 4 squares holes in the poster that we assumed were the flame ducts?
I suspect you are reading a great deal more detail into what is likely just a concept instead of a firm plan at this point. Even if these openings are not all flame ducts then why would the structure be solid? Concrete and steel cost money and weigh a lot so if you don't have to make it solid then why would you?
-
Thanks corrodedNut, looks like the details are lacking in the the poster for sure.
In fact it looks like the flame duct isn't even depicted in the poster if your diagram is accurate.
Which begs the question, what are those 4 squares holes in the poster that we assumed were the flame ducts?
I suspect you are reading a great deal more detail into what is likely just a concept instead of a firm plan at this point. Even if these openings are not all flame ducts then why would the structure be solid? Concrete and steel cost money and weigh a lot so if you don't have to make it solid then why would you?
Bold mine
To hold up the rocket.
-
Looking at the pictures again. It would seem that there's a precarious road that goes to the North side of the pad, and the South part of the pad appears to be sand. I'm not an expert in hydraulics, but it might be that the pad is on the bottom of a small water flow? I mean, and excuse my lack of English to express it, that water runs during rains and such, and thus those two openings would allow water to flow. At the same time, since the sound suppression system uses water, it might allow that water to get out of the pad.
Another option, that might be in addition to the above mentioned one, is that it would allow easy vehicle access to the inner parts of the pad.
-
I suspect you are reading a great deal more detail into what is likely just a concept instead of a firm plan at this point. Even if these openings are not all flame ducts then why would the structure be solid? Concrete and steel cost money and weigh a lot so if you don't have to make it solid then why would you?
Bold mine To hold up the rocket.
Better chance of surviving a storm surge during the next hurricane?
-
Baldusi, those all sound pretty reasonable, especially drainage. I even wonder where the High Tide mark is.
-
They were sensible questions. SpaceX is not a government agency so if traffic on a public road needs stopping during a take off this is the time to obtain special permission.
They greatly lack common sense. It is painfully obvious and the local authorities recognize that the road would have to be closed on occasions. It doesn't matter whether Spacex is a gov't agency or not, the local authorities will close the road as needed, which is not a big deal. This happens all the time, all over the USA and does have to involve a rocket launch.
-
I know these are just preliminary designs, but why do there appear to be two engine holding structures. Could it indicate a Falcon Super Heavy?
(http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v455/mongo62aa/Brownsville2wcropped.jpg)
(http://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?action=dlattach;topic=28585.0;attach=397433;image)
-
I know these are just preliminary designs, but why do there appear to be two engine holding structures. Could it indicate a Falcon Super Heavy?
I think they may eventually do that, and that's why the concrete pad is bigger than it needs to be. The tower-erector is likely just designed for Falcon Heavy, as it's a lot easier to replace in the future than concrete.
That doesn't mean SpaceX is necessarily working on a larger rocket, but more that they don't want to paint themselves in a corner.
-
They were sensible questions. SpaceX is not a government agency so if traffic on a public road needs stopping during a take off this is the time to obtain special permission.
They greatly lack common sense. It is painfully obvious and the local authorities recognize that the road would have to be closed on occasions. It doesn't matter whether Spacex is a gov't agency or not, the local authorities will close the road as needed, which is not a big deal. This happens all the time, all over the USA and does have to involve a rocket launch.
Very true. There isn't a formal process for this, necessarily. You just contact the authorities, explain the situation, and if its sensible, they close the roads for you. For example, movie filming.
For a prominent local business that brings a number of high-paying jobs to the area, road closure for rocket launch would be pretty routine.
-
They were sensible questions. SpaceX is not a government agency so if traffic on a public road needs stopping during a take off this is the time to obtain special permission.
They greatly lack common sense. It is painfully obvious and the local authorities recognize that the road would have to be closed on occasions. It doesn't matter whether Spacex is a gov't agency or not, the local authorities will close the road as needed, which is not a big deal. This happens all the time, all over the USA and does have to involve a rocket launch.
I could see it working somewhat like a train crossing.
-
It's not terribly obvious in the map that's posted, but the road ends on the right-hand side. It's not like there's a mall and a subdivision just off the frame, in fact you can see where the beach is. That being said, I'm surprised the property boundary and fence lines are still on the south side of the road. I would think SpaceX would buy up more of the property and keep the road closed to any public traffic much further away.
Take a look at the scale. The road isn't much more than 300' away from the pad. If AM wants to watch a launch there maybe he can get a special pass to sit at the base of the lightning towers for Saturday's launch.
-
Why does the pad have a redundant flame trench? Indeed, it looks sized to fit two Falcon Heavies bolted together...
I think the four entrances may be for fueling. I remember reading that SpaceX had done research into ways to fuel their rockets up faster.
-
{snip}
Take a look at the scale. The road isn't much more than 300' away from the pad. If AM wants to watch a launch there maybe he can get a special pass to sit at the base of the lightning towers for Saturday's launch.
No its Jim that wants to watch not me. I just want to ensure that there are no cars or trucks driving past at the wrong time.
As ChefPat suggests something like a railway crossing.
My local airport has a road just after the end on the runway. During take off and landings the tower uses traffic lights to stop the traffic in both directions.
-
I just want to ensure that there are no cars or trucks driving past at the wrong time.
Not a concern of Internet knothole watchers, there are professionals tasked for this
-
A_M, the thing about NSF forums, as I'm sure you know, is that 'everybody should expect the Spanish inquisition' :)
-
I would think SpaceX would buy up more of the property and keep the road closed to any public traffic much further away.
One of the things Rep. Oliveira mentioned in his fast recounting of the history was that initially the idea was to use government land, then the private possibility came up.
When the private bit appeared last month, I tried to find just who owns the property in the area, with not much success. The public history is muddled as to federal and state acquisition and administration of land there, so just who the private owner SpaceX hopes to buy or lease from is still a bit of a mystery. Probably the answer would not be more interesting than that some good-old-boyism was involved, but it is kind of a loose end. An enterprising reporter in the area might be able to find out with some research and legwork.
-
You could find out who owns it by calling the local tax assessor's office.
-
I would think SpaceX would buy up more of the property and keep the road closed to any public traffic much further away.
One of the things Rep. Oliveira mentioned in his fast recounting of the history was that initially the idea was to use government land, then the private possibility came up.
When the private bit appeared last month, I tried to find just who owns the property in the area, with not much success. The public history is muddled as to federal and state acquisition and administration of land there, so just who the private owner SpaceX hopes to buy or lease from is still a bit of a mystery. Probably the answer would not be more interesting than that some good-old-boyism was involved, but it is kind of a loose end. An enterprising reporter in the area might be able to find out with some research and legwork.
15 minutes in public records, the same owners also own the adjacent properties
edit - removed owner's name and address
-
So if I'm reading that correctly, that's a 0.5 acre plot? How much contiguous land do they own around there?
-
So if I'm reading that correctly, that's a 0.5 acre plot? How much contiguous land do they own around there?
-
15 minutes in public records, the same owners also own the adjacent properties
edit - removed owner's name and address
Thanks. I'd visited http://www.cameroncad.org/ClientDB/ earlier but didn't succeed in finding the property. (And still, be it confessed, can't locate the maps -- there's a place to click for maps, but it doesn't do anything that I can tell.)
-
15 minutes in public records, the same owners also own the adjacent properties
edit - removed owner's name and address
Thanks. I'd visited http://www.cameroncad.org/ClientDB/ earlier but didn't succeed in finding the property. (And still, be it confessed, can't locate the maps -- there's a place to click for maps, but it doesn't do anything that I can tell.)
http://www.cameroncad.org/
Took me 13 of the 15 to find the map search. :)
-
http://www.cameroncad.org/
Took me 13 of the 15 to find the map search. :)
OK, got it -- it's obvious if you know where to look: http://www.cameroncad.org/cadclientdb/propertymap.aspx
It will be interesting to see if SpaceX buys the adjacent lots -- I'd guess they will, as it would give them room for expansion. And the price is right. :) Somewhat off topic, the cameroncad map gives the impression of a failed land development project that left some investors holding land they couldn't get rid of until SpaceX came along.
-
OK, got it -- it's obvious if you know where to look: http://www.cameroncad.org/cadclientdb/propertymap.aspx
It will be interesting to see if SpaceX buys the adjacent lots -- I'd guess they will, as it would give them room for expansion. And the price is right. :) Somewhat off topic, the cameroncad map gives the impression of a failed land development project that left some investors holding land they couldn't get rid of until SpaceX came along.
Yes. The project failed based on a lack water infrastructure.
-
OK, got it -- it's obvious if you know where to look: http://www.cameroncad.org/cadclientdb/propertymap.aspx
It will be interesting to see if SpaceX buys the adjacent lots -- I'd guess they will, as it would give them room for expansion. And the price is right. :) Somewhat off topic, the cameroncad map gives the impression of a failed land development project that left some investors holding land they couldn't get rid of until SpaceX came along.
Yes. The project failed based on a lack water infrastructure.
I take it seawater can be used for the pad sound suppression?
-
I take it seawater can be used for the pad sound suppression?
Seawater is *BAD* for use on a pad. *BAD*
-
They were sensible questions. SpaceX is not a government agency so if traffic on a public road needs stopping during a take off this is the time to obtain special permission.
Build a new road. You almost have to with security in mind.
Tourism. If SpaceX achieve launch rates you may want to own a local motel or three in the area. If this flies you will see the local public infrastructure completely change to accommodate the cash cow that is SpaceX.
Those are real private sector jobs that will pay good taxes to support the local government. I know if I was the mayor and chair of the county board I would be bending over backwards to land this.
You know - http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LV28AL0k1kY
VR
RE327
-
I take it seawater can be used for the pad sound suppression?
Seawater is *BAD* for use on a pad. *BAD*
OK, that makes sense- so if the site lacked sufficient water for development, where are they going to get the water they need?
-
I take it seawater can be used for the pad sound suppression?
Seawater is *BAD* for use on a pad. *BAD*
OK, that makes sense- so if the site lacked sufficient water for development, where are they going to get the water they need?
It won't be hard to fill the water tower for one launch per month.
-
I take it seawater can be used for the pad sound suppression?
Seawater is *BAD* for use on a pad. *BAD*
OK, that makes sense- so if the site lacked sufficient water for development, where are they going to get the water they need?
For the long term either a water pipeline or desalination plant would be require to supply the water needs of launch facility and the workforce. The alternative is a continuous stream of water tanker trucks.
-
BTW, Google street view works for this stretch of hwy:
-
I just want to ensure that there are no cars or trucks driving past at the wrong time.
Not a concern of Internet knothole watchers, there are professionals tasked for this
The biggest group of legally responsible effected persons are called car drivers. The next group are town planners.
-
I just want to ensure that there are no cars or trucks driving past at the wrong time.
Not a concern of Internet knothole watchers, there are professionals tasked for this
The biggest group of legally responsible effected persons are called car drivers. The next group are town planners.
So? And your point is?
Once again you are blathering and make unnecessary and inane posts. It is obvious to everyone that the area will have to be clear of unnecessary personnel during hazardous operation and the appropriate authorities will ensure this. The mystery is why you think you had to point this out.
And you are wrong. The car drivers are not legally responsible for knowing about launch ops.
-
One thing about this proposal is that there is no landing pad, nor any mention of landing the vehicles. They do talk about launching reusable stages, but not landing them on the site, and I can't find any mention of this being discussed at the scoping meeting.
If SpaceX really is planning on recovering stages, perhaps this is a clue they're planning on doing it downrange in the Gulf.
-
One thing about this proposal is that there is no landing pad, nor any mention of landing the vehicles. They do talk about launching reusable stages, but not landing them on the site, and I can't find any mention of this being discussed at the scoping meeting.
If SpaceX really is planning on recovering stages, perhaps this is a clue they're planning on doing it downrange in the Gulf.
Or at CCAFS?
-
<snip>
If SpaceX really is planning on recovering stages, perhaps this is a clue they're planning on doing it downrange in the Gulf.
Or at CCAFS?
Well, that's about 1600 Km which is pretty far and would require a lot of delta-v. It also would require descending over populated areas which several governments, not to mention insurance companies, might not look too favorably on.
-
<snip>
If SpaceX really is planning on recovering stages, perhaps this is a clue they're planning on doing it downrange in the Gulf.
Or at CCAFS?
Well, that's about 1600 Km which is pretty far and would require a lot of delta-v. It also would require descending over populated areas which several governments, not to mention insurance companies, might not look too favorably on.
SpaceX is trying to avoid being restricted by the Cape ops schedule. They would want to land at a facility that they can control to eliminate schedule conflicts.
-
One thing about this proposal is that there is no landing pad, nor any mention of landing the vehicles. They do talk about launching reusable stages, but not landing them on the site, and I can't find any mention of this being discussed at the scoping meeting.
If SpaceX really is planning on recovering stages, perhaps this is a clue they're planning on doing it downrange in the Gulf.
I submitted questions relating to the suborbital flights -- how far from Boca Chica they'll get, where they'll land -- to the FAA by e-mail. Hopefully those will be seen as relevant to the EIS and answers will appear in the fullness of time.
-
One thing about this proposal is that there is no landing pad, nor any mention of landing the vehicles. They do talk about launching reusable stages, but not landing them on the site, and I can't find any mention of this being discussed at the scoping meeting.
If SpaceX really is planning on recovering stages, perhaps this is a clue they're planning on doing it downrange in the Gulf.
I submitted questions relating to the suborbital flights -- how far from Boca Chica they'll get, where they'll land -- to the FAA by e-mail. Hopefully those will be seen as relevant to the EIS and answers will appear in the fullness of time.
A landing pad would not have very much infrastructure besides a road access, the reinforced landing pad and four Differential GPS transmitters (evolved from the ISS/Dragon approach system) to enable pinpoint landings.
The only real question is where?
There will be a slight power need at the landing pad for the DGPS but everything else would be truck based. It would be trucked back to the HIF for additional processing/checkout. A RP-1 scavanger truck to offload the remaining RP-1 residuals and possibly additional scavenger trucks if the stage also contains hypergolics. The pad would be designed such that spills can be easily cleaned up. LOX would be boiled off.
-
One thing about this proposal is that there is no landing pad, nor any mention of landing the vehicles. They do talk about launching reusable stages, but not landing them on the site, and I can't find any mention of this being discussed at the scoping meeting.
If SpaceX really is planning on recovering stages, perhaps this is a clue they're planning on doing it downrange in the Gulf.
I submitted questions relating to the suborbital flights -- how far from Boca Chica they'll get, where they'll land -- to the FAA by e-mail. Hopefully those will be seen as relevant to the EIS and answers will appear in the fullness of time.
A landing pad would not have very much infrastructure besides a road access, the reinforced landing pad and four Differential GPS transmitters (evolved from the ISS/Dragon approach system) to enable pinpoint landings.
The only real question is where?
There will be a slight power need at the landing pad for the DGPS but everything else would be truck based. It would be trucked back to the HIF for additional processing/checkout. A RP-1 scavanger truck to offload the remaining RP-1 residuals and possibly additional scavenger trucks if the stage also contains hypergolics. The pad would be designed such that spills can be easily cleaned up. LOX would be boiled off.
Any estimate of landing pad size? Would be circular or block shape?
-
A landing pad would not have very much infrastructure besides a road access, the reinforced landing pad and four Differential GPS transmitters (evolved from the ISS/Dragon approach system) to enable pinpoint landings.
Wouldn't there need to be some safety equipment such as fire suppression, some kind of radar to track the stage in the event of lost downlink etc.?
Anyway, if something went wrong on the descent, it's still unclear to me what the response could be if the landing site was anywhere near a populated area. For launching over the ocean, shutting off the engines and/or blowing up the vehicle works, but those wouldn't be options.
-
Anyway, if something went wrong on the descent, it's still unclear to me what the response could be if the landing site was anywhere near a populated area. For launching over the ocean, shutting off the engines and/or blowing up the vehicle works, but those wouldn't be options.
Why won't that work for the Boca Chica site? You can't get much closer to the ocean, and there is no "populated area" nearby, if you temporarily move out the six residents from their homes a mile or so away.
-
I assume that four DGPS transmitters are used as the three minimum necessary + one hot spare?
-
I assume that four DGPS transmitters are used as the three minimum necessary + one hot spare?
Actually you only need 1. But having 4 spaced at positions that would have varying RF angles to the antenna on the descending stage provides a much more reliable pinpoint landing capability.
Plus I was looking at the pad facilities outline and the available land near the pad north and east but still south of the end of Hwy 4, there looks to be enough space for a significant sized landing pad.
As for tracking of the descending stage the same systems used for ascent would work for descent.
-
Anyway, if something went wrong on the descent, it's still unclear to me what the response could be if the landing site was anywhere near a populated area. For launching over the ocean, shutting off the engines and/or blowing up the vehicle works, but those wouldn't be options.
Why won't that work for the Boca Chica site? You can't get much closer to the ocean, and there is no "populated area" nearby, if you temporarily move out the six residents from their homes a mile or so away.
The discussion is about the descent and landing.
If the stage were on a ballistic track heading back roughly for Brownsville and lost control before reentry, the engines would already be shut down. Blowing it up would just enlarge the debris footprint.
There are, what appear to be, heavily populated areas about 5 miles N of the launch site. Have any studies been done about how far the debris from a destroyed stage reentering around Mach 6 would disperse?
If the stage is left whole, it would be carrying several tons of RP1 and LOX, so would be pretty dangerous. Depending on it's pitch and the angle of descent, it might glide quite a way, likely on a pretty chaotic path. Brownsville proper is about 15 miles away, less than a minute at Mach 2.
-
An unenthusiastic review by a local blogger. Apparently the Texas funding is 3.2M, not 2.2M, but is not an immediate prospect.
http://meanmisterbrownsville.blogspot.com/2012/05/did-rene-oliveira-overstate-things.html
You may also have heard from Rene Oliveira that the State of Texas has committed $3,200,000 to get the launch pad site "shovel ready." Wrong, wrong, wrong! Just the opposite. Notice a portion of a letter from Rene Oliveira's own Chief of Staff:
"As of today, SpaceX has filed with federal officials a letter stating SpaceX’s intent to prepare an environmental impact study on the Boca Chica Beach site. From what we can tell, several federal agencies, including the Environmental Protection Agency, U.S. Fish and Game, and the Federal
Aviation Administration, will have to evaluate and clear the project from an environmental and safety standpoint before it can proceed. SpaceX is an exciting opportunity for our community. The State of Texas, through the Enterprise Fund, has committed $3.2 million to the Boca Chica Beach site that SpaceX can access when the site becomes “shovel ready.”"
I need to find that letter, as some of its language seems to be OBE.
-
OK, here are letters as posted by another local blogger.
Posted: Wed May 09, 2012 12:49 pm
http://rgv.7.forumer.com/viewtopic.php?p=17431
I recently emailed Eddie Lucio, Eddie Lucion III, Blake Farenthold, Rene Oliveira and Gov. Rick Perry about why the state of Texas appears less forthcoming in helping SpaceX in locating in our area.
Only the Chief of Staff, Rene Oliveira responded to my inquiry and here's what he had to say:
Quote:
Mr. Lehmann,
Thank you for your email regarding a recently published news article about SpaceX. Representative Oliveira asked that I respond to your email as he is in court in his private capacity as an attorney today.
Before I address the specifics of the SpaceX proposal, I would like to let you know that Rep. Oliveira has long supported the aerospace industry in Texas. In 1998 when he was chairman of the House Committee on Economic Development, he helped construct the “Spaceport” legislation to develop a funding mechanism to support a launch facility. The legislation passed in 1999, and though it went through the Economic Development Committee, Rep. Oliveira had been promoted to chairman of the Ways and Means Committee, but supported the bill.
Additionally, this past session, Rep. Oliveira supported Senate Bill 115, which limited the liability of a “Space Flight Entity” for any harm on a “Space Flight Participant” who signs a waiver stating the risks. The legislation was designed to help lure Virgin Galactic, which is owned by billionaire Sir Richard Branson, and plans to operate space planes to fly people into low space orbit for short trips, from its proposed New Mexico site. SpaceX considered the legislation as an important indication that the State of Texas was highly receptive to the expansion of our aerospace industry.
A few months ago, my staff, along with staff from the General Land Office, Texas Parks and Wildlife, the Governor’s Office, and staff members from other Valley offices, met with SpaceX officials to discuss their plans. At the time, they were exploring the use of state-owned land, some if it environmentally sensitive, for construction of the launch facility. We were asked to keep the details of the proposal confidential.
While everyone was generally supportive, concerns were raised about the impact on Valley’s unique “lomas,” nesting sea turtles, and the endangered Piping Plover. At that time, there was insufficient evidence to even begin to assess what the impact might be. After that meeting, there were a couple of other smaller meetings with Brownsville economic development officials, and a few phone calls to get additional information from SpaceX.
About a month ago, SpaceX and Brownsville economic development officials requested another meeting. At that time, they announced that SpaceX had found a privately-owned piece of property and had obtained an option to purchase the property, pending environmental and safety permitting by the federal government. Shortly after that meeting, SpaceX officials publicly stated that Boca Chica Beach was under consideration, along with a few other sites, for a private launch facility.
As of today, SpaceX has filed with federal officials a letter stating SpaceX’s intent to prepare an environmental impact study on the Boca Chica Beach site. From what we can tell, several federal agencies, including the Environmental Protection Agency, U.S. Fish and Game, and the Federal Aviation Administration, will have to evaluate and clear the project from an environmental and safety standpoint before it can proceed.
SpaceX is an exciting opportunity for our community. The State of Texas, through the Enterprise Fund, has committed $3.2 million to the Boca Chica Beach site that SpaceX can access when the site becomes “shovel ready.”
After the cooperation and encouragement Representative Oliveira’s office has offered SpaceX, we were surprised to read SpaceX founder Elon Musk’s comment that he felt there has not been much done at the state level. We were examining the option of using state-owned land as SpaceX asked, when SpaceX found another suitable site. We continued to meet with them for updates, offered our assistance, but, other than the state land option, we have not been asked by SpaceX to perform any specific act.
(The Associated Press article many people read stated that “SpaceX wants to create a quasi-governmental agency similar to Space Florida.” The article was a brief version of a longer article written by Eric Berger. The longer article says that Texas Space Alliance, not SpaceX, wants the agency.)
SpaceX has been dealing primarily with the Governor’s Office, but we have not been told of any dissatisfaction until Mr. Musk’s comments appeared in print. We have been contacted preliminarily about a possible meeting later this week with Brownsville economic development officials and SpaceX. Hopefully we will get a better idea of what SpaceX’s needs are and how we can help them.
I hope this answers your questions regarding what has been and is being done to advance the Boca Chica site. Should you have any more questions, please feel free to write Rep. Oliveira again, either by returning this email or using his Texas House of Representatives webpage as you did before.
Thank you.
J.J. Garza
Chief of Staff
Office of Representative René O. Oliveira
And just today:
Quote:
Mr. Lehmann,
As I stated in my earlier email, SpaceX is in the process of trying to get federal clearance for the Boca Chica site. They are proceeding with the same clearance at least two other sites. The Federal Aviation Administration has hired a private firm to perform an environmental impact statement on the proposed site. The study will evaluate the ecological and economic impact the proposed site will have.
On Tuesday, May 15th, the consulting firm will hold a public hearing in Brownsville at the ITEC Building at UTB/TSC campus located at the old Amigoland Mall. It will begin at 5 p.m. with an open house on the projects specifics. At about 5:30 the firm will begin to take testimony. Each witness will be permitted 3 minutes to speak. Written testimony is also permitted, and the deadline for such testimony will be May 31st.
Should you have the opportunity, we would certainly encourage you to attend and make you opinion known. If you have any questions, please feel free to contact me at your convenience.
J.J. Garza
Chief of Staff
Office of Representative René O. Oliveira
-
<snip>
If SpaceX really is planning on recovering stages, perhaps this is a clue they're planning on doing it downrange in the Gulf.
Or at CCAFS?
Well, that's about 1600 Km which is pretty far and would require a lot of delta-v. It also would require descending over populated areas which several governments, not to mention insurance companies, might not look too favorably on.
Falcon 9 first stages thus far have fallen about 1200 km from the launch site. Getting an extra 400 km and changing direction would be easier than boosting back to the launch site. But I agree about the overflight problem. And, FWIW, when Musk announced the plan for rocket-powered recovery of Falcon first stages, he definitely mentioned returning to the launch site. In fact, he said return to "the launch pad, (http://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=26928.msg814759#msg814759)" though I presume he meant "the launch site."
-
<snip>
If SpaceX really is planning on recovering stages, perhaps this is a clue they're planning on doing it downrange in the Gulf.
Or at CCAFS?
Well, that's about 1600 Km which is pretty far and would require a lot of delta-v. It also would require descending over populated areas which several governments, not to mention insurance companies, might not look too favorably on.
Falcon 9 first stages thus far have fallen about 1200 km from the launch site. Getting an extra 400 km and changing direction would be easier than boosting back to the launch site. But I agree about the overflight problem. And, FWIW, when Musk announced the plan for rocket-powered recovery of Falcon first stages, he definitely mentioned returning to the launch site. In fact, he said return to "the launch pad, (http://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=26928.msg814759#msg814759)" though I presume he meant "the launch site."
Same thread as your link:-
http://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=26928.msg814400#msg814400
cheers, Martin
-
<snip>
If SpaceX really is planning on recovering stages, perhaps this is a clue they're planning on doing it downrange in the Gulf.
Or at CCAFS?
Well, that's about 1600 Km which is pretty far and would require a lot of delta-v. It also would require descending over populated areas which several governments, not to mention insurance companies, might not look too favorably on.
Falcon 9 first stages thus far have fallen about 1200 km from the launch site. Getting an extra 400 km and changing direction would be easier than boosting back to the launch site. But I agree about the overflight problem. And, FWIW, when Musk announced the plan for rocket-powered recovery of Falcon first stages, he definitely mentioned returning to the launch site. In fact, he said return to "the launch pad, (http://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=26928.msg814759#msg814759)" though I presume he meant "the launch site."
I was thinking they could have designed the new first stage such that its propellant loading made the ballistic impact point well to the east of Florida's coast. Then the boostback maneuver would take it back to the west, so it would not impact land if the boostback failed.
Or they could buy a Key for landing!
-
<snip>
If SpaceX really is planning on recovering stages, perhaps this is a clue they're planning on doing it downrange in the Gulf.
Or at CCAFS?
Well, that's about 1600 Km which is pretty far and would require a lot of delta-v. It also would require descending over populated areas which several governments, not to mention insurance companies, might not look too favorably on.
Falcon 9 first stages thus far have fallen about 1200 km from the launch site. Getting an extra 400 km and changing direction would be easier than boosting back to the launch site. But I agree about the overflight problem. And, FWIW, when Musk announced the plan for rocket-powered recovery of Falcon first stages, he definitely mentioned returning to the launch site. In fact, he said return to "the launch pad, (http://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=26928.msg814759#msg814759)" though I presume he meant "the launch site."
I was thinking they could have designed the new first stage such that its propellant loading made the ballistic impact point well to the east of Florida's coast. Then the boostback maneuver would take it back to the west, so it would not impact land if the boostback failed.
Or they could buy a Key for landing!
Actually it is more likely that they will use a lofted trajectory to take the first stage less far downrange.
-
I was thinking they could have designed the new first stage such that its propellant loading made the ballistic impact point well to the east of Florida's coast. Then the boostback maneuver would take it back to the west, so it would not impact land if the boostback failed.
Or they could buy a Key for landing!
I'm certainly no expert on range safety, but IMHO it would be sticky to get government and insurance company approval for a flight profile where an early thrust termination would result in the vehicle hitting a populated area. Florida is roughly 200 km wide, so at, say Mach 6, that's around a 2 minute window depending on pitch angle.
Despite Elon's statements, it still seems to me safer, cheaper, and technically easier to land the first stage(s) at sea, rather than boost back to the launch site. A lot of the Gulf is pretty shallow which could be an advantage for an anchored or jacked up platform. Alternatively, it might make sense to use some kind of floating platform that the stage(s) could be returned on. Obviously the down side is that you've got to return it by sea which would take a couple of days, but the savings in delta-v should be pretty significant.
Anyway, my major concern still is how a return using a landing site on the mainland anywhere near Brownsville, or Florida, could be considered safe.
-
I was thinking they could have designed the new first stage such that its propellant loading made the ballistic impact point well to the east of Florida's coast. Then the boostback maneuver would take it back to the west, so it would not impact land if the boostback failed.
Or they could buy a Key for landing!
I'm certainly no expert on range safety, but IMHO it would be sticky to get government and insurance company approval for a flight profile where an early thrust termination would result in the vehicle hitting a populated area. Florida is roughly 200 km wide, so at, say Mach 6, that's around a 2 minute window depending on pitch angle.
Despite Elon's statements, it still seems to me safer, cheaper, and technically easier to land the first stage(s) at sea, rather than boost back to the launch site. A lot of the Gulf is pretty shallow which could be an advantage for an anchored or jacked up platform. Alternatively, it might make sense to use some kind of floating platform that the stage(s) could be returned on. Obviously the down side is that you've got to return it by sea which would take a couple of days, but the savings in delta-v should be pretty significant.
Anyway, my major concern still is how a return using a landing site on the mainland anywhere near Brownsville, or Florida, could be considered safe.
Prepare for a patent war with Blue Origin.
-
That patent is not worth the paper it's printed on. First off, powered reentry technology has been around for sometime just look up the DCX project. I'm not sure you can just support one part of the patent meaning barge landings. A good patent lawyer will punch holes in this all day long. Powered flight vehicles have been landing on boats since the early 20th century. Not sure if you can make a distinction between jets and rockets legally since both use combustion chamber ignition for power. Jets make powered landings as well.
-
<snip>
Despite Elon's statements, it still seems to me safer, cheaper, and technically easier to land the first stage(s) at sea, rather than boost back to the launch site.
<snip>
Prepare for a patent war with Blue Origin.
This has been discussed many times and the general feeling is that because of several instances of prior art, Blue Origin would lose such a fight. AFAIK, to date that patent hasn't been awarded yet anyway.
-
<snip>
Despite Elon's statements, it still seems to me safer, cheaper, and technically easier to land the first stage(s) at sea, rather than boost back to the launch site.
<snip>
Prepare for a patent war with Blue Origin.
This has been discussed many times and the general feeling is that because of several instances of prior art, Blue Origin would lose such a fight. AFAIK, to date that patent hasn't been awarded yet anyway.
SpaceX has a policy of NOT patenting things.. because they don't want their designs copied. that makes a patent war difficult to win.
-
I was thinking they could have designed the new first stage such that its propellant loading made the ballistic impact point well to the east of Florida's coast. Then the boostback maneuver would take it back to the west, so it would not impact land if the boostback failed.
Or they could buy a Key for landing!
Actually it is more likely that they will use a lofted trajectory to take the first stage less far downrange.
Musk thought a lofted trajectory was a very bad idea in this article (http://www.airspacemag.com/space-exploration/Is-It-Safe.html) I found from 2009.
-
I was thinking they could have designed the new first stage such that its propellant loading made the ballistic impact point well to the east of Florida's coast. Then the boostback maneuver would take it back to the west, so it would not impact land if the boostback failed.
Or they could buy a Key for landing!
Actually it is more likely that they will use a lofted trajectory to take the first stage less far downrange.
Musk thought a lofted trajectory was a very bad idea in this article (http://www.airspacemag.com/space-exploration/Is-It-Safe.html) I found from 2009.
Here is a simulated launch from Texas 31 degree inclination and the impact of the first stage (tumbling profile). One is lofted and the other is not. Neither comes close to Florida. The burn time is too short for a lofted trajectory to really impact the impact location of the first stage. Also, I found that the 2nd stage going over this part of Florida would have a window of 60 seconds where a failure would put it on land.
-
Nice simulation. Was that with 1.0 or 1.1?
-
Nice simulation. Was that with 1.0 or 1.1?
1.1 single stick, zero payload (maximum acceleration and distance) Adding payload would move the points a little further south west.
-
As long as you're simulating, is the trajectory such that a first-stage failure could bring it down on the Gulf oil field? Extremely unlikely, but I wouldn't want to be on an oil rig that took a hit from a Falcon.
-
Using my picture from earlier, the answer is maybe as the oil rigs are spread out all over the gulf. I think the nominal trajectory from Texas is 90 degrees east and this is its path.
http://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=28585.msg888449#msg888449
Any failure at a specific time would yield an impact down range on this line.
-
Could they use a retired oil platform? Is that large enough? They are built with cranes and living quarters, and might be cheaper to lease then a large enough boat. Apologies if that was already the running assumption.
-
As long as you're simulating, is the trajectory such that a first-stage failure could bring it down on the Gulf oil field? Extremely unlikely, but I wouldn't want to be on an oil rig that took a hit from a Falcon.
Here is a map of all the rigs on the Gulf.
http://geocommons.com/maps/268
-
That patent is not worth the paper it's printed on. First off, powered reentry technology has been around for sometime just look up the DCX project.
Heck, look up the Luna and Surveyor projects. ;)
-
Wouldn't the FH strap-on boosters provide the best opportunities for boost-back, return to launch site re-use? For F9 the temptation to get extra payload to orbit (rather than reserving stage 1 propellant for recovery) is going to be strong; the high payload capability of FH will mean for many payloads there could be plenty of extra prop, especially for the stage 0 boosters, where the ratio of payload-orbited to propellant-reserved is low.
-
Wouldn't the FH strap-on boosters provide the best opportunities for boost-back, return to launch site re-use? For F9 the temptation to get extra payload to orbit (rather than reserving stage 1 propellant for recovery) is going to be strong; the high payload capability of FH will mean for many payloads there could be plenty of extra prop, especially for the stage 0 boosters, where to ratio of payload-orbited to propellant-reserved is low.
Maybe so, but if most of their launches are F9's, that's where the potential cost savings are.
-
As long as you're simulating, is the trajectory such that a first-stage failure could bring it down on the Gulf oil field? Extremely unlikely, but I wouldn't want to be on an oil rig that took a hit from a Falcon.
I'd think the probability of hitting one would be very low even though there are a few thousand of them in the entire Gulf. The downrange track is largely over deep water so there are very few out there, I believe around 100 total. Given the small number and their small size, around 100 m, the probability of hitting one is very low, probably less than .1% for a completely random crash.
-
As long as you're simulating, is the trajectory such that a first-stage failure could bring it down on the Gulf oil field? Extremely unlikely, but I wouldn't want to be on an oil rig that took a hit from a Falcon.
Here is a map of all the rigs on the Gulf.
http://geocommons.com/maps/268
ALL of the oil rigs on that map are further north than the proposed Texas launch site. The launch track for an equatorial orbit (which I think would be their main intent for the Texas site) will not overfly any of them.
-
Here is a map of all the rigs on the Gulf.
http://geocommons.com/maps/268
Sadly that maps only shows 2008 US oil rigs, and not Mexican or more importantly Cuban (They just leased a whole bunch of oil rights to China).
It could really be messy if a Falcon 9 takes out a rig full of chinese workers.
-
It could really be messy if a Falcon 9 takes out a rig full of chinese workers.
Nah, they're used to it. Goodnight everybody!
-
Wouldn't the FH strap-on boosters provide the best opportunities for boost-back, return to launch site re-use? For F9 the temptation to get extra payload to orbit (rather than reserving stage 1 propellant for recovery) is going to be strong; the high payload capability of FH will mean for many payloads there could be plenty of extra prop, especially for the stage 0 boosters, where to ratio of payload-orbited to propellant-reserved is low.
Maybe so, but if most of their launches are F9's, that's where the potential cost savings are.
Modifying my simulator for boost back. Looking at 20mt payload for boost back of S0 and S1 and later recovery of SII. Will continue to calculate boost back of stages to narrow it down.
-
<snip>
If SpaceX really is planning on recovering stages, perhaps this is a clue they're planning on doing it downrange in the Gulf.
Or at CCAFS?
Well, that's about 1600 Km which is pretty far and would require a lot of delta-v. It also would require descending over populated areas which several governments, not to mention insurance companies, might not look too favorably on.
Falcon 9 first stages thus far have fallen about 1200 km from the launch site. Getting an extra 400 km and changing direction would be easier than boosting back to the launch site. But I agree about the overflight problem. And, FWIW, when Musk announced the plan for rocket-powered recovery of Falcon first stages, he definitely mentioned returning to the launch site. In fact, he said return to "the launch pad, (http://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=26928.msg814759#msg814759)" though I presume he meant "the launch site."
Same thread as your link:-
http://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=26928.msg814400#msg814400 (http://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=26928.msg814400#msg814400)
cheers, Martin
In that post, punder points out that according to Musk the video was inaccurate in some respects, and that the video shows a return to launch the launch site. Punder does not, however, address the fact that Musk himself explicitly stated that the stage would return to the launch site. Not everything Musk says is true, but we can't brush this one off by saying the video is unreliable.
-
In that post, punder points out that according to Musk the video was inaccurate in some respects, and that the video shows a return to launch the launch site. Punder does not, however, address the fact that Musk himself explicitly stated that the stage would return to the launch site. Not everything Musk says is true, but we can't brush this one off by saying the video is unreliable.
Perhaps, but as initially posted, there's no mention of landing at the Texas site. It's possible that landing facility will be proposed later, but it does seem a bit speculative for SpaceX to put all the launch infrastructure in place first, then apply for permission to do landings.
What if the answer is no?
-
As I recall, there's no mention of Texas at all, just of a return to the launch pad. Doesn't that imply a return to the launch site, regardless of where that site is?
-
<snip>
If SpaceX really is planning on recovering stages, perhaps this is a clue they're planning on doing it downrange in the Gulf.
Or at CCAFS?
Well, that's about 1600 Km which is pretty far and would require a lot of delta-v. It also would require descending over populated areas which several governments, not to mention insurance companies, might not look too favorably on.
Falcon 9 first stages thus far have fallen about 1200 km from the launch site. Getting an extra 400 km and changing direction would be easier than boosting back to the launch site. But I agree about the overflight problem. And, FWIW, when Musk announced the plan for rocket-powered recovery of Falcon first stages, he definitely mentioned returning to the launch site. In fact, he said return to "the launch pad, (http://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=26928.msg814759#msg814759)" though I presume he meant "the launch site."
Same thread as your link:-
http://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=26928.msg814400#msg814400 (http://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=26928.msg814400#msg814400)
In that post, punder points out that according to Musk the video was inaccurate in some respects, and that the video shows a return to launch the launch site. Punder does not, however, address the fact that Musk himself explicitly stated that the stage would return to the launch site. Not everything Musk says is true, but we can't brush this one off by saying the video is unreliable.
The implication of what you're saying is "some of the details in this video are intentionally wrong, but don't worry I'll tell you what they are".
It seems reasonable to me that where they had decided to obfuscate details in the video, Musk would repeat the same in his talk.
cheers, Martin
-
Falcon 9 first stages thus far have fallen about 1200 km from the launch site. Getting an extra 400 km and changing direction would be easier than boosting back to the launch site. But I agree about the overflight problem. And, FWIW, when Musk announced the plan for rocket-powered recovery of Falcon first stages, he definitely mentioned returning to the launch site. In fact, he said return to "the launch pad, (http://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=26928.msg814759#msg814759)" though I presume he meant "the launch site."
Same thread as your link:-
http://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=26928.msg814400#msg814400 (http://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=26928.msg814400#msg814400)
In that post, punder points out that according to Musk the video was inaccurate in some respects, and that the video shows a return to launch the launch site. Punder does not, however, address the fact that Musk himself explicitly stated that the stage would return to the launch site. Not everything Musk says is true, but we can't brush this one off by saying the video is unreliable.
The implication of what you're saying is "some of the details in this video are intentionally wrong, but don't worry I'll tell you what they are".
I infer no commitment from Musk, either explicit or implicit, to tell us which elements of the video are inaccurate. What I do suggest is that if he values his credibility, he's unlikely to confirm in his own words any elements of the video which are known to be inaccurate.
-
As I recall, there's no mention of Texas at all, just of a return to the launch pad. Doesn't that imply a return to the launch site, regardless of where that site is?
The issue being raised is that there's no mention of landing at the Texas site in any of the approval processes now going on. There would definitely have to be a bunch of government approvals, both national and local to allow anything like a boost back to the Texas site. The local citizens also are going to have to agree, and there was no mention of it at the public meeting either.
Of course, it's possible that the Texas site is only going to be used for non-recovery launches.
-
Question - Is the challange of fly back easier, harder, or no different for a low inclination orbit launch from the cape or a high inclination orbit launch from Vandenberg?
I'm also wondering if the return ground track to Vandenberg would be close to, or over populated areas.
-
Depending on the pad, due to the oil rigs off of Vandenberg, Vandenberg often requires dogleg maneuvers, meaning it should be a more difficult boost back with doglegs.
As an afterthought. You do have Mexico downrange. so how much harder would it be to boost sideways to a prepared pad down range?
-
Of course, it's possible that the Texas site is only going to be used for non-recovery launches.
One thing I wonder about is the statement that Texas is one of three launch sites in the running for whatever it is SpaceX plans, Florida and Puerto Rico being the other two. Under the down-range recovery scenario, where would the recovery sites be for FL and PR launches?
-
Of course, it's possible that the Texas site is only going to be used for non-recovery launches.
One thing I wonder about is the statement that Texas is one of three launch sites in the running for whatever it is SpaceX plans, Florida and Puerto Rico being the other two. Under the down-range recovery scenario, where would the recovery sites be for FL and PR launches?
Maybe oceanic platform of some sort.
-
Maybe oceanic platform of some sort.
That thought had occurred to me. There are ocean-going platforms that are pretty big and, as I understand it, the fly-back idea requires precision landing in any case.
http://www.mossww.com/technologies/baredeck.php
Edit: Add picture of the above baredeck platform in the (as it happens) Brownsville shipyard in 2004. The useable baredeck area seems to be 60-ish meters on a side. Could SpaceX plunk a first stage down in such an area?
-
Maybe oceanic platform of some sort.
If it lands on Venezuelan territorial waters, it would be an export, i.e. a no no due to ITAR.
-
I believe the only two pieces of positive evidence (the video, and a passing comment by Elon (who, granted, likes to say docking and mean berthing)) suggest landing back at the launch site.
-
Maybe oceanic platform of some sort.
If it lands on Venezuelan territorial waters, it would be an export, i.e. a no no due to ITAR.
There are retired oil rigs all the way to the FL panhandle. Update the deck of one in the right area for landing and ship it back from there on a helicopter to speed up turnaround.
-
Maybe oceanic platform of some sort.
If it lands on Venezuelan territorial waters, it would be an export, i.e. a no no due to ITAR.
There are retired oil rigs all the way to the FL panhandle. Update the deck of one in the right area for landing and ship it back from there on a helicopter to speed up turnaround.
Can Skycranes lift something that long and massive?
Maybe the stage could be refueled on the platform and boost back to Texas or Florida. Or shipping is always an option. ;)
-
Maybe the stage could be refueled on the platform and boost back to Texas or Florida. Or shipping is always an option. ;)
And some platforms are self-propelled, like the one shown above. That one can make 10 knots (maybe 10 mph -- I forget), and so could get back to Texas in two or three days.
Disclaimer: I in no way advocate this idea or even claim it makes sense. It's just something to discuss.
-
The discussion so far has been on how the Texas launch site might figure into plans for testing grasshopper. I wonder if it might see service for testing propulsive landing Dragon (form helicopter drops) and the Dragon launch escape system (from sitting on an upper stage coupling simulator) before grasshopper.
Being near the coast might be important to fully test the dragon launch escape system as it calls for a splashdown landing in that event iirc.
-
The discussion so far has been on how the Texas launch site might figure into plans for testing grasshopper. I wonder if it might see service for testing propulsive landing Dragon (form helicopter drops) and the Dragon launch escape system (from sitting on an upper stage coupling simulator) before grasshopper.
Being near the coast might be important to fully test the dragon launch escape system as it calls for a splashdown landing in that event iirc.
Actually the discussion is more about recovering first stages as there has been no mention of anything landing at the site, only launching. That's one reason several people are thinking that the landing may be done on some kind of platform in the Gulf.
Keep in mind, this is a very small facility, something like 8 acres developed in about 50 acres total. There's not much space to safely do a whole lot more than launch rockets out over the Gulf.
-
Grasshopper hops are likely to involve both takeoffs and landings. Off site flights are likely to wait for landings to be debugged first.
-
Blue Origin has also announced floating platforms as part of their recovery strategy. In fact, they've applied for a patent on it. (Which, presumably, SpaceX would have to either license --- if Blue Origin were willing --- or somehow work around if they wanted to try the same thing.)
-
Blue Origin has also announced floating platforms as part of their recovery strategy. In fact, they've applied for a patent on it. (Which, presumably, SpaceX would have to either license --- if Blue Origin were willing --- or somehow work around if they wanted to try the same thing.)
Many have already mentioned that this patent is probably invalid, since the primary idea of the patent has been discussed numerous times in the public domain. Thank God. (Bezos... the father of the one-click patent!)
-
Blue Origin has also announced floating platforms as part of their recovery strategy. In fact, they've applied for a patent on it. (Which, presumably, SpaceX would have to either license --- if Blue Origin were willing --- or somehow work around if they wanted to try the same thing.)
Many have already mentioned that this patent is probably invalid, since the primary idea of the patent has been discussed numerous times in the public domain. Thank God. (Bezos... the father of the one-click patent!)
It's not a "floating platform"... It's a buoyant landing and recovery device!
-
The discussion so far has been on how the Texas launch site might figure into plans for testing grasshopper. I wonder if it might see service for testing propulsive landing Dragon (form helicopter drops) and the Dragon launch escape system (from sitting on an upper stage coupling simulator) before grasshopper.
Being near the coast might be important to fully test the dragon launch escape system as it calls for a splashdown landing in that event iirc.
Actually the discussion is more about recovering first stages as there has been no mention of anything landing at the site, only launching. That's one reason several people are thinking that the landing may be done on some kind of platform in the Gulf.
Keep in mind, this is a very small facility, something like 8 acres developed in about 50 acres total. There's not much space to safely do a whole lot more than launch rockets out over the Gulf.
Ok so forget testing propulsive dragon landings, but testing propulsive dragon launch escape fits very well at this small location next to the drink. And demonstrating propulsive dragon launch escape and splashdown is a much nearer term goal for SpaceX than launching grasshopper out over the water for landing on some kind of barge/ platform.
-
Blue Origin has also announced floating platforms as part of their recovery strategy. In fact, they've applied for a patent on it. (Which, presumably, SpaceX would have to either license --- if Blue Origin were willing --- or somehow work around if they wanted to try the same thing.)
Many have already mentioned that this patent is probably invalid, since the primary idea of the patent has been discussed numerous times in the public domain. Thank God. (Bezos... the father of the one-click patent!)
It's not a "floating platform"... It's a buoyant landing and recovery device!
That's beyond dumb. They already "land and recover" helicopters on "buoyant landing and recovery devices" (floating platforms). Does that now become copyright infringement?
-
That's beyond dumb. They already "land and recover" helicopters on "buoyant landing and recovery devices" (floating platforms). Does that now become copyright infringement?
Patents have nothing to do with copyright, but yes, this patent is worthless. Not surprising - Bezos have Amazon.com with its infamous "one-click buy" patent in history, after all.
-
Texas seems to be getting interested:
http://www.chron.com/news/houston-texas/article/Texas-reaches-out-to-land-spaceport-deal-with-3586606.php
Texas reaches out to land spaceport deal with SpaceX
By Eric Berger
Updated 11:45 p.m., Friday, May 25, 2012
Even as SpaceX continued to make history on Friday by berthing its Dragon capsule to the International Space Station, the state of Texas has stepped up its efforts to woo the company here.
State officials are developing an incentive package to encourage SpaceX to build a spaceport near Brownsville. The Hawthorne, Calif.-based company is also considering launch sites in Florida and Puerto Rico.
Two sources familiar with the negotiations said the state is working on a multimillion-dollar package that could include funding from the Texas Enterprise Fund, infrastructure support from the state Department of Transportation and assistance from the Texas Workforce Commission, among others.
(snip)
On Friday a spokesman for Texas Gov. Rick Perry confirmed that the state is engaged in talks with SpaceX.
(snip)
"We're very supportive of this project," said Allison Castle. "We're coordinating with every agency across state government that might have a positive impact on this project."
(snip)
-
Success breeds success. And support.
-
SpaceX is trying to avoid being restricted by the Cape ops schedule. They would want to land at a facility that they can control to eliminate schedule conflicts.
There's also the issue of total launch costs, which is paramount to SpaceX. A private launch complex could significantly lower total launch costs.
And it looks like Boca Chica Bay could provide a shipping route. This would be important for items that are too large to fit on a truck (i.e. something larger than F9/F9H).
-
There's also the issue of total launch costs, which is paramount to SpaceX. A private launch complex could significantly lower total launch costs.
Huh? On a private launch complex, they have to pay for 100% of everything. On existing complexes, they only have to pay for what they use.
-
There's also the issue of total launch costs, which is paramount to SpaceX. A private launch complex could significantly lower total launch costs.
Huh? On a private launch complex, they have to pay for 100% of everything. On existing complexes, they only have to pay for what they use.
Your point: How can a piece of pie cost more than the whole pie?
My point: The pie can be cost reduced by an order of magnitude or more.
I'm sure you'll disagree, but this is what SpaceX has been trying to do all along. We'll see if they succeed.
-
There's also the issue of total launch costs, which is paramount to SpaceX. A private launch complex could significantly lower total launch costs.
Huh? On a private launch complex, they have to pay for 100% of everything. On existing complexes, they only have to pay for what they use.
But in Texas the tax and regulatory environment is better, and they're not a slave to other launches who might pull priority over them.
-
There's also the issue of total launch costs, which is paramount to SpaceX. A private launch complex could significantly lower total launch costs.
Huh? On a private launch complex, they have to pay for 100% of everything. On existing complexes, they only have to pay for what they use.
I don't necessarily disagree Jim and I'm a little hesitant to write this because I don't know what KSC would charge SpaceX but there is a case to be made, I think, that once built and operational that 100% of a small site on the Texas coast may very well be competitive with a piece of KSC. I am reminded that the price charged has to include KSC's cost of doing business and maintaining a huge site with lots of very expensive infrastructure as well as maintaining a standing army of employees whether they are directly involved in SpaceX activity or not. It's all rolled into what they would have to charge. Couple that with not having to fit into someone else’s launch schedule and a small privately owned launch facility may well become extremely attractive. So while I appreciate your unique position and pov Jim, it's not as simple as what you said. YMMV
-
It's not just about range costs. SpaceX would only be able to do certain, specific mission types from Texas (GTO only, not ISS or Polar). From Florida, Falcon could go to both GTO and ISS. Dual use should save money.
- Ed Kyle
-
Range safety in the future for private launch sites.
An AF developed and certified GPS range safety autodestruct device that is certified and tagged by an FAA inspector prior to launch is the future. No other infrastructure needed except for telemetry trackers. BTW this is something the AF is pursuing to eliminate the aging range safety radar infrastructure at the existing ranges that is very expensive to maintain and operate.
The remaining item for range safety is the clearing the range function done by the Coast Guard. The Coast Guard is already for existing ranges charging for this function so this would not be any more or less expensive than at the existing ranges. Brownsville’s port has an existing large Coast Guard base and with additional funds from SpaceX this Coast Guard presence can be expanded.
-
It's not just about range costs. SpaceX would only be able to do certain, specific mission types from Texas (GTO only, not ISS or Polar). From Florida, Falcon could go to both GTO and ISS. Dual use should save money.
- Ed Kyle
I do not think SpaceX would ever want to do ISS missions form anywhere but Florida for political reasons.
However, some of the existing launch sites have restrictions that prevent SpaceX from even having their vehicle at their own pad if another launch is going to take place at the same range. Elon mentioned that SpaceX would need to be operating steady at one launch a month before they thought about going public. If they are ever going to do that then there will probably be SpaceX vehicles sitting at launch pads in various stages of preparation for more than half of the days in any given year, and the "you can't even be on the pad when someone else is launching" rule of these ranges means more ranges are necessary in my opinion.
-
Could they combine launches from Texas and Florida for in orbit docking for a BEO trip? Launching a FH with BA 330 from TX and Dragon from Florida for a lunar or Mars manned operation.
I think they want TX primarily to ramp up the non-NASA book, but wonder of they get other strategic options.
-
Huh? On a private launch complex, they have to pay for 100% of everything. On existing complexes, they only have to pay for what they use.
It doesn't seem entirely out of the question that this would be beneficial if they want to use everything all the time and never have to accomodate anyone else, the AF's security requirements, other launches on the range, etc. They obviously want to get to a much faster cadence, and we have to assume they've been looking at what slows them down.
Like if they have to evacuate the range because someone else is launching, or want to build other facilities and then road/rails/whatever to connect them but can't get permission. Not being able to implement optimizations costs money too.
Think of Musk's silicon valley heritage, and look at how the big companies in that space operate. What do Google/Amazon/etc do? Negotiate a deal with existing providers and rely on savings from only paying for what they use? Nope, they build their own servers and build their own data centers to put them in. They build their own CDNs rather than deal with Akamai. I read Google even builds their own switches. Everything works on their schedule. They don't need to get lawyers involved to change the contract if they want to tweak something, the VP of whatever just assigns someone a "OMG WTF HURRAY" priority ticket and it's done before lunch.
I appreciate your experience in the industry and your view that SpaceX aren't in a place where they need this, but I don't think dismissing this out of hand every time holds up from a business perspective that I am not entirely unfamiliar with.
I might be an outsider to the industry, but from a business perspective it makes complete sense and it's not hard to think of examples where it would meaningfully help (eg, multiple hangers far enough away from the launch pay to have multiple vehicles being worked on at once with a rail link to the pad).
Dismissing it because they can't currently hit a cadence where that matters rings hollow. Even now, they've probably gone over how many days of the schedule slip were the result of range issues they had no control over, and I doubt it's zero.
-
It's not just about range costs. SpaceX would only be able to do certain, specific mission types from Texas (GTO only, not ISS or Polar).
- Ed Kyle
Dogleg to ISS. It's only propellant.
-
Dogleg to ISS. It's only propellant.
Could you show what you are envisioning on a map? It seems like the IIP trace of anything launched from Texas headed for an ISS inclination orbit is going to cross a major land mass, dogleg or no....
-
But in Texas the tax and regulatory environment is better, and they're not a slave to other launches who might pull priority over them.
Taxes? In Florida? Surely you jests.
-
There's also the issue of total launch costs, which is paramount to SpaceX. A private launch complex could significantly lower total launch costs.
Huh? On a private launch complex, they have to pay for 100% of everything. On existing complexes, they only have to pay for what they use.
I don't necessarily disagree Jim and I'm a little hesitant to write this because I don't know what KSC would charge SpaceX but there is a case to be made, I think, that once built and operational that 100% of a small site on the Texas coast may very well be competitive with a piece of KSC. I am reminded that the price charged has to include KSC's cost of doing business and maintaining a huge site with lots of very expensive infrastructure as well as maintaining a standing army of employees whether they are directly involved in SpaceX activity or not.
It is as simple as I say, because KSC doesn't charge for launches on the Cape. They have little to do with them. ULA doesn't get charged either.
And if they were to fly on KSC, KSC could only charge them for the incremental costs and not pass on the overhead.
-
It is as simple as I say, because KSC doesn't charge for launches on the Cape. They have little to do with them. ULA doesn't get charged either.
And if they were to fly on KSC, KSC could only charge them for the incremental costs and not pass on the overhead.
I thought KSC had standard range fees they were charging?
-
There's also the issue of total launch costs, which is paramount to SpaceX. A private launch complex could significantly lower total launch costs.
Huh? On a private launch complex, they have to pay for 100% of everything. On existing complexes, they only have to pay for what they use.
I don't necessarily disagree Jim and I'm a little hesitant to write this because I don't know what KSC would charge SpaceX but there is a case to be made, I think, that once built and operational that 100% of a small site on the Texas coast may very well be competitive with a piece of KSC. I am reminded that the price charged has to include KSC's cost of doing business and maintaining a huge site with lots of very expensive infrastructure as well as maintaining a standing army of employees whether they are directly involved in SpaceX activity or not.
It is as simple as I say, because KSC doesn't charge for launches on the Cape. They have little to do with them. ULA doesn't get charged either.
And if they were to fly on KSC, KSC could only charge them for the incremental costs and not pass on the overhead.
So what would SpaceX be charged for launching a F9H from the Cape for example, and who would be charging them?
-
Like if they have to evacuate the range because someone else is launching,
From the size of their TX plans, this is still going to have to happen. Their hangar is too close to the pad. Where are the satellites going to be processed? The spacecraft facility would have to be outside of the blast/launch danger area so it doesn't need to be evacuated for launches and other pad hazards. Also, spacecraft hazardous ops would clear any facility close to the satellite processing buildings. Not to mention that two spacecraft would have to be in process at once to support monthly launches Spacecraft processing campaigns (for comsats) are between 30 to 60 days.
-
So what would SpaceX be charged for launching a F9H from the Cape for example, and who would be charging them?
The range for use of the telemetry assets and range safety. The range for security to shut down roads during haz ops. The range/KSC for use of SCAPE suits. The range for propellants lab for analysis. First time range safety analysis of new trajectories.
-
I thought KSC had standard range fees they were charging?
KSC doesn't run the range, the USAF does.
-
Spacecraft processing campaigns (for comsats) are between 30 to 60 days.
Jim, in your experience, what could be done differently to reduce that time?
-
I thought KSC had standard range fees they were charging?
KSC doesn't run the range, the USAF does.
Who owns KSC?
-
Spacecraft processing campaigns (for comsats) are between 30 to 60 days.
Jim, in your experience, what could be done differently to reduce that time?
No testing of the spacecraft. Or around the clock testing. Seriously, the comsat compaigns are the shortest possible. Finite time is needed for EGSE setup, to take the spacecraft out shipping container and set it up for testing. Depending on the size of the spacecraft, there might be some assembly. There is the depth of electrical testing. Comsats only test the bus and don't power up the comm package. Then there is prop system testing and loading.
Comsats have already streamlined their campaigns because they are trying to make money
-
I thought KSC had standard range fees they were charging?
KSC doesn't run the range, the USAF does.
Who owns KSC?
NASA but they provide little to no support for Cape launches as evidenced in the launch checklists on L2.
http://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=28685.0
-
Why SpaceX might want their own site was discussed at length in this this thread (http://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=27327.0) a few months back; see links in this post (http://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=27327.msg831401#msg831401) and replies by Jim et. al. Dated, but still appear to be relevant (?) if looking at an increase in launch rates--especially non-government launches. Key terms: "operational flexibility", "range capacity", and "launch slots".
-
Do people think SpaceX is really going to build a spaceport in TX or use it as a bargaining chip?
-
From the size of their TX plans, this is still going to have to happen. Their hangar is too close to the pad. Where are the satellites going to be processed? The spacecraft facility would have to be outside of the blast/launch danger area so it doesn't need to be evacuated for launches and other pad hazards.
This was the first thing that came to mind when I started thinking of ways having their own range would help. I mentioned it in the previous post.
They would be be able to build multiple hangers far enough away that they wouldn't have to be evacuated, and then build rail links and any other needed infrastructure between the two, without having to work it out with the AF.
Building hangers and roads and rail links all over the place is at the whim of a crazy billionaire is, I am assuming, one of the things that's problematic on an air force base.
This seems to me to be a thoroughly plausible way to ramp up the launch schedule.
-
Do people think SpaceX is really going to build a spaceport in TX or use it as a bargaining chip?
Yes. ;)
-
They would be be able to build multiple hangers far enough away that they wouldn't have to be evacuated, and then build rail links and any other needed infrastructure between the two, without having to work it out with the AF.
Not seeing it in their plans
-
Do people think SpaceX is really going to build a spaceport in TX or use it as a bargaining chip?
Yes. ;)
I don't think they are going to build the spaceport..why spend all that money...when I can fly out of Florida..most things are already there. To me--SpaceX would be re-inventing the wheel in Texas at a great cost.
-
Not seeing it in their plans
That hardly rules it out.
-
I thought KSC had standard range fees they were charging?
KSC doesn't run the range, the USAF does.
Who owns KSC?
NASA but they provide little to no support for Cape launches as evidenced in the launch checklists on L2.
http://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=28685.0
Thanks, I read thru the thread..
Does NASA charge anything for the use of the facilities?
After all they have to pay for the facility upkeep; infrastructure and personnel.
-
Not seeing it in their plans
That hardly rules it out.
Just saying what they have planned does not achieve the goals.
-
Just saying what they have planned does not achieve the goals.
And I'm saying that the plans made available for review do not reflect the entirety of what SpaceX might be planning to do. If they plan to improve the site over time, that could easily be omitted from the initial plans they've made available for these negotiations.
-
Thanks, I read thru the thread..
Does NASA charge anything for the use of the facilities?
After all they have to pay for the facility upkeep; infrastructure and personnel.
Those are range facilities on KSC, the range pays for the upkeep. The range also pays for the KSC support to those facilities as listed in the document.
Again, the range only charges incremental costs for a launch and not the overhead.
-
And I'm saying that the plans made available for review do not reflect the entirety of what SpaceX might be planning to do. If they plan to improve the site over time, that could easily be omitted from the initial plans they've made available for these negotiations.
Huh? Quite the opposite. For permitting they would have to include all projected plans, especially for the EIS. Adding more processing facilities and waste streams is a big deal and would need to be known early. Especially for zoning and stay out areas.
-
Not seeing it in their plans
That hardly rules it out.
Just saying what they have planned does not achieve the goals.
What do you think it does achieve?
-
Like if they have to evacuate the range because someone else is launching,
From the size of their TX plans, this is still going to have to happen. Their hangar is too close to the pad. Where are the satellites going to be processed? The spacecraft facility would have to be outside of the blast/launch danger area so it doesn't need to be evacuated for launches and other pad hazards. Also, spacecraft hazardous ops would clear any facility close to the satellite processing buildings. Not to mention that two spacecraft would have to be in process at once to support monthly launches Spacecraft processing campaigns (for comsats) are between 30 to 60 days.
What would be the blast/launch danger zone at the proposed Texas site? Would 3000m be enough?
-
Huh? Quite the opposite. For permitting they would have to include all projected plans, especially for the EIS.
Even if the expansions would be separate sites potentially many miles away?
-
Can you launch to the Earth-Moon libration points from the proposed Texas site? If so, how often?
-
Not seeing it in their plans
That hardly rules it out.
Just saying what they have planned does not achieve the goals.
What do you think it does achieve?
not one launch a month for comsats
-
Huh? Quite the opposite. For permitting they would have to include all projected plans, especially for the EIS.
Even if the expansions would be separate sites potentially many miles away?
FAA would have to include it in the impact assessments
-
The difference is between reality and permited. The Assesment defines the permited which cannot be exceeded. This value must be significantly greater than expected reality so that a new assement does not have to be done if reality turns out to be better than expected.
From Jim the minimum interval between launches seems to be about 6 weeks, 4 weeks payload + 2 weeks mate to LV and launch. Slips and other things will make the average to be closer to 2 months making 6 flights per year per pad or a likely total of 18 combined between Texas, CCAFS and VAFB sites. Flights from CCAFS at about 6 per year would be all Dragons (cargo Dragon, DragonLab and DragonRider). Texas would be sats as well as VAFB each at ~ 6 per year. Year 2015 shows only a total manifested of 12 (8 CCAFS and 4 VAFB). A rate of 6 per site would not happen soon even by 2017.
-
Thanks, I read thru the thread..
Does NASA charge anything for the use of the facilities?
After all they have to pay for the facility upkeep; infrastructure and personnel.
Those are range facilities on KSC, the range pays for the upkeep. The range also pays for the KSC support to those facilities as listed in the document.
Again, the range only charges incremental costs for a launch and not the overhead.
Thanks Jim. I appreciate your insight.
-
The difference is between reality and permited. The Assesment defines the permited which cannot be exceeded. This value must be significantly greater than expected reality so that a new assement does not have to be done if reality turns out to be better than expected.
From Jim the minimum interval between launches seems to be about 6 weeks, 4 weeks payload + 2 weeks mate to LV and launch. Slips and other things will make the average to be closer to 2 months making 6 flights per year per pad or a likely total of 18 combined between Texas, CCAFS and VAFB sites. Flights from CCAFS at about 6 per year would be all Dragons (cargo Dragon, DragonLab and DragonRider). Texas would be sats as well as VAFB each at ~ 6 per year. Year 2015 shows only a total manifested of 12 (8 CCAFS and 4 VAFB). A rate of 6 per site would not happen soon even by 2017.
Great analysis as always. Thank you sir.
Probably been asked before.
What's preventing Dragons out of Texas?
-
What's preventing Dragons out of Texas?
ISS orbit inclination is extremely hard to reach from there due to the narrow window to avoid overflying land. Other than that, nothing. If you don't need to go to ISS with Dragon, should work fine.
-
At what inclination does Bigelow plan to orbit? Is it in their interest to be in range of Russian spacecraft or to take advantage of the increased up mass with a lower inclination orbit? If the latter than a TX launch site may be even more attractive to Space X in the 2017-2020 time frame.
-
I seriously doubt Bigelow wants to single-source launches, so the question becomes, does anyone else of interest launch from the Cape.
-
I seriously doubt Bigelow wants to single-source launches, so the question becomes, does anyone else of interest launch from the Cape.
or Wallops
-
I seriously doubt Bigelow wants to single-source launches, so the question becomes, does anyone else of interest launch from the Cape.
Or French Guiana?
-
I think that this is more of a bargaining posture. Spacex really wants something and have to show that they can walk away if they do not get what they want. I think you will see Spacex wants more space at KSC or access to another pad.
-
SpaceX... it's been a decade, it's right there in the title of both the thread and the section, can't you learn how to spell it?
-
They may be up to 1900 employees, but I don't think they are so top heavy to have leadership junket about for some Machevalian gamesmanship. If they say they want a third launch site, then that's probably what they want.
-
Huh? Quite the opposite. For permitting they would have to include all projected plans, especially for the EIS.
Even if the expansions would be separate sites potentially many miles away?
The plans as filed are probably sufficient to justify all the hassle of getting these permits and setting up a pad. Once it's a source of state pride and revenue, expansions in scope on a "brownfield development" become easier.
Even if future expansions are denied, they still have a useful pad, and follow-on developments (whether fuller launch schedule, landing things from orbit, bigger rockets, etc.) can be done somewhere else if need be. But the State will have good incentives to keep expansions in Texas (State pride and revenue).
-
They may be up to 1900 employees, but I don't think they are so top heavy to have leadership junket about for some Machevalian gamesmanship. If they say they want a third launch site, then that's probably what they want.
I did not say that they did not want a 3rd site...its the location and govt. incentives, etc that they are bargaining for. Tx says I will give you x if build, Florida may say I will give you Y if you build/stay. It's like playing poker...I know what I want but I have to show the other guy that I am serious about what I want and what I want from the other guy, It helps your negotiation hand if I have tx in my left hand pocket...
-
But in Texas the tax and regulatory environment is better, and they're not a slave to other launches who might pull priority over them.
Taxes? In Florida? Surely you jests.
Florida has a 5.5% corporate rate (http://dor.myflorida.com/dor/forms/2012/gt800017.pdf). Texas has no corporate tax, but a 0.25% franchise tax on net taxable earned surplus.
-
But in Texas the tax and regulatory environment is better, and they're not a slave to other launches who might pull priority over them.
Taxes? In Florida? Surely you jests.
Florida has a 5.5% corporate rate (http://dor.myflorida.com/dor/forms/2012/gt800017.pdf). Texas has no corporate tax, but a 0.25% franchise tax on net taxable earned surplus.
see tax exemptions for space related industries.
-
At what inclination does Bigelow plan to orbit? Is it in their interest to be in range of Russian spacecraft or to take advantage of the increased up mass with a lower inclination orbit?
I remember seeing a video interview where Bigelow stated that a low inclination orbit kept the orbital facility over the ocean most of the time and his potential customers would rather orbit over land as much as they could. I suppose the customers would at least want to observe their own country on a regular basis. So I suspect the orbit(s) would be higher inclination.
-
Schrödinger's Cat works both ways.
-
Their hangar is too close to the pad. Where are the satellites going to be processed? The spacecraft facility would have to be outside of the blast/launch danger area so it doesn't need to be evacuated for launches and other pad hazards.
Their plans include a separate site for this, miles inland.
-
They would be be able to build multiple hangers far enough away that they wouldn't have to be evacuated, and then build rail links and any other needed infrastructure between the two, without having to work it out with the AF.
Rails? What's the matter with roads?
Also, why would they need multiple hangers away from the pad? Their plans only show one.
-
However, some of the existing launch sites have restrictions that prevent SpaceX from even having their vehicle at their own pad if another launch is going to take place at the same range. Elon mentioned that SpaceX would need to be operating steady at one launch a month before they thought about going public. If they are ever going to do that then there will probably be SpaceX vehicles sitting at launch pads in various stages of preparation for more than half of the days in any given year, and the "you can't even be on the pad when someone else is launching" rule of these ranges means more ranges are necessary in my opinion.
I'm not familiar with such a restriction. The third Falcon 9 was at SLC 40 for months, a period that coincided with five or six Atlas and Delta launch campaigns. Now there will be days when SLC 40 has to be cleared of personnel for another launch, but those days are relatively rare - a handful each year.
At any rate, launch slots are simply not a problem, not even at one launch per month. There were 16 launches from Cape Canaveral as recently as 2003. There have only been four this year so far, only seven last year, etc. Delta 2 retirement has opened up the range, so to speak. Not to mention that Shuttle is gone.
During the mid-1960s, Cape Canaveral hosted 20-31+ orbital launches, and one year more than 200 suborbital launches, annually.
Consider that China's Xi Chang space center has hosted more launches this year than Cape Canaveral. Xi Chang consists of only two orbital launch pads standing right on top of one another. Xi Chang out-launched Cape Canaveral last year too.
- Ed Kyle
-
Probably been asked before.
What's preventing Dragons out of Texas?
Nothing. In fact they mention Dragon specifically in the FAA proposal (see below). Also note that there will be many used Dragons from ISS cargo resupply, which SpaceX has targeted for DragonLab missions.
-
For more details on the proposed SpaceX Texas launch site, go to:
http://www.faa.gov/about/office_org/headquarters_offices/ast/environmental/nepa_docs/review/documents_progress/spacex_texas_launch_site_environmental_impact_statement/
and then at the bottom of the page, click on:
SpaceX Scoping Meeting Posters (ZIP)
and then open the file:
20120501_SpaceX_EIS_ScopingPosters(FAA)_forPrint.pdf
-
At what inclination does Bigelow plan to orbit? Is it in their interest to be in range of Russian spacecraft or to take advantage of the increased up mass with a lower inclination orbit?
I remember seeing a video interview where Bigelow stated that a low inclination orbit kept the orbital facility over the ocean most of the time and his potential customers would rather orbit over land as much as they could. I suppose the customers would at least want to observe their own country on a regular basis. So I suspect the orbit(s) would be higher inclination.
Mr. Bigelow has stated a few times that he would prefer daily launch opportunities to his stations. AFAIK there is only 1 domestic location that would give him this; Wallops. So if Bigelow Aerospace and SpaceX ever actually hook up it would not surprise me to see a SpaceX facility located there.
-
AFAIK there is only 1 domestic location that would give him this; Wallops.
No, KSC/CCAFS can provide it too (see shuttle and ISS)
-
Their hangar is too close to the pad. Where are the satellites going to be processed? The spacecraft facility would have to be outside of the blast/launch danger area so it doesn't need to be evacuated for launches and other pad hazards.
Their plans include a separate site for this, miles inland.
Hadn't seen that. But good, that means they can launch one per month, if the payload processing facility can handle more than one spacecraft. But there still will be internal interferences. Current commercial processing facilities prop loading and lifting of fueled spacecraft.
-
AFAIK there is only 1 domestic location that would give him this; Wallops.
No, KSC/CCAFS can provide it too (see shuttle and ISS)
Technically that is correct, but not when all launches must be subservient to Air Force/DoD and NASA flights. So "practically" speaking, KSC/CCAFS doesn't mesh well with the daily launch opportunity Bigelow wants. There are far too many things there that can hold his business plan hostage.
-
AFAIK there is only 1 domestic location that would give him this; Wallops.
No, KSC/CCAFS can provide it too (see shuttle and ISS)
Technically that is correct, but not when all launches must be subservient to Air Force/DoD and NASA flights. So "practically" speaking, KSC/CCAFS doesn't mesh well with the daily launch opportunity Bigelow wants. There are far too many things there that can hold his business plan hostage.
No, they are not subservient to Air Force/DoD and NASA flights. Every one has equal rights to a launch date and two subsequent days. It is first come, first served. Air Force/DoD have never bumped a commercial launch. And NASA will never be allowed to.
-
However, some of the existing launch sites have restrictions that prevent SpaceX from even having their vehicle at their own pad if another launch is going to take place at the same range. Elon mentioned that SpaceX would need to be operating steady at one launch a month before they thought about going public. If they are ever going to do that then there will probably be SpaceX vehicles sitting at launch pads in various stages of preparation for more than half of the days in any given year, and the "you can't even be on the pad when someone else is launching" rule of these ranges means more ranges are necessary in my opinion.
I'm not familiar with such a restriction. The third Falcon 9 was at SLC 40 for months, a period that coincided with five or six Atlas and Delta launch campaigns. Now there will be days when SLC 40 has to be cleared of personnel for another launch, but those days are relatively rare - a handful each year.
At any rate, launch slots are simply not a problem, not even at one launch per month. There were 16 launches from Cape Canaveral as recently as 2003. There have only been four this year so far, only seven last year, etc. Delta 2 retirement has opened up the range, so to speak. Not to mention that Shuttle is gone.
During the mid-1960s, Cape Canaveral hosted 20-31+ orbital launches, and one year more than 200 suborbital launches, annually.
Consider that China's Xi Chang space center has hosted more launches this year than Cape Canaveral. Xi Chang consists of only two orbital launch pads standing right on top of one another. Xi Chang out-launched Cape Canaveral last year too.
- Ed Kyle
I may be wrong but I think there's probably been substantial changes to the safety and other regulations since those days. Bureacracy tends to grow, adding more and more layers as time goes by. Haven't seen anything to show this has changed.
-
I may be wrong but I think there's probably been substantial changes to the safety and other regulations since those days. Bureacracy tends to grow, adding more and more layers as time goes by. Haven't seen anything to show this has changed.
not really. Just less manpower
-
Air Force/DoD have never bumped a commercial launch. And NASA will never be allowed to.
I assume if there's a launch window to some other planet or something that only comes along once in a great while, they book that well in advance.
-
Hmm. SpaceX might have neighbors.
I was trying to figure out where the payload processing facility etc. might be put and decided to check out the area where the slightly enigmatic large rectangluar patch has been cleared out recently. That turns to be lot # 171650 on the Cameron Appraisal District map and is owned by Sanchez Oil and Gas Co. Which in turn leads to
http://www.brownsvilleherald.com/articles/closed-111882-highway-gas.html
and
http://www.kveo.com/sanchez-oil-gas-corporation/boca-chica-beach-still-closed-crews-work-on-gas-leak
(No luck yet on finding where the payload proessing might go.)
-
Air Force/DoD have never bumped a commercial launch. And NASA will never be allowed to.
I assume if there's a launch window to some other planet or something that only comes along once in a great while, they book that well in advance.
NASA doesn't book the range for ELV's, the vehicle operator does
-
I did not say that they did not want a 3rd site...its the location and govt. incentives, etc that they are bargaining for. Tx says I will give you x if build, Florida may say I will give you Y if you build/stay. It's like playing poker...I know what I want but I have to show the other guy that I am serious about what I want and what I want from the other guy, It helps your negotiation hand if I have tx in my left hand pocket...
If it were only a matter of $/incentives at the state level, you may be right. However, that alone is unlikely to get SpaceX what they want. It's not going to increase federal range capacity. It's not going to increase the number of launch slots. It's not going to get them parity with the government. Those have to be dealt with at the federal level; in particular, the law prohibits government spending to meet commercial-only needs, and requires commercial to operate on government surplus (as-avialable) capacity at federal facilities.
These are long-standing issues that go back to the early EELV days--back when a significant increase in commercial launch rates were predicted. That of course didn't happened, but the underlying questions of how to deal with a significant increase in commercial demand have never been addressed. I believe Florida's "commercial zone" (South end of the cape) is an attempt by the state to address some issues related to ground facilities(?), but that only solves part of the problem. There have also been initiatives to change the federal laws over the years, but nothing much has changed.
That said, contention hasn't been, and likely won't be, a significant problem for a while (significant enough to warrant a separate facility). I don't know at what point it becomes a problem; credible numbers on range capacity are elusive.
-
Can you launch to the Earth-Moon libration points from the proposed Texas site? If so, how often?
Hi folks -- can anyone give me an answer to this question? I don't have enough orbital mechanics to be able to do the calculations. :-\
-
(No luck yet on finding where the payload proessing might go.)
I was thinking many miles inland, closer to Brownsville.
Looking at the map, that waterway is very interesting, and there seems to be industrial property around the end of it.
https://maps.google.com/maps?hl=en&q=25.945928,+-97.398133
Just a guess...
-
AFAIK there is only 1 domestic location that would give him this; Wallops.
No, KSC/CCAFS can provide it too (see shuttle and ISS)
Technically that is correct, but not when all launches must be subservient to Air Force/DoD and NASA flights. So "practically" speaking, KSC/CCAFS doesn't mesh well with the daily launch opportunity Bigelow wants. There are far too many things there that can hold his business plan hostage.
No, they are not subservient to Air Force/DoD and NASA flights. Every one has equal rights to a launch date and two subsequent days. It is first come, first served. Air Force/DoD have never bumped a commercial launch. And NASA will never be allowed to.
Thanks Jim
-
(No luck yet on finding where the payload proessing might go.)
I was thinking many miles inland, closer to Brownsville.
Looking at the map, that waterway is very interesting, and there seems to be industrial property around the end of it.
https://maps.google.com/maps?hl=en&q=25.945928,+-97.398133
Just a guess...
Think it's too far from the pad ready hangar and there is buildup areas surrounding it. Nobody wants to live near a hypergolic storage site.
My guess is adjacent to highway 4 just outside of the wildness reserve.
Wonder how many cores SpaceX is planning to handle at the inland preparatory facility. Maybe one F9 and one FH simultaneously.
-
Can you launch to the Earth-Moon libration points from the proposed Texas site? If so, how often?
Hi folks -- can anyone give me an answer to this question? I don't have enough orbital mechanics to be able to do the calculations. :-\
If they can launch to gto they can launch toward Lagrange points. How often depends on how much propellant you are willing to expend and especially how long you are willing to spend in orbit. I suppose with enough delta v And delta t margin they could launch whenever they wanted.
-
Can you launch to the Earth-Moon libration points from the proposed Texas site? If so, how often?
Hi folks -- can anyone give me an answer to this question? I don't have enough orbital mechanics to be able to do the calculations. :-\
If they can launch to gto they can launch toward Lagrange points. How often depends on how much propellant you are willing to expend and especially how long you are willing to spend in orbit. I suppose with enough delta v And delta t margin they could launch whenever they wanted.
It’s not in their plans (afaik), but it’s not out of the question to deploy a solar electric “plane change” stage as part of the payload. It wouldn’t mass too much really, and if they did that they could launch out of Texas down the chute, dropping the 1st stage and de-orbiting the 2nd stage into the open ocean, light off the ion stage to change the orbital plane to align themselves with the desired delta and once achieved (would take some time), light off the liquid propellant mission stage, leaving the ion “tug” to then send itself into some predetermined parking orbit for future use.
Sending payloads to various destinations doesn't have to be so time constrained that we can't patiently employ ion plane change power before departure. It just takes some planning. Patience is the optimal word.
-
I'm not an authority, but I understand that to EML2 you can use the Moon's gravity to get from any inclination. And a from Texas is wouldn't be a problem to reach the Moon. It would just have limited opportunities.
-
This wanting of their own launch facilitates seems very straightforward to me.
SpaceX is a private company. They are 90% vertically integrated. When they want something, they would prefer to build it themselves for complete ownership and control.
KSC may not be subservient to anyone, but when you own your own pad, you are always first come, first served.
As for it costing more then using KSC? When SpaceX develops their land, it will increase in value and be another monetary asset of the company that increases their portfolio of investments. Something not to be forgotten with an impending IPO down the line.
I think it makes perfect sense to have at least one of their 3 launch areas be wholly owned by them. It's a good investment, it's good for future launch logistics and flexibility and sets the right tone of independence. Regardless, anyone notice their Control room in Hawthorne? Does that look like a company that doesn't want to own it's facilities?
-
I may be wrong but I think there's probably been substantial changes to the safety and other regulations since those days. Bureacracy tends to grow, adding more and more layers as time goes by. Haven't seen anything to show this has changed.
not really. Just less manpower
Jim,
Can you see a need in the next 3 - 5 years why SpaceX would need a launch pad in TX? Why spend millions if not tens of millons for a new launch pad when I can launch out of Florida and the site has mostly want I need already? You are starting from dirt in TXs vs. a spaceport in Florida.
-
it’s not out of the question to deploy a solar electric “plane change” stage as part of the payload. ...leaving the ion “tug” to then send itself into some predetermined parking orbit for future use.
Interesting idea. They had talked about a fully reusable fairing which takes care of the satellite needs before and during launch, but I had just assumed dracos and/or superdracos would power it. But your interpretation of the idea might be superior (just need some tough extend/retract solar panels that are large). Although they will probably use something like superdracos for landing... Things to think about.
-
Think it's too far from the pad ready hangar and there is buildup areas surrounding it. Nobody wants to live near a hypergolic storage site.
Hopefully NOFBX will replace current hypergolics. Not sure on the timeline though.
Wonder how many cores SpaceX is planning to handle at the inland preparatory facility. Maybe one F9 and one FH simultaneously.
Could they get a fully assembled FH from the processing site to the launch site? Or would they have to assemble FH first stages in the launch hangar? Could they haul a fully assembled FH on a truck? Could they ship a fully assembled FH over water?
-
Think it's too far from the pad ready hangar and there is buildup areas surrounding it. Nobody wants to live near a hypergolic storage site.
Hopefully NOFBX will replace current hypergolics. Not sure on the timeline though.
Wonder how many cores SpaceX is planning to handle at the inland preparatory facility. Maybe one F9 and one FH simultaneously.
Could they get a fully assembled FH from the processing site to the launch site? Or would they have to assemble FH first stages in the launch hangar? Could they haul a fully assembled FH on a truck? Could they ship a fully assembled FH over water?
They already integrate the first and second stages of Falcon 9 at the launch hangar. Falcon Heavy will be even bigger, so no doubt will also be integrated in the launch hangar.
-
SpaceX is a private company. They are 90% vertically integrated. When they want something, they would prefer to build it themselves for complete ownership and control.
I'm not so sure about that.
Below is an excerpt from an interview with Max Vozoff, formerly of SpaceX. This seems to indicate vertical integration was never really a goal for SpaceX, but rather just a necessity to achieve other goals. This is what makes me suspect SpaceX is pursuing a private launch site to lower costs.
Here's the excerpt:
There's a YouTube video of Elon speaking somewhere in 2003 saying ... "we're really just a systems integrator, we're buying things from other people", but by the time I showed up in 2005 that had completely turned around and pretty much everything was getting done in-house.
And you can see why when you see the interactions with these suppliers, particularly the ones in the space industry. They think they're the only ones who can make this widget or who have the secret sauce, and when you say "no, you're too expensive", they say "well, that's what it is". And they're used to customers who, if they slip the schedule and double the price, the customer shrugs and goes back to headquarters and says, "well, it's gonna take twice as long and it's gonna cost twice as much", and that's how things go in a traditional government run program.
But SpaceX would say "no, that's not acceptable", and they'd cancel the contract. And sometimes these suppliers were literally scoffing on the phone as you hung up, and call you back a couple of months later saying "so, have you changed your mind yet?" And being able to say to them that "no, if you can do it, then maybe somebody else can do it too", like either SpaceX figured out how to do it themselves, because they hired some smart people and gave them the resources and tools, or you find another supplier with maybe a non-space version and you upgrade and qualify it for space.
And now what you've done, this backward supplier has bred a competitor for themselves, where they're not used to competition. I mean, many of the suppliers in this industry would just go out of business in a heartbeat if competition were actually introduced.
So really that's the game changing stuff that SpaceX has been doing: bringing stuff in-house, not just because it gives them control of cost and schedule, but because the space suppliers, traditional suppliers just don't get it. They're not used to being held to schedules and budgets.
And that's not true of everybody, but there is list of anecdotes I could tell you about suppliers with this attitude. And in each case either SpaceX brings in in-house and makes it successfully, or they find another supplier and upgrade it, and that supplier is usually thrilled to have a whole new market opened up for them.
http://thespaceshow.wordpress.com/2011/03/05/max-vozoff-friday-3-4-11/
-
They already integrate the first and second stages of Falcon 9 at the launch hangar. Falcon Heavy will be even bigger, so no doubt will also be integrated in the launch hangar.
Just to be sure I have this right: I've heard SpaceX leases a separate payload processing site at the cape, so I assume they prep the payload there, and then transport that to the pad, where it's mated to the stages.
Is this correct?
-
My guess is adjacent to highway 4 just outside of the wildness reserve.
Yes, that's my guess too, with the caveat that we're really guessing at this point.
The "Control Center Area Site Layout" poster shows hatched areas that I think are related to the Cameron Appraisal District map of the lots that were laid out for the former Kopernik Shores development, and the long stretch leading to the hypergol storage site looks like a former planned dock.
All that being said, I can't find anything that lines up particularly well. So who knows?
-
They already integrate the first and second stages of Falcon 9 at the launch hangar. Falcon Heavy will be even bigger, so no doubt will also be integrated in the launch hangar.
Just to be sure I have this right: I've heard SpaceX leases a separate payload processing site at the cape, so I assume they prep the payload there, and then transport that to the pad, where it's mated to the stages.
Is this correct?
Not yet. They haven't had any payloads other than Dragon
-
They haven't had any payloads other than Dragon
SpaceX Launches 6 P-PODs (http://www.cubesat.org/index.php/component/content/article/93-spacex)
SpaceX made history on December 8, 2010 as the first commercial company to re-enter a spacecraft from orbiting the Earth. It was also a big day for the CubeSat community - the Falcon 9's second stage carried up six P-PODs along with the Dragon spacecraft.
-
Wonder how many cores SpaceX is planning to handle at the inland preparatory facility. Maybe one F9 and one FH simultaneously.
Could they get a fully assembled FH from the processing site to the launch site? Or would they have to assemble FH first stages in the launch hangar? Could they haul a fully assembled FH on a truck? Could they ship a fully assembled FH over water?
I doubt that SpaceX will assemble a whole LV in the preparatory hangar. IMO they will assemble stages to be tractor over to the pad ready hangar (AKA HIF) for final assembly and payload integration using highway 4.
AFAIK highway 4 is two lanes wide. So might only capable of accommodating one single wide load trailer for LV stages only. Unless they widen the highway with an extra lane from the preparatory hangar to the ready hangar adjacent to a wildness reserve. Unlikely.
My previous post is speculation on how many cores will be store at the preparatory hangar. My guess is four F9 1st stages and two F9 upper stages.
-
They haven't had any payloads other than Dragon
SpaceX Launches 6 P-PODs (http://www.cubesat.org/index.php/component/content/article/93-spacex)
SpaceX made history on December 8, 2010 as the first commercial company to re-enter a spacecraft from orbiting the Earth. It was also a big day for the CubeSat community - the Falcon 9's second stage carried up six P-PODs along with the Dragon spacecraft.
Which have absolutely brain-dead simple processing requirements (i.e. no propellants, etc).
-
They haven't had any payloads other than Dragon
SpaceX Launches 6 P-PODs (http://www.cubesat.org/index.php/component/content/article/93-spacex)
SpaceX made history on December 8, 2010 as the first commercial company to re-enter a spacecraft from orbiting the Earth. It was also a big day for the CubeSat community - the Falcon 9's second stage carried up six P-PODs along with the Dragon spacecraft.
Which have absolutely brain-dead simple processing requirements (i.e. no propellants, etc).
Yeah, might as well count Scotty's ashes as a payload.
-
They haven't had any payloads other than Dragon
SpaceX Launches 6 P-PODs (http://www.cubesat.org/index.php/component/content/article/93-spacex)
SpaceX made history on December 8, 2010 as the first commercial company to re-enter a spacecraft from orbiting the Earth. It was also a big day for the CubeSat community - the Falcon 9's second stage carried up six P-PODs along with the Dragon spacecraft.
Which have absolutely brain-dead simple processing requirements (i.e. no propellants, etc).
First it's no payload, then, well, it's a payload, but it's not a "hard" payload. Yawn.
-
They haven't had any payloads other than Dragon
SpaceX Launches 6 P-PODs (http://www.cubesat.org/index.php/component/content/article/93-spacex)
SpaceX made history on December 8, 2010 as the first commercial company to re-enter a spacecraft from orbiting the Earth. It was also a big day for the CubeSat community - the Falcon 9's second stage carried up six P-PODs along with the Dragon spacecraft.
Which have absolutely brain-dead simple processing requirements (i.e. no propellants, etc).
First it's no payload, then, well, it's a payload, but it's not a "hard" payload. Yawn.
Context matters. The context was extra rented payload processing facilities, not really needed with ppods.
-
AFAIK highway 4 is two lanes wide. So might only capable of accommodating one single wide load trailer for LV stages only. Unless they widen the highway with an extra lane from the preparatory hangar to the ready hangar adjacent to a wildness reserve. Unlikely.
The video linked in #403 shows that, as of May 2010, SH 4 was a pretty modest road.
Edit: And as of April 2011, Sanchez Gas & Oil had moved some largish trucks on SH 4 to its property.
-
So, you close down the road and use both lanes when you need to move big objects. Nothing special there.
-
So, you close down the road and use both lanes when you need to move big objects. Nothing special there.
Agree, the evidence is that SH 4 can stand the necessary traffic for a while and few-hour closures every month or so shouldn't be a problem.
I'd guess that maintenance would be needed for sustained operations. Probably something for SpaceX, Texas and Sanchez to work out.
-
If you go into Google Earth, then drag the street view icon over to Boca Chica/Kopernic Shores, you can cruise down the main drag. Every house has an above-ground water cistern in their front yard. There are quite a few houses (the agave and palm trees really give it that feel of "Old Poland", some are for sale!) Falcon Heavy is gonna blow out every window in the neigborhood 2 seconds after liftoff, 'cause it'll only be 10,000ft away.
-
Just picked up this, which is probably well-known to everybody except me:
http://www.nasa.gov/home/hqnews/2012/may/HQ_12-179_SpaceX_Splashdown.html
HOUSTON -- SpaceX's Dragon capsule splashed down in the Pacific Ocean at 11:42 a.m. EDT a few hundred miles west of Baja California, Mexico, marking a successful end to the first mission by a commercial company to resupply the International Space Station.
(snip)
The Dragon capsule will be taken by boat to a port near Los Angeles, where it will be prepared for a return journey to SpaceX's test facility in McGregor, Texas, for processing. Some cargo will be removed at the port in California and returned to NASA within 48 hours. The remainder will be returned to Texas with the capsule.
So, if the idea is to (re)process stuff in McGregor and to have a fairly sporty operational tempo, geography would seem to favor Texas-Gulf of Mexico-Texas over Florida-Pacific-Texas, no? Maybe not by much, as the land routes involved in both cases are almost all on interstate highways, but there would still be some difference.
Just a thought.
-
Environmental group starts petition drive to stop SpaceX Texas launch site:
http://www.environmenttexas.org/news/txe/spacex-attempting-launch-rockets-texas-wildlife-refuge
But launching big, loud, smelly rockets from the middle of a wildlife refuge will scare the heck out of every creature within miles...
KSC launched much larger rockets from the middle of the Merritt Island wildlife refuge and their creatures seem to be fine with it.
-
This is a completely unreasonable argument in my view. NASA and the US Airforce has been launching rockets for years with wildlife nearby with little or no problems. In fact, KSC even plays up the wildlife angle promoting the interaction of technology and the local ecosystem. KSC is a reminder that Mankind can reach for the heavens while keeping an eye on the local environment.
-
In the world of wildlife management they use the phrase "taking by harassment" when an activity, intentionally or not, harms a population of animals. I hope that, compared to Vandenberg, Boca Chica has relatively few pinnipeds. See:
http://www.nmfs.noaa.gov/pr/pdfs/permits/vafb_ea.pdf
-
KSC launched much larger rockets from the middle of the Merritt Island wildlife refuge and their creatures seem to be fine with it.
Indeed. And considering most of the industry on the gulf coast is of a chemical processing nature, I doubt that a hydrocarbon rocket launch site is going to be a real concern for EPA or the state (after the due diligence is satisfied, of course).
-
If I understand correctly, you can haze to change behavior, but not harass wildlife. At least that is the rule when dealing with our local coyote population.
-
Environmental group starts petition drive to stop SpaceX Texas launch site:
http://www.environmenttexas.org/news/txe/spacex-attempting-launch-rockets-texas-wildlife-refuge
Well, that was predictable. ::)
-
There are no other sites available for polar launches and KSC/CCAFS was set up for the Cold war. The issue here is that there are other alternatives to this site. Spacex is going to have to try really hard to justify its flight rate predictions that necessitate another launch site. Just because the USAF might be a little difficult to deal with and a few times a year, other launches may interrupt ops at CCAFS is not enough justification to "take" wildlife.
When doing an EA, one of the steps in the process is to describe what are the alternatives if no action is taken. For example, MSL would not launch and there would be a limited ability to explore Mars without the use of RTGs. NASA science missions have done a 10 year EA, and the impact of no action would be that NASA would no longer do space, climate, and planetary science.
In Spacex's case, a no action would mean Spacex would continue to launch from CCAFS at a possible slower rate (not a give). That in the eyes of those who embrace conifers is the preferred outcome of an assessment.
-
In Spacex's case, a no action would mean Spacex would continue to launch from CCAFS at a possible slower rate (not a give). That in the eyes of those who embrace conifers is the preferred outcome of an assessment.
What's going on with LC36A/B at the moment? As far as I can tell they're currently inactive.
Edit: And LC 17A/B? It seems like there are several pads at the Cape that SpaceX could in principle make use of...
-
Environmental group starts petition drive to stop SpaceX Texas launch site:
http://www.environmenttexas.org/news/txe/spacex-attempting-launch-rockets-texas-wildlife-refuge
But launching big, loud, smelly rockets from the middle of a wildlife refuge will scare the heck out of every creature within miles...
KSC launched much larger rockets from the middle of the Merritt Island wildlife refuge and their creatures seem to be fine with it.
I fully agree with you, and apologize on behalf of Austin for the crazies trying to stop this from happening. It's not the first environmental dispute to halt progress around here. Golden cheeked warbler anyone?
-
It's not the first environmental dispute to halt progress around here. Golden cheeked warbler anyone?
The thing that really drives me bonkers about the Endangered Species Act is that it gives no cognizance at all to the fact that ~99% (if not more) of the species that have gone extinct .... did so before humans ever arrived on the scene. So clearly, some goodly fraction of the ones going extinct today are not doing so because of humans. If there's some species we want to save because they look cute (e.g. pandas), or for some other reason, fine - but trying to save them all is, frankly, hubristic and interefering with the course of nature.
Noel
-
The current rate of extinction is estimated to be as much as 10,000 times the normal background rate. Make of that what you will.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Holocene_extinction
-
In Spacex's case, a no action would mean Spacex would continue to launch from CCAFS at a possible slower rate (not a give). That in the eyes of those who embrace conifers is the preferred outcome of an assessment.
What's going on with LC36A/B at the moment? As far as I can tell they're currently inactive.
Edit: And LC 17A/B? It seems like there are several pads at the Cape that SpaceX could in principle make use of...
LC-17 will be shutdown once Delta ops are finished there as it is too close to Port Canaveral and the Museum.
LC-36 site was transferred to Spaceport Florida, Masten Aerospace are going using it for some sub orbital flights. But it looks like to be available to be used as a launch site. Masten Sign Contract for LC-36 (http://masten-space.com/2011/05/19/masten-space-systems-signs-contract-with-space-florida-for-demonstration-launches/)
-
Guys, keep this on the launch site info, and not to wander off into the Endangered Species Act.
-
I know my own eyes will hardly count as a scientific study but KSC and it's surrounding environs would seem to easily refute any questions this petition raises. (How scientific are petitions anyway?) You can't even take the bus tour through KSC without encountering 'gators, skunks, eagles, and every other kind of winged and footed wildlife. If anything they prosper from living in an area that is protected from tourists.
Those who think Spacex is getting ahead of the curve should realize that years of obstacles like this will be waiting for any potential location outside of an established base.
-
Folks, does anyone know if SpaceX considered Matagorda Island?
https://maps.google.com/maps?q=Matagorda+Island,+Texas&hl=en&ll=28.274149,-96.596603&spn=0.393976,0.516014&sll=40.31733,-74.619879&sspn=0.085273,0.129004&t=h&geocode=Fb3SrQEdeeI7-g&hnear=Matagorda+Island&z=12
HMXHMX, would it be possible to launch FH from there? If so, desirable? If so, what would it take?
-
Folks, does anyone know if SpaceX considered Matagorda Island?
https://maps.google.com/maps?q=Matagorda+Island,+Texas&hl=en&ll=28.274149,-96.596603&spn=0.393976,0.516014&sll=40.31733,-74.619879&sspn=0.085273,0.129004&t=h&geocode=Fb3SrQEdeeI7-g&hnear=Matagorda+Island&z=12
HMXHMX, would it be possible to launch FH from there? If so, desirable? If so, what would it take?
Probably not desirable. Range would include populated areas. Additionally, would require far more work to make the island usable and increase it's size as well as getting better roads out to it compared with other locations further down the coast.
I would know as I have fished right next to that island many times, and I can tell you, its very flat, swampy, and small. Large enough tides even cover over portions of it. The only area suitable would be near the old airstrip on the northern end, but even that becomes flooded in storms. And the soil is terrible as far as stability. Everything would have to be anchored in bedrock, everything.
So to make something like that usable for a launch pad and operations center? Very difficult.
-
Here's the Texas Parks and Wildlife Department letter; for the most part it seems to me to be raising the issues TPWD should be recommending the FAA EIS address.
In addition, it gives a helpful clue as to where the control center is proposed to be:
...the control center would be immediately adjacent to TPWD property along Eichorn Boulevard.
I.e., around 25.9915 N, 97.1795 W. That was where I thought it might be on looking around earlier, but couldn't be sure enough to make a call.
-
Folks, does anyone know if SpaceX considered Matagorda Island?
https://maps.google.com/maps?q=Matagorda+Island,+Texas&hl=en&ll=28.274149,-96.596603&spn=0.393976,0.516014&sll=40.31733,-74.619879&sspn=0.085273,0.129004&t=h&geocode=Fb3SrQEdeeI7-g&hnear=Matagorda+Island&z=12
HMXHMX, would it be possible to launch FH from there? If so, desirable? If so, what would it take?
No idea, really, since the last time I was there was thirty-one years ago...there's not much infrastructure, like none.
-
Is it not the case that anywhere far enough from inhabited areas to be safe but close enough to be accessible with enormous trucks is going to be near a nature reserve and/or inhabited by lots of wildlife?
Seems like SpaceX is caught between a rock & a hard place, really.
-
Is it not the case that anywhere far enough from inhabited areas to be safe but close enough to be accessible with enormous trucks is going to be near a nature reserve and/or inhabited by lots of wildlife?
Seems like SpaceX is caught between a rock & a hard place, really.
Maybe, but we're talking about Texas and understandings about such matters are often reached. I cite the Peñascal wind farm on the coast not far north of Brownsville as an example.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pe%C3%B1ascal_Wind_Power_Project
-
Will be interesting to see how SpaceX handles this one.
http://news.yahoo.com/spacex-brownsville-space-port-opposed-texas-environmentalists-191200854.html
"According to the Houston Chronicle, the proposed SpaceX space port in Brownsville, Texas, has run into opposition from an environmental group. Environment Texas is conducting a petition drive to stop the project.
The objections of Environment Texas
According to a news release by the group, the proposed space port, which would include a launch pad and control and spacecraft processing facilities, would be "almost surrounded" by a park and wildlife
refuge. Environment Texas claims the launching of rockets would "scare the heck" out of every creature in the area and would "spray noxious chemicals all over the place." The petition will demand SpaceX build the space port elsewhere.
Brownsville space port has overwhelming support
With the exception of Environment Texas, the idea of building a space port near Brownsville, on the southern tip of Texas, has overwhelming support in the Lone Star State. The Houston Chronicle noted the project is eliciting a financial support package from the Texas government. Furthermore, a recent public meeting on the project in Brownsville held by the Federal Aviation Administration found near universal support for the space port, including the jobs it would bring, from the local community. "
This could be in the courts for years?
-
Petition drives are really easy to do online now days, by any party for any reason. But if they are doing petitions then they don't have a lever to pull in court yet/ at all. Usually these petitions are just turned into the office of some politician or decision maker to try to get them to reconsider their stance on an issue, and given the overwhelming support for the launch site proposal and the whole "this is Texas people not Oregon or CA" aspect I don't think it will amount to much of anything, except maybe expanding the contact lists in Environment Texas's database.
People freaking out about this are making a mountain out of a mole hill and (it seems to me) just trying to grind personal axes.
-
A petition is not the same as a legal suit. The authorities evaluate the concerns of the petition (which is already a part of the study) and then make their decision. In a situation where the political support is so strong such petitions, besides making the parties fulfill due diligence, carries little weight in the final decisions.
The decision is made by the local governments (county and state), EPA and FAA with either all for issuing the permit or one against. The local governments are for it so it only requires a yes by the EPA and FAA for SpaceX to be able to do launches from the site.
-
Will be interesting to see how SpaceX handles this one.
[...]
Environment Texas claims the launching of rockets would "scare the heck" out of every creature in the area and would "spray noxious chemicals all over the place."
Isn't the proposed location about 2 miles from the termination of the Rio Grande (and the Mexican border)?
"Noxious chemicals spraying everywhere" would actually stand to be an environmental improvement.
-
A petition is not the same as a legal suit. The authorities evaluate the concerns of the petition (which is already a part of the study) and then make their decision. In a situation where the political support is so strong such petitions, besides making the parties fulfill due diligence, carries little weight in the final decisions.
The decision is made by the local governments (county and state), EPA and FAA with either all for issuing the permit or one against. The local governments are for it so it only requires a yes by the EPA and FAA for SpaceX to be able to do launches from the site.
no lawsuit yet, give it time. Sure the EPA will need to do a 5 year study as well. runs......
-
There are no other sites available for polar launches and KSC/CCAFS was set up for the Cold war. The issue here is that there are other alternatives to this site. Spacex is going to have to try really hard to justify its flight rate predictions that necessitate another launch site. Just because the USAF might be a little difficult to deal with and a few times a year, other launches may interrupt ops at CCAFS is not enough justification to "take" wildlife.
When doing an EA, one of the steps in the process is to describe what are the alternatives if no action is taken. For example, MSL would not launch and there would be a limited ability to explore Mars without the use of RTGs. NASA science missions have done a 10 year EA, and the impact of no action would be that NASA would no longer do space, climate, and planetary science.
In Spacex's case, a no action would mean Spacex would continue to launch from CCAFS at a possible slower rate (not a give). That in the eyes of those who embrace conifers is the preferred outcome of an assessment.
<3
-
I hope that, compared to Vandenberg, Boca Chica has relatively few pinnipeds.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JMu0NwV5Jcg
Uh oh. Texas has sea turtles. Wikipedia says some critically endangered Kemp's Ridleys nest on Padre Island between April and August. Maybe SpaceX could launch all their rockets during the other half of the year?
-
I hope that, compared to Vandenberg, Boca Chica has relatively few pinnipeds.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JMu0NwV5Jcg
Uh oh. Texas has sea turtles. Wikipedia says some critically endangered Kemp's Ridleys nest on Padre Island between April and August. Maybe SpaceX could launch all their rockets during the other half of the year?
Just have to make sure that no endanger critters are in the blast zone when a LV is on the pad ready for launch.
Think your average tropical weather have more impact than occasional rocket launches. Like a hurricane.
-
I hope that, compared to Vandenberg, Boca Chica has relatively few pinnipeds.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JMu0NwV5Jcg
Uh oh. Texas has sea turtles. Wikipedia says some critically endangered Kemp's Ridleys nest on Padre Island between April and August. Maybe SpaceX could launch all their rockets during the other half of the year?
There are no plans to burn Padre Island. This is a non-issue for all but the most fanatical purest.
-
Uh oh. Texas has sea turtles. Wikipedia says some critically endangered Kemp's Ridleys nest on Padre Island between April and August. Maybe SpaceX could launch all their rockets during the other half of the year?
Padre Island is over 100 miles long and Boca Chica is several miles south of its southern tip. I don't think SpaceX will be crowding them out. Most of the Kemp's Ridleys nest in the Padre Island National Seashore, which is over 30 miles from Boca Chica in the middle part of the island.
-
No environmentalist I know will let simple facts get into its fanaticism.
-
No environmentalist I know will let simple facts get into its fanaticism.
Never know …….we had a desert tortoise block a high speed rail project for 8-10 years.
http://www.lasvegassun.com/news/2011/mar/25/desertxpress-high-speed-rail-project-rolls-forward/
As of this date the project is still in limbo.
-
Just have to make sure that no endanger critters are in the blast zone
It's totally reasonable to think it's that simple. But if you have the time, read http://www.nmfs.noaa.gov/pr/pdfs/permits/vafb_ea.pdf. To determine the impact their activities were having on wildlife, they needed to measure the hearing ability of sea lions both before and after Delta IV launches. As Dave Barry would have written, "I am not making this up."
-
People freaking out about this are making a mountain out of a mole hill and (it seems to me) just trying to grind personal axes.
Possibly right, but having lived in Texas all my life I can tell you they have a way around here of creating real havoc when it comes to the forward progress of a great idea. They've done it in the past and will do it again most likely. I am just hoping this is not the next one they cause our state to lose due to their shortsightedness.
-
Musk is meeting with Texas Governor and legislators today to discuss proposed launch site.
http://blog.chron.com/sciguy/2012/06/musk-says-texas-is-leading-candidate-for-spaceport/
Quote from Musk:
“So, right now, Texas, the south coast of Texas is the lead candidate for that third launch site, and I’m actually flying to meet with the Governor later today and a number of people on the Texas legislature side to talk about that as well as any potential questions in the future about flying astronauts if we’re successful in winning future NASA business in that regard.”
-
Musk is meeting with Texas Governor and legislators today to discuss proposed launch site.
http://blog.chron.com/sciguy/2012/06/musk-says-texas-is-leading-candidate-for-spaceport/
Quote from Musk:
“So, right now, Texas, the south coast of Texas is the lead candidate for that third launch site, and I’m actually flying to meet with the Governor later today and a number of people on the Texas legislature side to talk about that as well as any potential questions in the future about flying astronauts if we’re successful in winning future NASA business in that regard.”
Ooops.
Sorry, I couldn't resist.
-
Musk is meeting with Texas Governor and legislators today to discuss proposed launch site.
http://blog.chron.com/sciguy/2012/06/musk-says-texas-is-leading-candidate-for-spaceport/
Quote from Musk:
“So, right now, Texas, the south coast of Texas is the lead candidate for that third launch site, and I’m actually flying to meet with the Governor later today and a number of people on the Texas legislature side to talk about that as well as any potential questions in the future about flying astronauts if we’re successful in winning future NASA business in that regard.”
Jokes aside, can you reach the ISS from there? The speculations of a lofted trajectory are interesting, then. Other question would be about a Heavy to EML1 or 2 (which I understand is a yes).
-
Jokes aside, can you reach the ISS from there? The speculations of a lofted trajectory are interesting, then.
Yes.
-
Jokes aside, can you reach the ISS from there? The speculations of a lofted trajectory are interesting, then.
Yes.
You can launch to ISS inclination, without a dog-leg, from any site between 51.6° N and 51.6° S. The question for SpaceX in Texas is, can you do it while meeting FAA range safety criteria? In particular, can you reach ISS on a trajectory where the expected number of casualties per mission is less than 0.00003 (Ec < 30 X 10-6). To do that, you can't really over-fly much populated land....
See e.g.:
http://www.faa.gov/about/office_org/headquarters_offices/ast/licenses_permits/media/Ac4311fn.pdf
-
Possibly right, but having lived in Texas all my life I can tell you they have a way around here of creating real havoc when it comes to the forward progress of a great idea. They've done it in the past and will do it again most likely. I am just hoping this is not the next one they cause our state to lose due to their shortsightedness.
Could we ease up on the environmentalist-bashing? We as a society have decided that extinction* is bad, and that the state of the world around us actually does impact us. Sometimes that priority conflicts with economic development – even really job-y economic development, and yes sometimes even your favorite awesome project. Folks are trying against long odds and public opinion to maintain ecosystems whose complexity, and whose impact on us, we frankly don't understand; calling that shortsighted is staggeringly shortsighted.
I hope SpaceX gets its private spaceport, and I hope they (or whoever) do it without deafening sea lions who probably have to be able to hear in order to predate.
* EDIT to note that my use of the word "extinction" wasn't particularly central to my point, but has dominated the responses to it. The moderate folks who reacted negatively to that word then went on to make the point I was trying to make.
-
Good news for Brownsville:
http://www.mysanantonio.com/news/state/article/Texas-rockets-ahead-in-quest-for-launch-site-3632704.php
Texas rockets ahead in quest for launch site
By Eric Berger
Updated 12:12 a.m., Thursday, June 14, 2012
SpaceX now appears to like the Lone Star State.
During a visit to his company's rocket testing facility in MacGregor on Wednesday, SpaceX founder Elon Musk said Brownsville is his preferred site for the construction of a new spaceport.
"Right now, Texas, the south coast of Texas, is the lead candidate," Musk said.
Texas is competing with Florida and Puerto Rico for a launch facility from which there would be as many as 12 rocket launches a year, according to the company.
Musk met with Gov. Rick Perry on Wednesday to discuss the site.
"The governor talked with the company about what the state could do to encourage them to pick Texas as a place for its spaceport," said Perry spokeswoman Catherine Frazier. "The governor's office is going to continue working with SpaceX to try and bring them here."
Musk's comments represent a turnaround since April, when he said the state had made minimal efforts in recruiting his company.
Since then, the Houston Chronicle reported that the state is developing a multimillion-dollar package that could include money from the Texas Enterprise Fund, infrastructure support from the Texas Department of Transportation and assistance from the Texas Workforce Commission, among others, to attract SpaceX.
SpaceX has conducted its third successful rocket launch and concluded a widely celebrated cargo mission to the International Space Station, becoming the first private company to fly a spacecraft to the orbiting laboratory.
An official with the Texas Space Alliance, which promotes commercial space development in the state, welcomed Musk's comments.
"This is outstanding," said Bob Lancaster, the alliance's president. "It's time for us as Texans to take a deep breath, understand what's at stake and the enormous potential if we succeed, and redouble our efforts to help make this happen."
Lancaster sees a spaceport as a critical opening for Texas to remain a major player in human spaceflight during coming decades.
(snip)
-
Anyone know where the Puerto Rican site is? My guess would be in the Yabucoa area, as they could go due-east and skirt between the Virgin Islands, or go south to ISS inclinations.
-
We as a society have decided that extinction is bad
Which is odd, given that extinction is the natural order of things, and the vast majority of species that have gone extinct did so long before humans appeared on the scene. (Yes, yes, I know, the rate has gone up, but my point is that it's a more nuanced thing than 'all extinctions are bad', which is the position of current Federal legislation in this area.)
I wonder how much having the state government on SX's side (as reported here (http://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=28585.msg916214#msg916214)) will be able to help with the environmental issues? (Bearing especially in mind that delay is often tantamount to killing a project, and the prospect of delay over environmental issues would lead a lot of people to cross that option off the list, and look elsewhere. Who knows how much of that attitude SX will adopt.)
Noel
-
Extinction? Really? Are you really going there? Please, NASA has a long history of rocket launches next to wetlands. They have an excellent track record. I'm sure SpaceX with correct oversight could do much the same. This is too much environmental hype and I'm a big conservationist myself.
-
Extinction? Really? Are you really going there? Please, NASA has a long history of rocket launches next to wetlands. They have an excellent track record. I'm sure SpaceX with correct oversight could do much the same. This is too much environmental hype and I'm a big conservationist myself.
One side goes with kills all jobs the other sides goes with mass extinctions, both are at fault.
-
Anyone know where the Puerto Rican site is? My guess would be in the Yabucoa area, as they could go due-east and skirt between the Virgin Islands, or go south to ISS inclinations.
My guess is Vieques, as it also has a fairly clear shot to the east and is relatively undeveloped courtesy of the USN, which used a largish part of it for target practice for quite a while.
-
Extinction? Really? Are you really going there? Please, NASA has a long history of rocket launches next to wetlands. They have an excellent track record. I'm sure SpaceX with correct oversight could do much the same. This is too much environmental hype and I'm a big conservationist myself.
One side goes with kills all jobs the other sides goes with mass extinctions, both are at fault.
It's all been politicized beyond reason. Environmental concerns are very important, but they are being used as a tool by people with agendas that have nothing to do with the environments. Exactly the same with jobs, or almost any other flag.
The main fault is with the people really. Folks don't seem to care about any of these topics one way or the other until they (the topics) get associated with a political camp. At that point, everyone immediately knows were they stand, and aways we go.
(hehe... am I off-topic here?)
k, O&O.
-
Extinction? Really? Are you really going there? Please, NASA has a long history of rocket launches next to wetlands. They have an excellent track record. I'm sure SpaceX with correct oversight could do much the same. This is too much environmental hype and I'm a big conservationist myself.
I went there in broad terms because this board was bashing environmentalism in very broad terms. I assume that a happy middle ground between wild-eyed conservationists and wild-eyed conservationist-bashers can be found, and correct oversight is exactly what I support. But the amount of unanswered snideness about how much trouble "they" always cause "us", and the examples of evil, obnoxious environmentalists getting thrown about, were unacceptable to me. This isn't a pro- or anti-conservation board, so I have no particular problem asking the anti-folks to cool their jets a little. They chill, I chill, and this thread goes back on topic.
EDIT: I actually agree wholeheartedly with Mr. Mark & JBF. "Extinction" is apparently way more of a buzzword than I realized, so I apologize for effectively derailing my own argument up front.
-
Extinction? Really? Are you really going there? Please, NASA has a long history of rocket launches next to wetlands. They have an excellent track record. I'm sure SpaceX with correct oversight could do much the same. This is too much environmental hype and I'm a big conservationist myself.
but remember SpaceX is NOT NASA.
-
And your point? SpaceX will still have to go by Texas and US environmental,standards. They will not get a free ride in this. Remember we are talking about 6 or less launches a year. That's only one launch every several month at most, tops. This is not an airport and will not have the environmental footprint like a Spaceport America that plans near daily flights.
-
Extinction? Really? Are you really going there? Please, NASA has a long history of rocket launches next to wetlands. They have an excellent track record. I'm sure SpaceX with correct oversight could do much the same. This is too much environmental hype and I'm a big conservationist myself.
I went there in broad terms because this board was bashing environmentalism in very broad terms. I assume that a happy middle ground between wild-eyed conservationists and wild-eyed conservationist-bashers can be found, and correct oversight is exactly what I support. But the amount of unanswered snideness about how much trouble "they" always cause "us", and the examples of evil, obnoxious environmentalists getting thrown about, were unacceptable to me. This isn't a pro- or anti-conservation board, so I have no particular problem asking the anti-folks to cool their jets a little. They chill, I chill, and this thread goes back on topic.
EDIT: I actually agree wholeheartedly with Mr. Mark & JBF. "Extinction" is apparently way more of a buzzword than I realized, so I apologize for effectively derailing my own argument up front.
Not only that, but there need not be antithesis between conservation and space travel. Arguably, the unique perspective given by space travel provided the motivation for the modern environmental movement:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BFO2usVjfQc
And astronauts started this environmental project:
http://www.fragileoasis.org/
-
There are several things mentioned here that I haven't heard of before, such as Perry's May 9 letter to the FAA and Musk's statement that Florida and Puerto Rico have had stronger cases.
http://www.brownsvilleherald.com/news/spacex-141476-meeting-elon.html
State ramps up attempt to lure SpaceX to Brownsville
June 16, 2012 9:50 PM
By LAURA B. MARTINEZ/The Brownsville Herald
Days after a meeting between Gov. Rick Perry and SpaceX founder Elon Musk, the governor’s office is doing all it can to persuade the multimillionaire to build a launch pad near Brownsville.
“We are looking at pretty much anything that we can do,” said Lucy Nashed, deputy press secretary for the governor. “Pretty much everything is on the table at this point because we are really interested in the project.”
(snip)
Texas has been working with SpaceX, short for Space Exploration Technologies, for about a year and is working on an incentives package to help lure the company to Cameron County. Because negotiations are still under way, no details are being released, Nashed said.
In a letter dated May 9 to the Federal Aviation Administration, Perry expressed his support for the SpaceX launch site coming to the Brownsville area. He states the project could mean “well-paying jobs and economic development to South Texas.”
“Please know that I strongly support the efforts of SpaceX and the Brownsville community to bring this business to Texas. I ask you to favorably approve their application for a South Texas launch site,” he wrote.
Although Musk has said that Florida and Puerto Rico have made stronger cases than Texas for the new launch site, he also said that things were changing.
SpaceX could not be reached Friday for comment.
Sources have reported after Texas appeared last week to be gaining the top spot in the competition to lure the new SpaceX launch site, Florida is trying to sweeten the deal they offered the company.
“We are no stranger to competition,” Nashed, Perry’s spokeswoman said. “If Florida wants to step up their game, then of course we are certainly open to that. We really want this project to be here and we are committed to doing what we can to get it here.”
(snip)
-
All else being equal, Florida and PR can reach more orbits. Texas could take load away from other sites by handling the launches that wouldn't care, but ultimately would not be as versatile.
I'm guessing they want to crank the launch rate at the fully custom site higher than the others though, so that's a fairly sizable disadvantage.
As usual though, the optimal strategy is to pursue everything at once. I've seen it suggested that all they really want is bargaining power at the cape, but I think they went into this willing to pull the trigger on any of the above in the right circumstances. If it's a partially a bargaining tactic it's because the threat is credible.
-
All else being equal, Florida and PR can reach more orbits. Texas could take load away from other sites by handling the launches that wouldn't care, but ultimately would not be as versatile.
I'm guessing they want to crank the launch rate at the fully custom site higher than the others though, so that's a fairly sizable disadvantage.
As usual though, the optimal strategy is to pursue everything at once. I've seen it suggested that all they really want is bargaining power at the cape, but I think they went into this willing to pull the trigger on any of the above in the right circumstances. If it's a partially a bargaining tactic it's because the threat is credible.
I think the real need is to find an East coast site for F9H. They can't easily convert SLC 40 to handle it without the the substantial modifications that have been discussed elsewhere: second hanger, second set of tracks coming in at 90 degrees to the current set etc. That work would probably lead to considerable downtime which would affect traffic to ISS and other F9 missions.
KSC might be an alternative to Texas for F9H. In which case, I think you're right: there is an element of bargaining going on.
-
I think the real need is to find an East coast site for F9H.
Wallops
-
All else being equal, Florida and PR can reach more orbits. Texas could take load away from other sites by handling the launches that wouldn't care, but ultimately would not be as versatile.
Well once they truly master reusability, and if the rockets will self-ferry, they will need a factory outlet launch site.
-
I think the real need is to find an East coast site for F9H.
Wallops
You think so? For GTO missions?
-
Well once they truly master reusability, and if the rockets will self-ferry, they will need a factory outlet launch site.
Self-ferrying over populated landmasses will never happen.
-
All else being equal, Florida and PR can reach more orbits. Texas could take load away from other sites by handling the launches that wouldn't care, but ultimately would not be as versatile.
Well once they truly master reusability, and if the rockets will self-ferry, they will need a factory outlet launch site.
You mean if they master re-usability.
As far as self-ferrying rockets are concerned, they are so far down the line (even if this ability were needed, which I doubt) that they have no relevance to whether SpaceX sets up a Texas launch site or not.
-
Yes - "If", not "when". But IF they do, there will be a track record of performance, and I don't see a problem flying overland. Airplanes fly fully fueled over cities, and airplanes have accidents into cities. It's accepted. Of course jetliners are incredibly reliable, but they also fly a lot, and at the end of the day, we do have a major incident about once a year or two.
There are reasonable precautions to take, such as starting and ending each burn in a "safe" flight envelope, so that failure to ignite (or RUD on ignition) will always crash into a cleared area, but at least the rocket won't be circling over town in a waiting pattern for 30 minutes before being allowed to land.
And sure - everything about rapid-reusable first stages is not going to happen next year. But they are not building a TX site while thinking only a couple of years ahead, are they?
All I'm saying is that assuming rockets will be able to rapid-reuse, then odds are they will self-ferry, and once they do, there will be a launch pad whose main requirement will be being next to the stage integration floor, wherever that might be.
-
All I'm saying is that assuming rockets will be able to rapid-reuse, then odds are they will self-ferry, and once they do, there will be a launch pad whose main requirement will be being next to the stage integration floor, wherever that might be.
Bringing us back to the point: self-ferrying over populated landmasses will never happen.
-
self-ferrying over populated landmasses will never happen.
TBD, I guess. There are a number of LTA proponents from the 1920's that would like a quick word meanwhile...
-
And sure - everything about rapid-reusable first stages is not going to happen next year. But they are not building a TX site while thinking only a couple of years ahead, are they?
How do you know that? This is a proposed development. How do you know it's not just a bargaining ploy?
My last comment on self ferrying rockets. Unnecessary and completely unacceptable from the safety point of view. And they have nothing to do with the proposed Texas site. Rockets are not airliners. Spaceflight is not aviation. The history of aviation is not a reliable guide to the future of spaceflight. Self ferrying rockets are OT: they should be in Advanced Concepts.
-
Fair enough. Agreed on advanced topics, agreed on aviation not being a close analog, and also on the TX site not being necessarily related, and definitely agreeing this is speculative.
I can't tell for sure that the whole rapid-reuse idea is not a ploy. Even the Mars scenario may be a ploy to get people motivated on the floor. After all, Mars hardware is speculative at best right now.
But given all of these admissions... Grant me that rapid-reuse, if it comes to pass, will be a paradigm shift in cost and in the way rocket ops are viewed. So for speculation on what-if rapid reuse happens, current rocket ops and current rocketry constraints are not a very good guide either.
That said - I can start a thread on rapid-reuse - if we have something else to say.
-
With the talk of competition from Florida and Puerto Rico. Where in Puerto Rico is the site located and the same with this "other" Florida site?
-
The Texas site evaluation process, which the other two sites are not yet even started on, is costing SpaceX real money now. SpaceX has to pay for all evaluations that are done. The Texas site is not a ploy but a real site. The launch load of 6 GSO flights per year from Texas and 6 Dragon flights per year from the Cape (2 DragonRider, 3 CRS, and 1 DragonLab) is what is predicted now for year 2015. If the Texas site is not built all 12 flights would fly from the Cape really pushing the envelope for processing of 4 weeks or less from hardware arrival at the pad to launch. At 6 per year there is 8 weeks for processing and room for handling launch slips.
-
OK, you've convinced me it's not a ploy. Moving all the GSO flights to Texas and keeping the ISS flights at CCAFS makes sense in the context of the restricted launch azimuths from Texas. It also allows them to build a site capable of handling F9H without disturbing the processing flow at SLC-40.
-
OK, you've convinced me it's not a ploy. Moving all the GSO flights to Texas and keeping the ISS flights at CCAFS makes sense in the context of the restricted launch azimuths from Texas. It also allows them to build a site capable of handling F9H without disturbing the processing flow at SLC-40.
They also said they could reach the ISS, at least, that's as a possibility.
-
OK, you've convinced me it's not a ploy. Moving all the GSO flights to Texas and keeping the ISS flights at CCAFS makes sense in the context of the restricted launch azimuths from Texas. It also allows them to build a site capable of handling F9H without disturbing the processing flow at SLC-40.
They also said they could reach the ISS, at least, that's as a possibility.
If they optimize each site for a certain type of business, Dragons at the Cape and satelittes at Texas. the expertise for that business is not duplicated at each site which decreases costs and increases efficiency.
Edit: made clearer.
-
...the restricted launch azimuths from Texas.
This is something I'd really like to see nailed down, with references.
The assumption is that azimuths that go through the Straits of Florida and maybe the Yucatan Channel are the only ones permissible from Boca Chica due to overflight restrictions of Florida, Cuba, Mexico, etc. That may very well be purest truth, but it would be useful to get chapter and verse from the relevant rules and regulations.
-
Agree. I was assuming that.
-
How do you know that? This is a proposed development. How do you know it's not just a bargaining ploy?
Because that requires you to call SpaceX a big bunch of liars and you would never do that.
-
How do you know that? This is a proposed development. How do you know it's not just a bargaining ploy?
Because that requires you to call SpaceX a big bunch of liars and you would never do that.
;D
-
That remark is uncalled for and contributes nothing to the discussion.
Yes it does. Please limit your speculation to people acting in good faith. It's insulting to do otherwise, and it's a shame that we have to keep pointing this out to commentators.
-
That remark is uncalled for and contributes nothing to the discussion.
Yes it does. Please limit your speculation to people acting in good faith. It's insulting to do otherwise, and it's a shame that we have to keep pointing this out to commentators.
I removed my original reply to your comment. It was never my intention to imply that SpaceX were acting dishonorably, merely that they were in negotiation, other sites were being considered, and that the construction of the Texas site was not a given. (You will see I have already changed my opinion about that.) The use of the word "ploy" was a mistake for which I apologize.
-
QG - I agree that there have been a lot of unnecessary casual accusations of ill will, but I don't think this is one of them. Companies often explore alternate options solely to demonstrate to a negotiator that there are alternate options. It's SOP and not evidence of evil. I'd even be comfortable calling it a ploy.
OTOH it sounds like they're serious about considering the Texas LS, so it's a moot question.
-
http://www.orlandosentinel.com/news/space/os-spacex-bidding-war-20120617,0,5652267.story
-
QG - I agree that there have been a lot of unnecessary casual accusations of ill will, but I don't think this is one of them. Companies often explore alternate options solely to demonstrate to a negotiator that there are alternate options. It's SOP and not evidence of evil. I'd even be comfortable calling it a ploy.
Disclaimer noted. :)
I think in this case SpaceX has enough sites in the pipeline that they would be prepared to use that it's not necessary to include sites they wouldn't. There are multiple reasons that doing this is beneficial. :)
-
I think in this case SpaceX has enough sites in the pipeline that they would be prepared to use that it's not necessary to include sites they wouldn't. There are multiple reasons that doing this is beneficial. :)
For example, if one of the sites "calls your bluff" that you won't choose another, you can shrug and do just that. ;)
-
I think in this case SpaceX has enough sites in the pipeline that they would be prepared to use that it's not necessary to include sites they wouldn't. There are multiple reasons that doing this is beneficial. :)
For example, if one of the sites "calls your bluff" that you won't choose another, you can shrug and do just that. ;)
Or you can get good deals from all 3. If you want the optionality for future growth because you believe reusable rockets are possible, then you get the best of all worlds. In the future, if one of the locations turns out less optimal/less attractive, then you have the alternatives.
An MOU for a pad doesn't cost much.
An actual pad might cost little enough that the value of the hedges exceeds the outlay. Optionality can provide significant intangible benefit.
-
there is another major site available....Baikonur and its dirt cheap
read the info
http://www.russianspaceweb.com/baikonur_facilities.html#kazakhstan
-
there is another major site available....Baikonur and its dirt cheap
read the info
http://www.russianspaceweb.com/baikonur_facilities.html#kazakhstan
It isn't available nor dirt cheap to other operators
-
there is another major site available....Baikonur and its dirt cheap
read the info
http://www.russianspaceweb.com/baikonur_facilities.html#kazakhstan (http://www.russianspaceweb.com/baikonur_facilities.html#kazakhstan)
It isn't available nor dirt cheap to other operators
was going to say its less than the price of two seats on Soyuz to the ISS.
-
A bit of detail on financing, history of the Boca Chica site.
http://www.mysanantonio.com/news/local_news/article/Mixed-feelings-on-spaceport-plans-3659436.php
I wonder if there are any existing easements, permissions, etc. carrying over from Kopernik Shores days.
-
A bit of detail on financing, history of the Boca Chica site.
http://www.mysanantonio.com/news/local_news/article/Mixed-feelings-on-spaceport-plans-3659436.php
I wonder if there are any existing easements, permissions, etc. carrying over from Kopernik Shores days.
Hundreds of roseate spoonbills feed in the nearby marshes. Bobcats, ocelots and jaguarundis often are seen. Coyotes roam the broad main street of the neighborhood.
The last thing the people who live here want is a spaceport in their backyards.
“This is a little, quiet, tightly knit community,” said Judy Stanley, who moved to Kopernik Shores from Missouri to be close to her elderly mother in Brownsville. “If they build that thing, we're going to have people here out the ying-yang. They're going to screw it up.”
-
The last thing the people who live here want is a spaceport in their backyards.
Those would be, according to the above newspaper article,
(Redacted), and four other families are the permanent residents of Kopernik Shores (which they call Boca Chica Village), a subdivision of small 1960s ranch houses two miles away from where Musk's company, Space X, plans to launch its rockets if everything falls into place.
If SpaceX is putting tens of millions of dollars into the project and the houses are worth in the tens of thousands of dollars apiece, it would seem as if some solution could be worked out.
Edit: Parentheses substituted for brackets.
-
A bit of detail on financing, history of the Boca Chica site.
http://www.mysanantonio.com/news/local_news/article/Mixed-feelings-on-spaceport-plans-3659436.php
I wonder if there are any existing easements, permissions, etc. carrying over from Kopernik Shores days.
Hundreds of roseate spoonbills feed in the nearby marshes. Bobcats, ocelots and jaguarundis often are seen. Coyotes roam the broad main street of the neighborhood.
The last thing the people who live here want is a spaceport in their backyards.
“This is a little, quiet, tightly knit community,” said Judy Stanley, who moved to Kopernik Shores from Missouri to be close to her elderly mother in Brownsville. “If they build that thing, we're going to have people here out the ying-yang. They're going to screw it up.”
Well, the article also says there are only 32 houses left standing in Kopernik Shores, and only 5 couples residing there permanently. Hard to imagine they would pose much of an obstacle if the rest of the town/county/state government was in favor of the project.
And to those who believe Elon is simply using TX as a bargaining chip, it seems to me at he genuinely likes Texas and the attitude of the people down there, and I think the Boca Chica option is a serious one in his mind.
-
“This is a little, quiet, tightly knit community,” said Judy Stanley, who moved to Kopernik Shores from Missouri to be close to her elderly mother in Brownsville. “If they build that thing, we're going to have people here out the ying-yang. They're going to screw it up.”
Yep, growth and jobs are bad things for some people.
-
“This is a little, quiet, tightly knit community,” said Judy Stanley, who moved to Kopernik Shores from Missouri to be close to her elderly mother in Brownsville. “If they build that thing, we're going to have people here out the ying-yang. They're going to screw it up.”
Yep, growth and jobs are bad things for some people.
Retired people.
-
A bit of detail on financing, history of the Boca Chica site.
http://www.mysanantonio.com/news/local_news/article/Mixed-feelings-on-spaceport-plans-3659436.php
I wonder if there are any existing easements, permissions, etc. carrying over from Kopernik Shores days.
Hundreds of roseate spoonbills feed in the nearby marshes. Bobcats, ocelots and jaguarundis often are seen. Coyotes roam the broad main street of the neighborhood.
The last thing the people who live here want is a spaceport in their backyards.
“This is a little, quiet, tightly knit community,” said Judy Stanley, who moved to Kopernik Shores from Missouri to be close to her elderly mother in Brownsville. “If they build that thing, we're going to have people here out the ying-yang. They're going to screw it up.”
Well, the article also says there are only 32 houses left standing in Kopernik Shores, and only 5 couples residing there permanently. Hard to imagine they would pose much of an obstacle if the rest of the town/county/state government was in favor of the project.
And to those who believe Elon is simply using TX as a bargaining chip, it seems to me at he genuinely likes Texas and the attitude of the people down there, and I think the Boca Chica option is a serious one in his mind.
If Elon was serious about this he might have bought up the homes before any announcement.
the empty homes could be for people who live only part time in this location.
-
Yep, growth and jobs are bad things for some people.
Retired people.
Retired people who chose to live in a ghost town with a population you can count without taking your socks off.
Perfect setting for the movie "Tremors 4". Only this time the tremors are from rocket breath.
-
If Elon was serious about this he might have bought up the homes before any announcement.
Do we know that he didn't? Just because 10 people live there doesn't mean they are the owners.
-
Notice of meeting on new bridge and launch pad:
http://www.brownsvilleherald.com/articles/hearing-142123-new-island.html
-
“This is a little, quiet, tightly knit community,” said Judy Stanley, who moved to Kopernik Shores from Missouri to be close to her elderly mother in Brownsville. “If they build that thing, we're going to have people here out the ying-yang. They're going to screw it up.”
Yep, growth and jobs are bad things for some people.
Retired people.
Hey, if I'd spent the last 20 years saving up for a quiet retirement in a sleepy little village on the Texas coast, I'd be angry about a launch site opening up a couple of miles away too, and I'd do everything I could to make my displeasure known.
Yes, jobs and growth are good, but displacing people or severely degrading their quality of life with little more than a "suck it, Grandpa" is a good way to build bad will in the community.
-
I don't care for noise myself. I think it should be legal to crush loud stereo and muffler vehicles with the nearest D9.
But, a launch site? If those guys don't want to live there, I'll buy em out. I can't think of a better retirement in the world than sitting in a lawn chair with an ale and a cigar, watching rockets going into space. It would be a dream fulfilled I've had since I was 8.
-
That would most definitely meet my requirements for a retirement locale :)
-
Today’s agenda
The Cameron County Commissioners Court is scheduled to meet today in regular session, with concerns about trash at county beaches on the agenda.
The meeting begins at 8:30 a.m. in the Dancy Building at 1100 East Monroe.
Issues related to trash on county beaches are up for possible action.
Commissioners will also consider purchasing and installing playground equipment for Adolph Thomae Jr. Park and several items related to oil spill planning as part of its consent agenda.
In other business, also up for action by Commissioners Court, is the sale of county-owned property in Los Fresnos and Harlingen.
Also on the agenda is review of the status of the former Dolly Vinsant Hospital in San Benito and medical records that were recently found there. The property is under tax foreclosure.
Commissioners are scheduled to consider allowing San Benito Rotary Club members to enter the former hospital in order to clean it up, subject to the volunteers’ signing of liability releases.
County land related to the potential establishment of a launch pad by SpaceX is also on the agenda for discussion in public and closed executive session.
Wild that we live in a world where a county-level governmental body has buying monkey bars for a local park on the same agenda as permit for orbital rocket launch facility.
-
Today’s agenda
The Cameron County Commissioners Court is scheduled to meet today in regular session, with concerns about trash at county beaches on the agenda.
The meeting begins at 8:30 a.m. in the Dancy Building at 1100 East Monroe.
Issues related to trash on county beaches are up for possible action.
Commissioners will also consider purchasing and installing playground equipment for Adolph Thomae Jr. Park and several items related to oil spill planning as part of its consent agenda.
In other business, also up for action by Commissioners Court, is the sale of county-owned property in Los Fresnos and Harlingen.
Also on the agenda is review of the status of the former Dolly Vinsant Hospital in San Benito and medical records that were recently found there. The property is under tax foreclosure.
Commissioners are scheduled to consider allowing San Benito Rotary Club members to enter the former hospital in order to clean it up, subject to the volunteers’ signing of liability releases.
County land related to the potential establishment of a launch pad by SpaceX is also on the agenda for discussion in public and closed executive session.
Wild that we live in a world where a county-level governmental body has buying monkey bars for a local park on the same agenda as permit for orbital rocket launch facility.
+1. What a country. :)
-
Hopefully they don't mix this up - SpaceX's rockets get shipped to the park and kids play on them with tin snips, while Elon & Co. get all the exercising they need on the monkey bars over the flame trench.
-
+2! Good spotting! It's even wilder when you think that the launch pad has the potential (maybe), to someday launch manned spacecraft. Maybe some of the initial training for the second generation of Dragonriders is occuring on the playground at the park right now! I used to play centrifuge on merry-go-rounds at playgrounds all the time (probably banned by lawyers now).
-
Possible property title issue with a local family -
http://www.brownsvilleherald.com/articles/officials-142165-spacex-thursday.html
[/quote]xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx....appeared at the meeting and stated that his family might own some of the land in question, based on a land purchase he said was protected by the Adams-Onis Treaty of 1819.[/quote]
-
I probably won't be able to get to South Padre Island for this, but will try to get a transcript.
http://www.brownsvilleherald.com/news/address-142160-spacex-liaison.html
SpaceX liaison to address SPI chamber
July 05, 2012 9:45 PM
Alma Walzer, a consultant for SpaceX, will address the South Padre Island Chamber public affairs luncheon on Thursday, July 12, at the Sea Ranch Restaurant, 1 Padre Blvd.
Walzer is the government liaison for S&B Infrastructure, which SpaceX has hired to scout the Boca Chica beach area for a possible rocket launch facility. She’s charged with guiding SpaceX through land acquisition and local procedures, and with helping local government entities develop a regional approach to attracting SpaceX.
Walzer will present the latest information on the project and answer questions. The Hawthorne, Calif.-based space transport company has identified Boca Chica as its preferred location, though Florida and Puerto Rico are also possibilities.
Reservations are required. For cost and other information call [956] 761-4412 or visit the chamber office at 600 Padre Blvd.
-
Heh, it would be cool if they revived the "Kopernik Shores" name for the launch site itself. I'm sure old Mikołaj would approve... ;)
-
Heh, it would be cool if they revived the "Kopernik Shores" name for the launch site itself. I'm sure old Mikołaj would approve... ;)
Yes, that thought had crossed my mind also, and I'm sure Kopernik would have been thrilled.
I'm not sure whether the original Kopernik Shores land development at Boca Chica was an out-and-out scam that would somewhat contaminate the name, or was just an honest endeavor that didn't work out as well as hoped, which wouldn't be so bad.
-
Heh, it would be cool if they revived the "Kopernik Shores" name for the launch site itself. I'm sure old Mikołaj would approve... ;)
Yes, that thought had crossed my mind also, and I'm sure Kopernik would have been thrilled.
I'm not sure whether the original Kopernik Shores land development at Boca Chica was an out-and-out scam that would somewhat contaminate the name, or was just an honest endeavor that didn't work out as well as hoped, which wouldn't be so bad.
Maybe it would be more appropriate to name the facility Kopernik Spaceport.
-
AUSTIN, TX, JULY 18, 2012 - The Texas Space Alliance (TXA) and the office of the Speaker of the House are pleased to announce the meeting in Austin between Governor Rick Perry and numerous representatives of the nation's top new commercial space firms. The TXA team brought together representatives from SpaceX, XCOR Aerospace, Sierra Nevada Corporation (SNC), Armadillo Aerospace, NanoRacks, Celestis, and ATK Liberty to talk about the needs of Commercial Space, and what Texas can do to fully embrace and nurture this vital, fledgling new industry.
"We'll defer to historians on where this goes in the books, but this is the first time ever that representatives from so many commercial (NewSpace) firms have gathered in one place to share their support for our shared vision for the future of Texas in space, and communicate that to the Governor," said Bob Lancaster, TXA President. "Definitely a significant milestone in the history of Texas."
http://www.spaceref.com/news/viewpr.html?pid=37826
From what I can tell there were three things that were talked about during the meeting, 1) the SpaceX plan to launch from Texas, 2) XCOR moving its HQ to Texas, and ............................ ummmm ...... ummmm ...... sorry, I don't have it.
Oops.
-
I just hope we do get a launch site here. Would be nice not to have to fly/drive to Florida every time there is a notable mission.
Much easier to drive to the pad if its in Brownsville, that's about 120 miles from me so no problem.
-
I just hope we do get a launch site here. Would be nice not to have to fly/drive to Florida every time there is a notable mission.
Much easier to drive to the pad if its in Brownsville, that's about 120 miles from me so no problem.
Not that a Florida vacation with a launch is a bad thing :)
-
An article from The Brownsvilla Herald which discusses the economic impact of Spacex on the region along with a couple video links.
http://www.brownsvilleherald.com/articles/environmental-144411-impact-concerns.html
-
An article from The Brownsvilla Herald which discusses the economic impact of Spacex on the region along with a couple video links.
http://www.brownsvilleherald.com/articles/environmental-144411-impact-concerns.html
the videos from the link are interesting...
"Brownsville Economic Development Council's executive director Gilberto Salinas gave a presentation on the potential of SpaceX coming to the Valley at a recent South Padre Island Chamber of Commerce meeting."
http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=uXjKdPX0ZIo
"Cameron County Commissioner Sofia Benavides discussed the benefits of SpaceX coming to South Texas while on the proposed SpaceX launch site."
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3_2pQCrghnU&feature=player_embedded
-
Second part of this eight series:
http://www.brownsvilleherald.com/articles/reviews-144413-site-bill.html
-
With 2 of 8 articles out so far, even though there are both pro and cons expressed, the articles are still heavily favorable to a SpaceX launch facility.
-
With 2 of 8 articles out so far, even though there are both pro and cons expressed, the articles are still heavily favorable to a SpaceX launch facility.
I've actually worked at that newspaper and the one in McAllen. They would have to be insane not to want SpaceX.
Here in Los Angeles SpaceX is a feather in the cap and a nice thing to have around, but it's just background noise economically. In Brownsville 600 SpaceX jobs will be like crack for their economy. That will be a huge deal there and really could transform their city once you factor in the likely increase in tourism.
-
I doubt there'd be a huge increase in tourism. I don't think the Cape gets crazy crowds for Atlas and Delta launches. The economic impact would be more about the direct and indirect jobs (lots of contract welding and construction needed to build a pad). It would definitely increase visibility for the area, but I just don't see tens of thousands of folks driving to boca chica just for spacex.
That said, it would be pretty amazing to watch a launch from South Padre's south jetties.
-
the videos from the link are interesting...
"Brownsville Economic Development Council's executive director Gilberto Salinas gave a presentation on the potential of SpaceX coming to the Valley at a recent South Padre Island Chamber of Commerce meeting."
http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=uXjKdPX0ZIo
A couple of interesting factoids there:
- He (Salinas) started working the project almost 1.5 years ago, i.e., Spring of 2011.
- "Trajectory path... between CONUS and Cuba." That's been the general expectation, but it's good to have something at least a little more authoritative on it.
Edit: Fixed broken quote tag.
-
600 jobs at an average of $55k per year would put about $2.75 million into the local economy per month. That wouldn't include anything that SpaceX itself spends, only the employees.
Brownsville would be nuts to pass on this.
-
600 jobs at an average of $55k per year would put about $2.75 million into the local economy per month. That wouldn't include anything that SpaceX itself spends, only the employees.
Brownsville would be nuts to pass on this.
Local opposition usually isn't very rational to start with. And the worst part is that usually local opposition generally has a lot of marketing muscle. It's the retirees, hippies and such, people who usually don't work or have lots of free time. Plus a lot of people afraid of change. But I just hope that the Texas way of dealing with this things will be applied (which is becoming my favorite US state, btw).
-
Third part of this eight part series
http://www.themonitor.com/news/chica-63526-editor-beach.html
My support of of Spacex's proposed launch site not with standing, I am curious as to read what the environmental impact study has to say and how Spacex plans to deal with what ever issues may arise.
-
Third part of this eight part series
http://www.themonitor.com/news/chica-63526-editor-beach.html
My support of of Spacex's proposed launch site not with standing, I am curious as to read what the environmental impact study has to say and how Spacex plans to deal with what ever issues may arise.
that turtle might become an issue. If its a sea turtle, think they are on the endangered list.
-
Additional factoids:
http://www.brownsvilleherald.com/articles/county-144469-cameron-capital.html
Cameron County part of united front to attract SpaceX
September 03, 2012 9:52 PM
By EMMA PEREZ-TREVINO
The Brownsville Herald
<snip>
INFRASTRUCTURE
According to the FAA, the facilities that would be required would include a processing hangar, launch pad and stand with its associated flame duct, propellant storage and handling areas, a work-shop and office area, and a warehouse for parts storage.
The proposed control center area would include a control center building and a payload processing facility. It might also include a launch vehicle preparation hangar and satellite fuels storage area.
The proposed schedule for all construction is 24 months.
Development of access and supporting utility infrastructure for the launch area and the control center area could occur on land other than the ones SpaceX could own or lease, according to the FAA.
According to BEDC, Magic Valley Coop would service the site with power, although SpaceX also would consider diversifying with renewable energy like solar or wind support.
“They are not huge consumers of electricity for their operations. You’re not going to get into the mega-watt usage,” Salinas said.
Water would be trucked to the site and stored in a water tank, as it is for nearby residents at Boca Chica Village.
“Their water needs are simple,” he said. A septic tank system would be adequate for their requirements, he said.
<snip>
-
that turtle might become an issue. If its a sea turtle, think they are on the endangered list.
And Sea Turtles are among the better-understood conservation issues; as long as SpaceX doesn't tear up the beach itself or shine bright lights directly out onto the ocean, they should be fine.
Indeed, I can imagine Musk (he of Tesla and SolarCity) really pushing the angle that this would be the most environmentally-friendly launch pad EVAR. And as long as the handle the hydrazine properly, it could be.
-
Game-changer for radioastronomy students?
http://m.brownsvilleherald.com/news/spacex-144504-jenet-students.html
-
I had been looking at Google earth lately wondering exactly where this would be so these images in the video were great.
-
A couple of interesting factoids there:
- He (Salinas) started working the project almost 1.5 years ago, i.e., Spring of 2011.
The latest article in the series makes this a little more precise:
http://www.brownsvilleherald.com/articles/brownsville-144608-pan-airline.html
With a history in aviation, Brownsville hopes to refuel its image by landing an aerospace role
September 06, 2012 10:25 PM
By STEVE CLARK
The Brownsville Herald
<snip>
Gilberto Salinas, vice president of the Brownsville Economic Development Council, which has been in talks with SpaceX since March 2011...
<snip>
This, together with the already known
Brownsville still is competing with Puerto Rico and Florida for the launch site. The company originally considered 12 sites in South Texas from Brownsville to north of Raymondville before setting its sights on Boca Chica Beach.
suggests that SpaceX was seriously looking into alternate/additional launch sites well back into 2010 if not earlier.
BTW, I have relatives in San Juan who are reasonably well plugged into the Puerto Rican business community and who own property on the east side of the island where the launch site would presumably be located. They say there hasn't been word one about SpaceX there, so, if Puerto Rico is still under serious consideration, it must be heavily stealthed (which wouldn't be uncharacteristic).
-
BTW, I have relatives in San Juan who are reasonably well plugged into the Puerto Rican business community and who own property on the east side of the island where the launch site would presumably be located. They say there hasn't been word one about SpaceX there, so, if Puerto Rico is still under serious consideration, it must be heavily stealthed (which wouldn't be uncharacteristic).
The former Roosevelt Roads Naval Station is all soon (http://www.caribbeanbusinesspr.com/prnt_ed/news02.php?nw_id=7491&ct_id=90) to be owned by the Puerto Rican government. It has an 11,000 ft runway, a deep water sea port, and plenty of open space. There would be no private land, so it would be much easier to keep a secret.
-
BTW, I have relatives in San Juan who are reasonably well plugged into the Puerto Rican business community and who own property on the east side of the island where the launch site would presumably be located. They say there hasn't been word one about SpaceX there, so, if Puerto Rico is still under serious consideration, it must be heavily stealthed (which wouldn't be uncharacteristic).
The former Roosevelt Roads Naval Station is all soon (http://www.caribbeanbusinesspr.com/prnt_ed/news02.php?nw_id=7491&ct_id=90) to be owned by the Puerto Rican government. It has an 11,000 ft runway, a deep water sea port, and plenty of open space. There would be no private land, so it would be much easier to keep a secret.
That's not exactly empty ocean downrange of Roosevelt Roads. GTO launches would need to thread between islands. Would that be acceptable?
-
That's not exactly empty ocean downrange of Roosevelt Roads. GTO launches would need to thread between islands. Would that be acceptable?
Anguilla and Saint Martin look like they might be a problem for due-east launches from Roosevelt Roads. My favorite PR-ian candidate, the eastern end of Vieques, allows azimuths that avoid islands or close approaches. Who knows what SpaceX has in mind?
-
That's not exactly empty ocean downrange of Roosevelt Roads. GTO launches would need to thread between islands. Would that be acceptable?
Anguilla and Saint Martin look like they might be a problem for due-east launches from Roosevelt Roads. My favorite PR-ian candidate, the eastern end of Vieques, allows azimuths that avoid islands or close approaches. Who knows what SpaceX has in mind?
They are at around 19deg. They have some 10 degrees to be on the same situation than Texas and/or Hawaii.
-
That's not exactly empty ocean downrange of Roosevelt Roads. GTO launches would need to thread between islands. Would that be acceptable?
Anguilla and Saint Martin look like they might be a problem for due-east launches from Roosevelt Roads. My favorite PR-ian candidate, the eastern end of Vieques, allows azimuths that avoid islands or close approaches. Who knows what SpaceX has in mind?
I saw that on the map too. But, haven't they made substantial portions of Vieques & it's surrounding smaller islands National Park Preserves?
-
But, haven't they made substantial portions of Vieques & it's surrounding smaller islands National Park Preserves?
Yes (http://www.fws.gov/caribbean/Refuges/PDF/vieques_factsheet.pdf), however there are similar considerations at Boca Chica -- see next post.
-
Several articles concerning environmental concerns at Boca Chica in the Brownsville Herald today. They're worth reading in their entirety, but here are some more factoids.
http://www.brownsvilleherald.com/news/spacex-144662-plan-setting.html
FAA takes environmental look at SpaceX plan
September 08, 2012 9:44 PM
Ryan Henry
THE BROWNSVILLE HERALD
<snip>
The agency will release information about public comments and the findings of the environmental impact study in December, Price said.
<snip>
http://www.brownsvilleherald.com/news/launch-144665-spacex-rocket.html
Why launch near wildlife refuges?
September 08, 2012 10:04 PM
Ryan Henry/THE BROWNSVILLE HERALD
<snip>
Seen from SpaceX’s perspective, the Boca Chica proposal actually allows the site to operate with a “small, eco-friendly footprint,” according to a company document dated May 2.About 5 acres will be developed on the 50-acre tract, and the surrounding area will be “left untouched and, like Cape Canaveral, provides an excellent wildlife habitat,” the company states.Furthermore, according to SpaceX, its Boca Chica site will be powered by solar panels and bat-teries. SpaceX founder Elon Musk also owns a solar panel installation company, Solar City, as well as electric car company Tesla Motors.
After the FAA releases its draft environmental impact statement for the proposed launch site, perhaps in December, the U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service will better understand the next steps involving its refuge mission.
<snip>
And sea turtles!
http://www.brownsvilleherald.com/news/turtles-144666-sea-something.html
What about sea turtles?
September 08, 2012 10:17 PM
Ryan Henry
THE BROWNSVILLE HERALD
<Summary: Light pollution, surprisingly, seems to be a principal concern.>
-
Just conjuring a little with the information that has come out in the Brownsville Herald series so far,
- The draft EIS is expected in December
- Construction of the SpaceX site will take two years
So, if everybody moves smartly and wants to make it happen, the final EIS and other studies and permits might get done by the end of 2013 and SpaceX break ground in early 2014, leading to the first launch from Boca Chica in the second half of 2016. Of course, it well might (and likely will) take longer, but I don't see it happening much faster.
-
Just conjuring a little with the information that has come out in the Brownsville Herald series so far,
- The draft EIS is expected in December
- Construction of the SpaceX site will take two years
So, if everybody moves smartly and wants to make it happen, the final EIS and other studies and permits might get done by the end of 2013 and SpaceX break ground in early 2014, leading to the first launch from Boca Chica in the second half of 2016. Of course, it well might (and likely will) take longer, but I don't see it happening much faster.
wish everything ran this smooth. After the studies etc. expect some of the lawyers and courts to get involved. If someone wants to and has enough cash they can tie up a project like this (before permits) for many, many years.
-
Jeff Foust tweeted this editorial opposed to the Boca Chica launch site:
http://www.beaumontenterprise.com/opinions/editorials/article/EDITORIAL-Find-better-rocket-launch-site-on-3854325.php (http://www.beaumontenterprise.com/opinions/editorials/article/EDITORIAL-Find-better-rocket-launch-site-on-3854325.php)
EDITORIAL: Find better rocket launch site on Texas Gulf coast
Tuesday, September 11, 2012
Enterprise editorial staff
<snip>
A wildlife refuge simply should not be subjected to the noise, fumes and potential accidents or fuel spills from rocket launches.
<snip>
The editorial mentions "fumes" from launch. This is in the same vein as the Environment Texas director's claim that the rockets would "spray noxious chemicals all over the place."
-
Ever visit Kennedy Space Center? The place is a wildlife refuge and you can't look anywhere without seeing gators, Bald Eagles, turtles, herons, and every other kind of wild critter. All of this in the nations biggest and busiest launch site. I can't think of a better way to show how little a barren spot on the Texas coast will suffer from burning a little kerosene once a month. Once again a newspaper with its own ax to grind is doing an uninformed disservice to the surrounding community.
-
Beaumont is about as far as you can get from Boca Chica and still be on the Texas Gulf Coast. All you read in this editorial are an echo of statements made by Environment Texas. I doubt this author knows anything else about Boca Chica or SpaceX or Cape Canaveral or any other relevant information.
-
Ever visit Kennedy Space Center? The place is a wildlife refuge and you can't look anywhere without seeing gators, Bald Eagles, turtles, herons, and every other kind of wild critter. All of this in the nations biggest and busiest launch site. I can't think of a better way to show how little a barren spot on the Texas coast will suffer from burning a little kerosene once a month. Once again a newspaper with its own ax to grind is doing an uninformed disservice to the surrounding community.
That was done after the fact. CCAFS was basically cleared of scrub in he early says
-
.. and the gators are used animatronics from Disney World :)
-
Nothing will go wrong environmentally in Texas. The proof of that is that nothing ever goes wrong at Cape Canaveral.
-
Update:
http://www.brownsvilleherald.com/news/involved-144875-thursday-offering.html
-
Wow, another State in the mix.
It will be interesting to see if they end up selecting more than 1 of those launch site options.
-
Wow, another State in the mix.
It will be interesting to see if they end up selecting more than 1 of those launch site options.
thought it was a done deal for TX?
SpaceX will have most of the same issues anywhere (outside of a AFbase).
-
Wow, another State in the mix.
It will be interesting to see if they end up selecting more than 1 of those launch site options.
Don't think SpaceX can startup more than one new launch site with their current expanding human resource base, never mind the money needed.
But SpaceX can add more sites later if they need more or different launch range capacities.
-
Don't think SpaceX can startup more than one new launch site with their current expanding human resource base, never mind the money needed.
But SpaceX can add more sites later if they need more or different launch range capacities.
I don't think we are disagreeing here. They have a team that organized and oversaw construction of various pads through their history so far. Maybe they'll continue to keep those people busy with projects (in series rather than parallel) on current and future pads.
-
Don't think SpaceX can startup more than one new launch site with their current expanding human resource base, never mind the money needed.
But SpaceX can add more sites later if they need more or different launch range capacities.
I don't think we are disagreeing here. They have a team that organized and oversaw construction of various pads through their history so far. Maybe they'll continue to keep those people busy with projects (in series rather than parallel) on current and future pads.
Agree.
But would SpaceX also startup new launch ranges in new launch sites like they are proposing for the TX site? Like would it be ground facilities or orbital assets.
-
SpaceX buying property near launch site:
http://www.brownsvilleherald.com/news/spacex-145210-county-local.html
-
They bought the properties under the name "Dogleg Park LLC"! The paper actually mentioned the use of the word in launch terminology, which I thought was a nice touch.
-
They bought the properties under the name "Dogleg Park LLC"! The paper actually mentioned the use of the word in launch terminology, which I thought was a nice touch.
Interesting. Indicative maybe of using a dogleg launch trajectory?
-
Dogleg Park LLC, so then the purchase is a red herring and they looking to launch from somewhere else to reach GTO ;)
-
I still find it interesting that there's been no mention of landing anything at the Texas site although the FAA talks about reusable vehicles.
Perhaps, at a later date, SpaceX will try to get approval for landing nearby, but that might be a more contentious approval process. If that's the plan, it does add an element of risk to the Texas site. Suppose they don't get approval for landing after they've got the launch site up and running?
-
The state of journalism in regard to space has fallen to a new low. This morning, the Austin American Statesman ran a story from AP headlined Space tourism company purchases land in South Texas. With the unemployment rate so high, you'd think they could find reporters who can read and understand when they copy other paper's stories, don't you?
-
They bought the properties under the name "Dogleg Park LLC"! The paper actually mentioned the use of the word in launch terminology, which I thought was a nice touch.
Interesting. Indicative maybe of using a dogleg launch trajectory?
Can our trajectory adepts see any interesting orbital possibilities that launching dogleg out of Boca Chica would enable?
-
They bought the properties under the name "Dogleg Park LLC"! The paper actually mentioned the use of the word in launch terminology, which I thought was a nice touch.
Interesting. Indicative maybe of using a dogleg launch trajectory?
Can our trajectory adepts see any interesting orbital possibilities that launching dogleg out of Boca Chica would enable?
Not an expert, but shown are 3 possible trajectories to 51.6 deg from Texas. One direct, one with single dog leg and one with double dogleg.
The first dog leg corresponds to SI burn of FH Heavy with cross feed.
Single leg:
1. 137.46 degrees heading - 0 m/s
Double leg:
1. 541 KM - 103.39 degrees heading - 0 m/s
2. 137.93 degrees heading - 4791 m/s
Triple leg:
1. 541 KM - 103.39 degrees heading - 0 m/s
2. 754 KM - 119.77 degrees heading - 4791 m/s
3. 139.37 degrees heading - 5705 m/s
The Single and Double leg would cross the Yucatan and probably not viable. The triple would probably be closer to a curve then a sudden heading change.
90 degree launch shown for reference.
*The distance and velocity is based on my 2D simulator and not real data.
-
That's very interesting. Any idea of what sort of performance loss would come from the double dog leg?
But I think SpaceX's interest in Texas is mainly for GTO missions.
-
Triple leg:
1. 541 KM - 103.39 degrees heading - 0 m/s
2. 754 KM - 119.77 degrees heading - 4791 m/s
3. 139.37 degrees heading - 5705 m/s
It looks like legs 1 & 2 could be combined into a single leg that just grazes land. Is there an azimuth restriction that stops that?
cheers, Martin
-
Triple leg:
1. 541 KM - 103.39 degrees heading - 0 m/s
2. 754 KM - 119.77 degrees heading - 4791 m/s
3. 139.37 degrees heading - 5705 m/s
It looks like legs 1 & 2 could be combined into a single leg that just grazes land. Is there an azimuth restriction that stops that?
cheers, Martin
I haven't run into any real information on doglegs but run the assumption that the lower the velocity the greater the change to inclination you can do for the same amount of fuel.
The three leg gives two yaw changes: 16.38 deg and 19.6 deg.
A double leg avoiding Mexico would be 26.84 deg at 5585 m/s vs. the 19.6 deg change at 5705 m/s.
Right now getting the delta-v of such shift is beyond the scope of my simulator. I am working on a 3D version but that could still take years to complete.
-
Triple leg:
1. 541 KM - 103.39 degrees heading - 0 m/s
2. 754 KM - 119.77 degrees heading - 4791 m/s
3. 139.37 degrees heading - 5705 m/s
It looks like legs 1 & 2 could be combined into a single leg that just grazes land. Is there an azimuth restriction that stops that?
cheers, Martin
I haven't run into any real information on doglegs but run the assumption that the lower the velocity the greater the change to inclination you can do for the same amount of fuel.
The three leg gives two yaw changes: 16.38 deg and 19.6 deg.
A double leg avoiding Mexico would be 26.84 deg at 5585 m/s vs. the 19.6 deg change at 5705 m/s.
Right now getting the delta-v of such shift is beyond the scope of my simulator. I am working on a 3D version but that could still take years to complete.
Remind me what dV you're expecting at S1 separation?
Where would S1 impact for the three trajectories?
cheers, Martin
-
I was about to ask why make sharp turns, rather than smooth curves, but I think it's because you want to minimise the amount of time you spend flying with non-axial loads (air resistance *and* thrust). Am I right?
-
Triple leg:
1. 541 KM - 103.39 degrees heading - 0 m/s
2. 754 KM - 119.77 degrees heading - 4791 m/s
3. 139.37 degrees heading - 5705 m/s
Hmm. Does anybody know if the usual formula for orbital inclination, Cos(Orbit Inclination) = Cos(Launch Site Latitude)*Sin(Launch Azimuth) can be applied to doglegs, with the location of the last dogleg turn substituting for the launch site?
If so, the above triple leg ascent, with a turn to 139.37 degrees heading at about 21.5 N would lead to an inclination of 52.7 degrees, which sounds a lot like ISS.
Sanity check is needed, please.
-
Triple leg:
1. 541 KM - 103.39 degrees heading - 0 m/s
2. 754 KM - 119.77 degrees heading - 4791 m/s
3. 139.37 degrees heading - 5705 m/s
Hmm. Does anybody know if the usual formula for orbital inclination, Cos(Orbit Inclination) = Cos(Launch Site Latitude)*Sin(Launch Azimuth) can be applied to doglegs, with the location of the last dogleg turn substituting for the launch site?
If so, the above triple leg ascent, with a turn to 139.37 degrees heading at about 21.5 N would lead to an inclination of 52.7 degrees, which sounds a lot like ISS.
Sanity check is needed, please.
This was modeled on 51.6 degree inclination.
-
Triple leg:
1. 541 KM - 103.39 degrees heading - 0 m/s
2. 754 KM - 119.77 degrees heading - 4791 m/s
3. 139.37 degrees heading - 5705 m/s
It looks like legs 1 & 2 could be combined into a single leg that just grazes land. Is there an azimuth restriction that stops that?
cheers, Martin
I haven't run into any real information on doglegs but run the assumption that the lower the velocity the greater the change to inclination you can do for the same amount of fuel.
The three leg gives two yaw changes: 16.38 deg and 19.6 deg.
A double leg avoiding Mexico would be 26.84 deg at 5585 m/s vs. the 19.6 deg change at 5705 m/s.
Right now getting the delta-v of such shift is beyond the scope of my simulator. I am working on a 3D version but that could still take years to complete.
Remind me what dV you're expecting at S1 separation?
Where would S1 impact for the three trajectories?
cheers, Martin
Approximate impact based on a tumble entry.
-
(http://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?action=dlattach;topic=28585.0;attach=457904;image)
Approximate impact based on a tumble entry.
Hey, considering the points of impact I think I was right when I said that it may be easier to launch from Texas and land the first stage at the Cape than flying it back to Texas !
-
This was modeled on 51.6 degree inclination.
So it was. That's what comes of me reading in a hurry. OTOH, I guess the launch site azimuth/inclination formula works reasonably well for doglegs, no?
Is the question now whether the needed two turns are feasible for the rocket, or do they fall well enough inside the realm of previous experience that the answer is likely to be yes?
If this looks like a feasible trajectory from Boca Chica to ISS, it opens up some interesting possibilities for SpaceX's business model.
-
Any Ben Bova fans here? I'm trying to find just where Dan Randolph's Texas Launch pad was in "Powersat." I can't help but wonder if it's in the greater Brownsville area. ;)
-
Any Ben Bova fans here? I'm trying to find just where Dan Randolph's Texas Launch pad was in "Powersat." I can't help but wonder if it's in the greater Brownsville area. ;)
Matagorda Island. North of Corpus Christi.
Of course, in Privateers he launched out of Venezuela since the US gave up space after the USSR hit us with the EMP nukes. :P
-
It was a slow morning, so I did some research on the Dogleg Park LLC purchase(s) at Boca Chica. Mildly interesting stuff mostly having to do with location and timeline. Attached.
-
It was a slow morning, so I did some research on the Dogleg Park LLC purchase(s) at Boca Chica. Mildly interesting stuff mostly having to do with location and timeline. Attached.
Edit:
P.S.: Note that Dogleg Park's mailing address is in Eddy, TX, on I-35 near McGregor. The significance of this is unclear, but I wonder if SpaceX set up other Delaware companies to buy land in Puerto Rico and Florida.
-
P.S.: Note that Dogleg Park's mailing address is in Eddy, TX, on I-35 near McGregor. The significance of this is unclear, but I wonder if SpaceX set up other Delaware companies to buy land in Puerto Rico and Florida[/b/2.
Sure PR is still in the running? From the CRS-1 Updates thread -
Question asked about the status of the future launch site being considered about SpaceX, specifically in relation to the one in Texas. They're considering many launch sites, but are the furthest in negotiations for the Texas one. A site north of the cape and one in Georgia are also being considered.
-
Sure PR is still in the running? From the CRS-1 Updates thread -
From what I've seen, Texas is far in front, but it's also clear that SpaceX plays its cards close to its vest and PR has been mentioned recently. If forced to bet a hamburger on it, I'd say that it's going to be Boca Chica -- but we won't know for a while.
-
Is it now widely taken for granted that the SpaceX site in Florida that might be a competitor to Boca Chica is the "Shiloh" site that Space Florida is trying to obtain? That certainly fits the "north of the cape" description. And no matter the head start Texas might have, Space Florida has what it takes to be a serious contender, especially in terms of having all their political ducks lined up in nice neat a row. Texas gives the impression that at any moment some maverick might go rogue and and throw a monkey wrench into the works.
(Ducks, mavericks and monkeys! Oh my.)
-
Texas is the place where you can't walk barefoot in the grass because it will cut your feet to ribbons and fire ants will eat you alive. Been there, done that, left quickly.
-
Texas is the place where you can't walk barefoot in the grass because it will cut your feet to ribbons and fire ants will eat you alive. Been there, done that, left quickly.
Must be why they wear boots. ;)
Still, don't think that has any relevance towards launch site choices.
-
Texas is the place where you can't walk barefoot in the grass because it will cut your feet to ribbons and fire ants will eat you alive. Been there, done that, left quickly.
Well, I grew up where jumping chollas, rattlesnakes, scorpions, tarantula hawks and the like were the biota, so SoTex doesn't seem too bad. Actually, Boca Chica is pretty benign as far as the wildlife goes.
-
Texas is the place where you can't walk barefoot in the grass because it will cut your feet to ribbons and fire ants will eat you alive. Been there, done that, left quickly.
fire ants are an experience.....been there.
-
fire ants are an experience.....been there....
Done that too - never again <shudder>
-
Texas is the place where you can't walk barefoot in the grass because it will cut your feet to ribbons and fire ants will eat you alive. Been there, done that, left quickly.
"You may all go to Hell, and I will go to Texas."
-Davy Crockett
-
fire ants are an experience.....been there....
Done that too - never again <shudder>
I mowed over a nest once.
They took a fairly dim view of that.
-
It was a slow morning, so I did some research on the Dogleg Park LLC purchase(s) at Boca Chica. Mildly interesting stuff mostly having to do with location and timeline. Attached.
A bit more.
Relevant documents:
http://www.co.cameron.tx.us/judge/docs/Agenda_for_5_10_12___Regular_Meeting.pdf
http://www.co.cameron.tx.us/judge/docs/Agenda_for_5_21_12____Special_Meeting.pdf
http://www.co.cameron.tx.us/webcont/pdf/agendas/Agenda20120524_SM.pdf
http://www.co.cameron.tx.us/judge/docs/Agenda_for_6_7_12___Regular_Meeting.pdf
Edit: Adds map with named lots marked by crude red splotches.
-
Texas is the place where you can't walk barefoot in the grass because it will cut your feet to ribbons and fire ants will eat you alive. Been there, done that, left quickly.
Must be why they wear boots. ;)
Actually it is. That and rattlers. :)
-
Texas is the place where you can't walk barefoot in the grass because it will cut your feet to ribbons and fire ants will eat you alive. Been there, done that, left quickly.
"You may all go to Hell, and I will go to Texas."
-Davy Crockett
And he died there.
-
Texas is the place where you can't walk barefoot in the grass because it will cut your feet to ribbons and fire ants will eat you alive. Been there, done that, left quickly.
Must be why they wear boots. ;)
Actually it is. That and rattlers. :)
Copperheads actually. Rattler's aren't as big of a deal. I remember visiting family near Cuero Texas as a boy, and when walking through fields, my late great uncle carried a shovel with an 8 foot handle in front of us. The phrase "they grow em big in Texas" has nothing to do with produce. It's creepy crawlies. ;) I hear you can get used to it though. He had tall leather boots, I was in flip flops.
-
Shoot, pardner. There's lotsa reasons y'all need to look where yer steppin' when yer walkin' across the pasture down here.
-
This certainly sounds as if the choice of site is not yet a done deal:
http://www.brownsvilleherald.com/news/local/article_48a95266-102a-11e2-b513-001a4bcf6878.html
Proclamation supports spaceport authority
Posted: Saturday, October 6, 2012 9:59 pm
BY EMMA PEREZ-TREVIÑO
The Brownsville Herald
The Brownsville City Commission launched support to create a Brownsville Spaceport Development Corporation virtually on the eve of SpaceX’s mission to the International Space Station today.
The commission passed a resolution Tuesday backing the establishment of a spaceport corporation, noting that it is “cognizant that the development of a commercial launch site would create jobs, stimulate the economy, improve the quality of life, and promote the general economic welfare in the City.”
Pointing to the efforts to attract Space Exploration Technologies Inc.’s launch project to a site near Boca Chica Beach, Mayor Tony Martinez said the creation of a Brownsville Spaceport Development Corporation would enable the city “to have some ability to collaborate with Cameron County or any other entity and get creative in case we needed to as we go along with the efforts.”
<snip>
Martinez and a delegation from the economic development community will be there.
“We want to keep on reaching out to them,” Martinez said of the resolution passed Tuesday, which says the City Commission strongly supports all efforts to locate the commercial space launch site in the greater Brownsville area.
A spaceport development corporation would provide economic and financing flexibility and capability in the event it would be needed, Martinez said.
“It is a vehicle to get the flexibility and the ability and creativity that sometimes is necessary to get some of these projects done,” the mayor said.
“I am not aware of all the legal trappings that have to be met, but the first step was getting the resolution approved. We’re trying to make sure that we are staying ahead of all the possible pitfalls and hurdles and address them before we encounter something that would require any sort of delay,” Martinez said.
“It’s full speed ahead. We are trying to do everything to make sure that the City of Brownsville and the region in general are getting well represented,” he said, adding that no one would be able to say, “These guys didn’t try everything.”
“We will.”
-
LOL oh my you poor folks way down there in Texas, someone mentions roman candle and you all want to duck and cover. Talk about your ptsd, one mention of anything that has fire shooting from it and everyone thinks of blazing oil wells. Forgive me for joking around about something so serious. Truth is I would give anything to have a test stand or launch pad in southern Ont. I mean how many times can you go to see Niagara Falls? LOL thats about all we got up here.
Maybe thats just a landing pad for Elon so he can stop by and have a beer or two and the misses can do a bit of shopping.
-
Brownsville is rightly freaked out by the move by Space Florida to aquire 150 acres to develop a commercial spaceport. So they are trying to muscle up as best as they can for what they see as a rapidly intensifying bidding war.
So far it looks like they are heavily outgunned by Space Florida. Florida has been organizing themselves to capture more space business for years, and Texas is hopelessly outmatched. Fortunately Brownsville is a good site for SpaceX and so has something of a home field advantage.
But even so, they need to focus and make sure they don't end up walking into a gun fight holding a butter knife.
This certainly sounds as if the choice of site is not yet a done deal:
http://www.brownsvilleherald.com/news/local/article_48a95266-102a-11e2-b513-001a4bcf6878.html
Proclamation supports spaceport authority
Posted: Saturday, October 6, 2012 9:59 pm
BY EMMA PEREZ-TREVIÑO
The Brownsville Herald
The Brownsville City Commission launched support to create a Brownsville Spaceport Development Corporation virtually on the eve of SpaceX’s mission to the International Space Station today.
The commission passed a resolution Tuesday backing the establishment of a spaceport corporation, noting that it is “cognizant that the development of a commercial launch site would create jobs, stimulate the economy, improve the quality of life, and promote the general economic welfare in the City.”
Pointing to the efforts to attract Space Exploration Technologies Inc.’s launch project to a site near Boca Chica Beach, Mayor Tony Martinez said the creation of a Brownsville Spaceport Development Corporation would enable the city “to have some ability to collaborate with Cameron County or any other entity and get creative in case we needed to as we go along with the efforts.”
<snip>
Martinez and a delegation from the economic development community will be there.
“We want to keep on reaching out to them,” Martinez said of the resolution passed Tuesday, which says the City Commission strongly supports all efforts to locate the commercial space launch site in the greater Brownsville area.
A spaceport development corporation would provide economic and financing flexibility and capability in the event it would be needed, Martinez said.
“It is a vehicle to get the flexibility and the ability and creativity that sometimes is necessary to get some of these projects done,” the mayor said.
“I am not aware of all the legal trappings that have to be met, but the first step was getting the resolution approved. We’re trying to make sure that we are staying ahead of all the possible pitfalls and hurdles and address them before we encounter something that would require any sort of delay,” Martinez said.
“It’s full speed ahead. We are trying to do everything to make sure that the City of Brownsville and the region in general are getting well represented,” he said, adding that no one would be able to say, “These guys didn’t try everything.”
“We will.”
-
It appears as if SpaceX is still thinking about the Boca Chica site:
http://www.brownsvilleherald.com/news/local/article_5f1577b4-36a9-11e2-b1ca-001a4bcf6878.html
SpaceX acquires more properties
Posted: Saturday, November 24, 2012 9:45 pm
By EMMA PEREZ-TREVIÑO
Valley Morning Star
SpaceX continues to invest in Cameron County, buying more property as well as options it holds on other lands, as the time nears to unveil the results of the environmental impact study.
Space Exploration Technologies Corp. purchased two more properties on Election Day Nov. 6 on the steps of the Cameron County Judicial Building on East Harrison Street, according to public records.
<snip>
SpaceX did not respond to requests for comment about its continued land purchases or to provide information about preliminary findings of the environmental impact study that the Federal Aviation Administration has been conducting.
Because SpaceX is paying for the study, the FAA has not revealed costs or the preliminary findings.
The FAA has said that it expects the study should be complete by January.
<snip>
SpaceX’s Director of Business Affairs Lauren Dreyer purchased two properties Nov. 6. These are located in the Spanish Dagger Subdivision, west of Highway 4 and on the southwest side of Laguna Madre Beach Subdivision.
<snip>
Dreyer purchased the first property, a lot, at the minimum bid of $3,280, which also is the property’s appraised value. This property has owed taxes since 1988, according to Cameron County tax records.
The second lot that she purchased had a minimum bid of $5,780, and it sold for $22,000. Taxes on this property had not been paid since 1987, tax records show.
<snip>
-
Has anybody been able to pinpoint these properties on a map? I can't figure out why SpaceX would be buying individual undeveloped residential lots that had been seized for back taxes. I guess buying one lot makes you a legal property owner in Cameron County, and that might be necessary for tax reasons or something. But why buy individual lots piecemeal?
The previous purchase, reported a few months ago, is listed in the Cameron County tax records at these two locations:
http://propaccess.cameroncad.org/clientdb/Property.aspx?prop_id=173669#
http://www.cameroncountytax.org/faces/_rlvid.jsp?_rap=pc_SearchResults.doAccountNumber1LnkAction&_rvip=/searchResults.jsp&accountNumber=8285200010002000
They don't even give a street address. Just the legal description from the plat:
ABST 6-THE SPANISH DAGGER-SEC II LOT 2 BLK 1
Perhaps this is adjacent to Boca Chica Village (a.k.a. Kopernic Shores)?
-
Has anybody been able to pinpoint these properties on a map? I can't figure out why SpaceX would be buying individual undeveloped residential lots that had been seized for back taxes. I guess buying one lot makes you a legal property owner in Cameron County, and that might be necessary for tax reasons or something. But why buy individual lots piecemeal?
{snip}
If you can find it compare the price of land around Disneyland the year before it was announced and a year after the place opened.
SpaceX could put up houses for its workers, use the land as part of the space-port or rent it to business that move into the area.
-
The prices for this land is peanuts for SpaceX. They could be just buying offered properties on the chance that things will develop there.
-
Has anybody been able to pinpoint these properties on a map? I can't figure out why SpaceX would be buying individual undeveloped residential lots that had been seized for back taxes. I guess buying one lot makes you a legal property owner in Cameron County, and that might be necessary for tax reasons or something. But why buy individual lots piecemeal?
The previous purchase, reported a few months ago, is listed in the Cameron County tax records at these two locations:
http://propaccess.cameroncad.org/clientdb/Property.aspx?prop_id=173669#
http://www.cameroncountytax.org/faces/_rlvid.jsp?_rap=pc_SearchResults.doAccountNumber1LnkAction&_rvip=/searchResults.jsp&accountNumber=8285200010002000
They don't even give a street address. Just the legal description from the plat:
ABST 6-THE SPANISH DAGGER-SEC II LOT 2 BLK 1
Perhaps this is adjacent to Boca Chica Village (a.k.a. Kopernic Shores)?
The account number above is what the Cameron Appraisal District ( http://www.cameroncad.org/) calls the Geographic ID in the form 82-8520-0010-0020-00. Using that, you can get to the Property ID (173669) and that keys to the map.
-
Has anybody been able to pinpoint these properties on a map? I can't figure out why SpaceX would be buying individual undeveloped residential lots that had been seized for back taxes. I guess buying one lot makes you a legal property owner in Cameron County, and that might be necessary for tax reasons or something. But why buy individual lots piecemeal?
The previous purchase, reported a few months ago, is listed in the Cameron County tax records at these two locations:
Why? Taxpayers for one have better access, and look good to those who matter.
-
The account number above is what the Cameron Appraisal District ( http://www.cameroncad.org/) calls the Geographic ID in the form 82-8520-0010-0020-00. Using that, you can get to the Property ID (173669) and that keys to the map.
Bravo, ChileVerde! I poked around for a while but wasn't able to find a way to pull up the maps. It does establish that indeed these lots are in the Boca Chica Village area. I suppose it could be the first step in buying up the whole subdivision so they could ensure no one is close enough to the launch site to be endangered. Maybe there have been some private purchases already that simply haven't been reported. The common thread of the reported purchases is that they were being sold by the county for back taxes. Maybe they just want to prevent speculators from buying them cheaply from the county, then trying to gouge SpaceX later.
-
The account number above is what the Cameron Appraisal District ( http://www.cameroncad.org/) calls the Geographic ID in the form 82-8520-0010-0020-00. Using that, you can get to the Property ID (173669) and that keys to the map.
Bravo, ChileVerde! I poked around for a while but wasn't able to find a way to pull up the maps. It does establish that indeed these lots are in the Boca Chica Village area. I suppose it could be the first step in buying up the whole subdivision so they could ensure no one is close enough to the launch site to be endangered. Maybe there have been some private purchases already that simply haven't been reported. The common thread of the reported purchases is that they were being sold by the county for back taxes. Maybe they just want to prevent speculators from buying them cheaply from the county, then trying to gouge SpaceX later.
I'm kind of surprised this isn't already happening. It will certainly start happening if SpaceX announces they're choosing brownsville. I'd love to get in on the action myself if I wasn't indebted with student loans.
-
I think we can reasonably conclude that there are no show-stoppers in the environmental study so far based upon these transactions. And, I'll bet if someone poked around the Cameron Co. website, they might find some private transactions in the area by SpaceX. The reason these stand out is that they are so public, being tax delinquent. I'll bet there are some holes in the map being colored in as well.
I look forward to seeing Falcon 9's rolling down the highway from McGregor to Brownsville (I have a ringside seat here in Austin).
-
A new article by hispanicbusiness.com
http://www.hispanicbusiness.com/2012/11/28/spacex_or_stargate_spacecraft_tracking_facility.htm (http://www.hispanicbusiness.com/2012/11/28/spacex_or_stargate_spacecraft_tracking_facility.htm)
-
Does STARGATE take care of a lot of the "range needs" that a busy launch and landing center would have?
-
I should note that the original friction stir welding rig for the Falcon 9 barrel sections, a giant vertical spinning ring, was known as the Stargate, and on at least one occasion was adorned printouts of all the stargate symbols... ;)
-
Does STARGATE take care of a lot of the "range needs" that a busy launch and landing center would have?
They are mutually exclusive. Radio astronomy doesn't want man made sources near by.
-
Does STARGATE take care of a lot of the "range needs" that a busy launch and landing center would have?
They are mutually exclusive. Radio astronomy doesn't want man made sources near by.
Come on. STARGATE = "South Texas Spacecraft Tracking and Astronomical Research into Giga-hertz Astrophysical Transient Emission".
Spacecraft Tracking!
-
Does STARGATE take care of a lot of the "range needs" that a busy launch and landing center would have?
They are mutually exclusive. Radio astronomy doesn't want man made sources near by.
Come on. STARGATE = "South Texas Spacecraft Tracking and Astronomical Research into Giga-hertz Astrophysical Transient Emission".
Spacecraft Tracking!
Not the same as range tracking
-
Spacecraft Tracking!
Not the same as range tracking
I can see how launches and landing could temporarily upset some of their goals, and that spacecraft tracking and range tracking could have different methods and goals, but what about for tracking re-entry or return of stages? Could there be some synergy there?
-
but what about for tracking re-entry or return of stages? Could there be some synergy there?
The issue is if any of the tracking requires any active transmission from the tracking site.
-
Having a bit of experience with running a ground station for nanosat ops, I can say even if you're tracking you don't want any significant broadcasting around, let alone receiving faint signals from stars. Nanosats often run in the HAM radio bands and its usually noisy as hell trying to get data down, especially from 1 Watt (or lower) transmitters.
-
News update
SpaceX backers look to state for help
http://www.themonitor.com/news/local/article_6c1e6892-521c-11e2-acff-0019bb30f31a.html
-
The account number above is what the Cameron Appraisal District ( http://www.cameroncad.org/) calls the Geographic ID in the form 82-8520-0010-0020-00. Using that, you can get to the Property ID (173669) and that keys to the map.
Bravo, ChileVerde! I poked around for a while but wasn't able to find a way to pull up the maps. It does establish that indeed these lots are in the Boca Chica Village area. I suppose it could be the first step in buying up the whole subdivision so they could ensure no one is close enough to the launch site to be endangered. Maybe there have been some private purchases already that simply haven't been reported. The common thread of the reported purchases is that they were being sold by the county for back taxes. Maybe they just want to prevent speculators from buying them cheaply from the county, then trying to gouge SpaceX later.
Clicking on "Map Search" gives you this handy tool: http://www.cameroncad.org/cadclientdb/propertymap.aspx
These properties are about 2 miles from the proposed launch site.
Twenty-six of these properties were acquired in November, showing the name of James L. Holdar, Commissioner Of The General Land Office, TX.
-
This general summary and current political environment on the SpaceX Texas launch site showed up today.
http://www.foxnews.com/science/2012/12/31/texas-spaceport-struggles-to-survive/ (http://www.foxnews.com/science/2012/12/31/texas-spaceport-struggles-to-survive/)
Not really any new data but does show the complications in Texas state political support.
-
Padrat, or others who may have input into a possible upcoming Texas pad: Consider bringing up the possibility that some of the buffer acreage would be used as habitat refuge for some of those rare tortoises. Hiring a part-time biologist could buy considerable goodwill. There may be other species to look into as well. I don't know what. I'm not a biologist/ecologist. But a couple small steps toward Pleistocene Rewilding and/or preserving rare species within your fences would sure look good at the interpretive center near your bleachers some day.
-
The land around launch pads does tend to stay wild because people and building are banned on safety grounds.
The country could use some low cost enticements. For instance zoning land for factories making stuff for SpaceX such as LOX. A zone for housing within a 30 minute drive may be interesting. For a proposed big rocket, a sea port facility to allow the unloading of the ship. The building of these to be paid for by private property developers.
-
Doesn't overflight legally prevent a SpaceX COTS mission from flying out of Vandenberg?
Indeed. The author probably doesn't get it.
-
...
I thought Vandenberg was almost entirely for polar-orbit F9H NET 2014-2015?
...
No, first flight from Vandenberg is NET 2013, a Falcon 9 v1.1.
-
And not "No" :-)
You are correct that prograde launches including the CRS and GTO missions are not allowed from Vandenberg. (It is alleged that missions to the ISS can be launched from there with doglegs and plane change maneuvers, but that is another discussion.
"Relocate" is the wrong word.
-
And not "No" :-)
You are correct that prograde launches including the CRS and GTO missions are not allowed from Vandenberg. (It is alleged that missions to the ISS can be launched from there with doglegs and plane change maneuvers, but that is another discussion.
"Relocate" is the wrong word.
I was too lazy to edit down the quote. Fixed.
-
And not "No" :-)
You are correct that prograde launches including the CRS and GTO missions are not allowed from Vandenberg. (It is alleged that missions to the ISS can be launched from there with doglegs and plane change maneuvers, but that is another discussion.
"Relocate" is the wrong word.
Vandenberg GTO launches, though not as optimal as using the cape, can be done using a bi elliptic transfer orbit. It is just no one has had a good reason to go the less than optimal route.
-
And not "No" :-)
You are correct that prograde launches including the CRS and GTO missions are not allowed from Vandenberg. (It is alleged that missions to the ISS can be launched from there with doglegs and plane change maneuvers, but that is another discussion.
"Relocate" is the wrong word.
Vandenberg GTO launches, though not as optimal as using the cape, can be done using a bi elliptic transfer orbit. It is just no one has had a good reason to go the less than optimal route.
Sigh...
Yes, GTO can be done from VAFB but that doesn't change the statement. SpaceX has not announced relocating from CCAFS to VAFB. Rather they are expannding to two or three launch sites. (Ignoring Omelek)
-
Just noticed this in the Environmental Impact Statement document (http://www.faa.gov/about/office_org/headquarters_offices/ast/environmental/nepa_docs/review/documents_progress/spacex_texas_launch_site_environmental_impact_statement/).
"Under the Proposed Action, SpaceX would construct a vertical launch area and a control center area to support up to 12 commercial launches per year. The vehicles to be launched include the Falcon 9, Falcon Heavy (up to two per year), and a variety of smaller reusable suborbital launch vehicles."
Twelve is a pretty small number, and two FHs is a very small number. Sort of belies the advantage of boost-back to the launch site. And what's that about "suborbital" that seem to be part of the dozen total?
-
Other than (outside of the former Soviet Union) how many pads have actually achieved that flight rate in the modern era? 12 sounds reasonable per pad.
Also does not mean, if they increase the flight rate, they will not build a second pad or file a new environmental impact statement.
Texas is about GEO, there is what, a total market of 20ish launches a year. 12 would be half of that market, and you can add the Cape to grab more of the pie...
-
Twelve is a pretty small number, and two FHs is a very small number. Sort of belies the advantage of boost-back to the launch site. And what's that about "suborbital" that seem to be part of the dozen total?
GrassHopper tests? F9R stages returning, perhaps?
-
Texas is about GEO, there is what, a total market of 20ish launches a year.
It's a little more than that, more like 30 in 2012. But I'm pretty sure Elon bets on non-GEO launches, such as Iridium. Those should be workable from Texas, hopefuly. There are also oddballs like O3b.
-
But I'm pretty sure Elon bets on non-GEO launches, such as Iridium. Those should be workable from Texas,
Say what? Near polar is possible from Texas?
-
Texas is about GEO, there is what, a total market of 20ish launches a year.
It's a little more than that, more like 30 in 2012. But I'm pretty sure Elon bets on non-GEO launches, such as Iridium. Those should be workable from Texas, hopefuly. There are also oddballs like O3b.
FAA/COMSTAC 10-year forecast puts it at an average ~16 GSO and ~6 NGSO commercial launches per year (excluding commercial cargo & crew), which isn't significantly different than the recent past.
edit: clarify per year.
-
Other than (outside of the former Soviet Union) how many pads have actually achieved that flight rate in the modern era? 12 sounds reasonable per pad.
Also does not mean, if they increase the flight rate, they will not build a second pad or file a new environmental impact statement.
Texas is about GEO, there is what, a total market of 20ish launches a year. 12 would be half of that market, and you can add the Cape to grab more of the pie...
Checking the post-Cold War days, I can't find a single rocket that uses 12+ times on a single calender year (not even the Soyuz). Amazingly the closest to that was not a Russian launch pad, but rather the Ariane 4 complex in 1995/7: 11 launches on both years.
Correct me if I am wrong.....
-
Correct me if I am wrong.....
Thanks for filling in things, like those pesky things called facts ;)
-
Checking the post-Cold War days, I can't find a single rocket that uses 12+ times on a single calender year (not even the Soyuz).
Proton flies 10-12 times each year (2008: 10, 2009: 10, 2010: 12, 2011: 9, 2012: 11), although it flies from two launch pads in Baikonur. Soyuz flies 13-14 times a year, holding steady mostly thanks to ISS missions. Granted, it does not satisfy your single-pad criterium, but Proton is processed using one set of facilities. A diplomatic spat is ongoing between Kazakhstan and Russia right now about it, coincidentially. Russians requested a permission to fly Proton 14 times in 2013, but Kazakhs only agreed to 12 launches.
-
Checking the post-Cold War days, I can't find a single rocket that uses 12+ times on a single calender year (not even the Soyuz).
Proton flies 10-12 times each year (2008: 10, 2009: 10, 2010: 12, 2011: 9, 2012: 11), although it flies from two launch pads in Baikonur. Soyuz flies 13-14 times a year, holding steady mostly thanks to ISS missions. Granted, it does not satisfy your single-pad criterium, but Proton is processed using one set of facilities.
this is starting to go a little off topic but isn't the Proton processed in two facilities?
-
I think the topic, no single pad is currently launching at a rate higher than the 12 a year of the environmental impact statement has been put to rest.
So SpaceX has put a realistic max number on the impact statement, and the number may be lower. It does not rule out additional pads, or an amended impact statement if they figure out how to fly more often.
I realize many would love to see SpaceX flying 52+ times a year from a single pad. But that is a topic for the "We love to See Jim pull his hair out due to the things people post" thread.
-
Looks like the Environmental Impact Statement came out positive...
http://portisabelsouthpadre.com/2013/01/24/delagarza-discusses-spacex/
-
Cameron County stays in the game:
http://www.brownsvilleherald.com/news/local/article_34b934d8-77ef-11e2-ac21-0019bb30f31a.html
Spaceport board named
Posted: Friday, February 15, 2013 10:12 pm
By MARK REAGAN The Brownsville Herald
In a unanimous vote, Cameron County Commissioners Court appointed seven directors to the Cameron County Spaceport Development Corp.
The appointments are temporary and will expire in three months when the directors can either resign or ask to stay on. Afterward, staggered one- and two-year terms will be set, Precinct 2 Commissioner Ernie Hernandez said.
“This is a step in the right direction,” he said. “We want to be ready, and we’ve been approached by other companies beside SpaceX looking for launch sites. Hopefully, this will be the beginning of many future ventures with space in our area.”
Precinct 3 Commissioner David Garza concurred, saying these were the right candidates and a unanimous vote demonstrates that.
“It was the next step of what needed to be done as far as the county was concerned to continue moving forward with the project,” Garza said.
The Spaceport Development Corp. will work like any economic development corporation. It is charged with courting and attracting people and companies to invest in the space industry to Cameron County.
<snip>
-
http://valleymorningstar.com/news/local_news/article_add8c356-7a51-11e2-b3b1-0019bb30f31a.html
Mayor visits Musk for SpaceX talks
BROWNSVILLE — On Valentine’s Day, Mayor Tony Martinez met with Elon Musk, billionaire founder of Space Exploration Technologies Corporation.
>
Georgia, Puerto Rico and another potential site in Florida are on the shortlist as well, though none of those sites were discussed during Martinez’s half-hour meeting with Musk, the mayor said. Likewise, neither Musk nor his staff mentioned any major obstacles to the Boca Chica location, Martinez said.
“(Musk) just said where are we on the project; what else needs to be done?” he said.
>
-
http://valleymorningstar.com/news/local_news/article_add8c356-7a51-11e2-b3b1-0019bb30f31a.html
Mayor visits Musk for SpaceX talks
BROWNSVILLE — On Valentine’s Day, Mayor Tony Martinez met with Elon Musk, billionaire founder of Space Exploration Technologies Corporation.
>
Georgia, Puerto Rico and another potential site in Florida are on the shortlist as well, though none of those sites were discussed during Martinez’s half-hour meeting with Musk, the mayor said. Likewise, neither Musk nor his staff mentioned any major obstacles to the Boca Chica location, Martinez said.
“(Musk) just said where are we on the project; what else needs to be done?” he said.
>
Also, from the Brownsville Herald:
http://www.brownsvilleherald.com/news/local/article_cf816868-7a4d-11e2-951c-0019bb30f31a.html
Martinez and SpaceX founder discuss Brownsville project
Posted: Monday, February 18, 2013 10:34 pm
BY STEVE CLARK THE BROWNSVILLE HERALD
<snip>
What else needs to be done: An Environmental Impact Statement has yet to be completed and a waiver granted, if possible, through the Legislature to the state’s public beach access law. The waiver would be necessary to legally close the beach for a period of time before and after each launch.
Launches would take place no more than once a month after the site became fully operational, according to the company.
A second EIS hearing is set to take place in April, with the EIS itself expected to be completed this summer. SpaceX could make a decision on where to locate the new launch site in the third or fourth quarter of this year.
<snip>
-
http://www.brownsvilleherald.com/news/valley/article_0231fd54-86dd-11e2-aad1-0019bb30f31a.html
-
http://www.brownsvilleherald.com/news/valley/article_0231fd54-86dd-11e2-aad1-0019bb30f31a.html
Elon's going to be in Austin? Dang that guy moves around, few days ago he was in hawthorne for launch and engine issue resolving. Last I heard he was in Norway for Tesla Model S event. Now in a few days he'll be in Austin.
-
Elon's going to be in Austin? Dang that guy moves around, few days ago he was in hawthorne for launch and engine issue resolving. Last I heard he was in Norway for Tesla Model S event. Now in a few days he'll be in Austin.
That's what billionaire jetsetters do, they jetset... :) However that sort of suggests he's not going to be in Brownsville or McGregor???
-
Elon's going to be in Austin? Dang that guy moves around, few days ago he was in hawthorne for launch and engine issue resolving. Last I heard he was in Norway for Tesla Model S event. Now in a few days he'll be in Austin.
He was also at the Geneva Auto Show after Norway.
-
Elon's going to be in Austin? Dang that guy moves around, few days ago he was in hawthorne for launch and engine issue resolving. Last I heard he was in Norway for Tesla Model S event. Now in a few days he'll be in Austin.
That's what billionaire jetsetters do, they jetset... :) However that sort of suggests he's not going to be in Brownsville or McGregor???
It's only an hour and a half from McGregor, maybe he'll stop by. I doubt you can get a direct flight from Norway to Waco.
-
Is there any timeframe, when the new launch site would be operational? No matter which of the three currently talked about.
I am thinking Inspiration Mars and the need to do a double launch. I think any of the three could operate in tandem with CCAFS. Shiloh would be most convenient though, I imagine.
-
I'm still very doubtful this will happen. They aren't even close to their desired 12 launches per pad, so why open up a new launch complex that has far more limited launch azimuths than CCAFS or VAFB. The only reason I can see is using it as negotiation leverage for tax and lease reductions at their current sites.
-
I doubt you can get a direct flight from Norway to Waco.
He flies commercial?
-
Unless Musk is planning to buy Cuba, this Texas launch site makes no sense to me as there are effectively no viable (use that whenever I can) launch azimuths.
If I were a billionaire space entrepreneur, and I wanted to get away from CCAFS and VAFB, I’d be using Kodiac and Wallops.
-
It's only an hour and a half from McGregor, maybe he'll stop by. I doubt you can get a direct flight from Norway to Waco.
Just to clarify, McGregor is 1.5 hours from Austin by car.
Brownsville, on the other hand, is 7 hours from McGregor by car.
-
It's only an hour and a half from McGregor, maybe he'll stop by. I doubt you can get a direct flight from Norway to Waco.
Just to clarify, McGregor is 1.5 hours from Austin by car.
Brownsville, on the other hand, is 7 hours from McGregor by car.
Assume helicopter trip.
-
Unless Musk is planning to buy Cuba, this Texas launch site makes no sense to me as there are effectively no viable (use that whenever I can) launch azimuths.
If I were a billionaire space entrepreneur, and I wanted to get away from CCAFS and VAFB, I’d be using Kodiac and Wallops.
Maybe you're a billionaire space entrepreneur with a Texas test site and a desire to get as far south as possible for performance reasons?
-
Unless Musk is planning to buy Cuba, this Texas launch site makes no sense to me as there are effectively no viable (use that whenever I can) launch azimuths.
If I were a billionaire space entrepreneur, and I wanted to get away from CCAFS and VAFB, I’d be using Kodiac and Wallops.
Maybe you're a billionaire space entrepreneur with a Texas test site and a desire to get as far south as possible for performance reasons?
The difference in performance between CCAFS (28°29′ N) and Brownsville (25°56′ N) can’t be more than a few tens of feet per second.
-
Unless Musk is planning to buy Cuba, this Texas launch site makes no sense to me as there are effectively no viable (use that whenever I can) launch azimuths.
If I were a billionaire space entrepreneur, and I wanted to get away from CCAFS and VAFB, I’d be using Kodiac and Wallops.
Maybe you're a billionaire space entrepreneur with a Texas test site and a desire to get as far south as possible for performance reasons?
The difference in performance between CCAFS (28°29′ N) and Brownsville (25°56′ N) can’t be more than a few tens of feet per second.
Yes but you were comparing with Kodiak and Wallops.
You also fail to account for what I'm sure is a much lower total cost of doing business in Texas versus those locations. Being relatively close to McGregor, TX would be much easier to work with than transporting stages all the way to Alaska. Especially in winter.
-
Unless Musk is planning to buy Cuba, this Texas launch site makes no sense to me as there are effectively no viable (use that whenever I can) launch azimuths.
If I were a billionaire space entrepreneur, and I wanted to get away from CCAFS and VAFB, I’d be using Kodiac and Wallops.
Maybe you're a billionaire space entrepreneur with a Texas test site and a desire to get as far south as possible for performance reasons?
Did some quick Trig. The difference between Brownsville and CCAFS is about 2%. The difference between Brownsville and Wallops is about 11%. All for due East launches.
So, mduncan36 may be correct about performance.
-
Unless Musk is planning to buy Cuba, this Texas launch site makes no sense to me as there are effectively no viable (use that whenever I can) launch azimuths.
If I were a billionaire space entrepreneur, and I wanted to get away from CCAFS and VAFB, I’d be using Kodiac and Wallops.
Maybe you're a billionaire space entrepreneur with a Texas test site and a desire to get as far south as possible for performance reasons?
The difference in performance between CCAFS (28°29′ N) and Brownsville (25°56′ N) can’t be more than a few tens of feet per second.
Yes but you were comparing with Kodiak and Wallops.
You also fail to account for what I'm sure is a much lower total cost of doing business in Texas versus those locations. Being relatively close to McGregor, TX would be much easier to work with than transporting stages all the way to Alaska. Especially in winter.
Agreed. Of course, production is in Hawthorne. As you know McGregor is testing.
-
Unless Musk is planning to buy Cuba, this Texas launch site makes no sense to me as there are effectively no viable (use that whenever I can) launch azimuths.
If I were a billionaire space entrepreneur, and I wanted to get away from CCAFS and VAFB, I’d be using Kodiac and Wallops.
Maybe you're a billionaire space entrepreneur with a Texas test site and a desire to get as far south as possible for performance reasons?
The difference in performance between CCAFS (28°29′ N) and Brownsville (25°56′ N) can’t be more than a few tens of feet per second.
Yes but you were comparing with Kodiak and Wallops.
You also fail to account for what I'm sure is a much lower total cost of doing business in Texas versus those locations. Being relatively close to McGregor, TX would be much easier to work with than transporting stages all the way to Alaska. Especially in winter.
Agreed. Of course, production is in Hawthorne. As you know McGregor is testing.
Yes, I think we all know that but after testing I believe they proceed to the launch site instead of returning to Hawthorne. Texas would again be a much better location as a result.
-
Yes, I think we all know that but after testing I believe they proceed to the launch site instead of returning to Hawthorne. Texas would again be a much better location as a result.
I’m thinking that the McGregor stop isn’t a permanent part of the plan.
And, back to my original thought, the launch azimuth thing is puzzling.
-
GTO and beyond-LEO appear feasible, though. Perhaps they are looking to offload GTO flights from CCAFS so that CCAFS can concentrate on ISS. And beyond-LEO appears to fit the company's long-term vision.
Yes, I think that's it. This is only meant as a commercial pad, and nearly all of their manifested commercial launches are to GEO/GTO.
-
The available azimuths from Brownsville do indeed appear to be highly restrictive. Basically a couple of "keyholes" north and south of Cuba. Neither ISS nor polar appear to be possible.
I doubt that you can draw a trajectory, even with doglegging, that gets from Brownsville to the Atlantic without passing over land. If you can it would be more needle-eying than key-holing.
This is of personal interest since I own property in Key West and vacation with friends in the Lesser Antilles.
-
I’m thinking that the McGregor stop isn’t a permanent part of the plan.
And, back to my original thought, the launch azimuth thing is puzzling.
What makes you think that all the work being done in McGregor could be temporary?
I think you are expecting a Texas launch site to be more than Elon does. If all Spacex wants is to handle part of the GTO and BEO(?) business then it will work fine.
-
What makes you think that all the work being done in McGregor could be temporary?
Not all.
As you suggested above, stages are produced in Hawthorne, tested at McGregor, then launched from CCAFS and later from VAFB.
I think that at some point the McGregor stop is deemed no longer necessary.
I think you are expecting a Texas launch site to be more than Elon does. If all Spacex wants is to handle part of the GTO and BEO(?) business then it will work fine.
I have no idea what Musk is thinking. But geography appears to make a Brownsville launch site unusable.
Guess we’ll have to wait and see.
-
As you suggested above, stages are produced in Hawthorne,
Actually just tanks. The final stage production is at McGregor. Since all the engines are tested at McGregor, the tanks are sent there for the engines to be installed.
-
This may all simply be political. Maximise congressional support by spreading the economic benefit. Not as easy for SpaceX as NASA as it does nearly everything in house; so if it's going to be concentrated might as well be concentrated in populous states. California, Florida and Texas account for 118 congressional districts between them - over 27% of the total.
-
As you suggested above, stages are produced in Hawthorne,
Actually just tanks. The final stage production is at McGregor. Since all the engines are tested at McGregor, the tanks are sent there for the engines to be installed.
I didn’t know that. Thank you for that clarification.
So now I need to change my story. I think ultimately the engines will be shipped to Hawthorne and installed there.
Bottom line: Brownsville’s proximity to McGregor does not overcome the lack of a viable launch azimuth.
Again, we will see.
-
Closeness to McGregor does help things, though. Heck, it also means they can do short test launches/acceptance-tests of Grasshopper (or later reusable first stages) then do higher altitude tests quite quickly at Brownsville. We shall see...
-
I doubt you can get a direct flight from Norway to Waco.
He flies commercial?
Maybe internationally.
Having a smartphone is incredibly helpful because that means you can do email during inter-social periods - you're in a car, in the bathroom, walking everywhere. You can do email, practically, whenever you're awake. That's really helpful, to have email for SpaceX and Tesla integrated on my phone. Then you have to apply a lot of hours to actual working. The way I generally do it is I'll be working at SpaceX on Monday and then Monday night fly to the bay area. Then Tuesday and Wednesday at the bay area, at Tesla and then fly back on Wednesday night and then Thursday and Friday at SpaceX. In the last several months I would fly back here on Saturday and either spend Saturday and Sunday at Tesla or spend Saturday at Tesla and Sunday at SpaceX.
http://shitelonsays.com/transcript/computer-history-museum-presents-an-evening-with-elon-musk-2013-01-24
I doubt he's taking his shoes off at TSA checkpoints three times per week.
-
SpaceX founder Elon Musk to testify before (State) Appropriations Committee
http://www.brownsvilleherald.com/news/local/article_114ee888-8755-11e2-aaf2-0019bb30f31a.html
State Rep. Rene Oliveira, D- Brownsville, said he will meet with Musk privately on Friday before the SpaceX founder testifies before the committee.
-
i was hoping he was in Texas for grasshopper test..maybe two birds with one stone? :)
jb
-
I'm still very doubtful this will happen. They aren't even close to their desired 12 launches per pad, so why open up a new launch complex that has far more limited launch azimuths than CCAFS or VAFB. The only reason I can see is using it as negotiation leverage for tax and lease reductions at their current sites.
Pipelining.
How long will it take to ready the new site VS how long will it take to reach 12 launches/year on the east coast? Could be 2+ years before a site is ready even if construction starts immediately. They need to start now to prevent it from being a bottleneck later.
-
Recent tweet by Elon:
https://twitter.com/elonmusk/status/310036546327834625
@elonmusk Arrived Austin. Talking with TX House about creating an orbital launch complex near Brownsville, then #SXSW keynote tmrw
3:37 PM - Mar 8, 2013
-
A replay there by Elon:
https://twitter.com/elonmusk/status/310038397253210113
@elonmusk @Asherlaw SpaceX is expanding launch ops at Canaveral too. Need 2 locations to handle flight rate and avoid weather risk
Avoid weather risk?!?!? You can't take one payload from one site to the other if there's a storm coming. May be he meant cases like the Hurricane season?
-
May be he meant cases like the Hurricane season?
The east coast of Florida and the Gulf Coast are equally susceptible to hurricane damage. Katrina, for instance, hit both coasts.
-
May be he meant cases like the Hurricane season?
The east coast of Florida and the Gulf Coast are equally susceptible to hurricane damage. Katrina, for instance, hit both coasts.
Katrina was an extreme example.
Guys is it really necessary to question every single thing Spacex/Elon try to do? I understand asking broad questions but does every tweet have to be treated like it's being posted by someone with no clue at all?
-
A replay there by Elon:
https://twitter.com/elonmusk/status/310038397253210113
@elonmusk @Asherlaw SpaceX is expanding launch ops at Canaveral too. Need 2 locations to handle flight rate and avoid weather risk
Avoid weather risk?!?!? You can't take one payload from one site to the other if there's a storm coming. May be he meant cases like the Hurricane season?
My take would be that any launch that is held up due to weather could end up creating a knock-on effect, delaying subsequent launches. By having two launch sites, maybe you could improve the probabilty of having at least half your launches on schedule? You would not, of course, "avoid" the weather risk completely.
-
A replay there by Elon:
https://twitter.com/elonmusk/status/310038397253210113
@elonmusk @Asherlaw SpaceX is expanding launch ops at Canaveral too. Need 2 locations to handle flight rate and avoid weather risk
Avoid weather risk?!?!? You can't take one payload from one site to the other if there's a storm coming. May be he meant cases like the Hurricane season?
If the hurricane takes out a pad, it'd be nice to be able to keep launching to GTO. Over those timescales, you could move the payload.
Also, you can move some of the launch prep team. This way bad weather at one pad doesn't impact ALL of the operations.
-
Could it be that Elon wants an East coast facility without too-restrictive range restrictions? I thought that first-stage flyback was likely to be disallowed at KSC due to safety concerns. Perhaps with Brownsville being a private launch facility, this would not be the case for launcher stages returning there after launch.
-
http://www.kxan.com/dpp/news/texas_lege/spacex-continues-to-eye-texas-spaceport
SpaceX billionaire Elon Musk swung by the Texas Capitol on Friday and told lawmakers he could announce this year that the state will be home to his next ballyhooed spaceport — if the price is right.
Bringing rare celebrity wattage to typically dry House Appropriations Committee hearings where the state budget is hashed out, Musk expressed optimism about Texas' chances of beating out Florida, Georgia and Puerto Rico for what he says will be "a commercial version of Cape Canaveral."
Musk, who was in Austin to speak at the South by Southwest festival and promote his Tesla electric cars, said the winner hinges on which state puts together the best offer. He hinted at competitors offering generous economic incentives yet stopped short of revealing figures.
-
My take would be that any launch that is held up due to weather could end up creating a knock-on effect, delaying subsequent launches. By having two launch sites, maybe you could improve the probabilty of having at least half your launches on schedule? You would not, of course, "avoid" the weather risk completely.
Agreed. I guess that the plan is to launch from the two sites alternatively. Thus a delay at one site - whether from weather or many other causes - would not automatically mean a delay in the next launch, unlike if you were launching consecutively from the same site (assuming a launch rate that means minimal buffer between the two launches).
Elon often uses imprecise language when on twitter or speaking off the cuff. By 'avoid' I suspect he means 'reduce' rather than 'eliminate'. This is one of the meanings of the word; for instance you can avoid a person without expecting to never meet them.
-
My take would be that any launch that is held up due to weather could end up creating a knock-on effect, delaying subsequent launches. By having two launch sites, maybe you could improve the probabilty of having at least half your launches on schedule? You would not, of course, "avoid" the weather risk completely.
Agreed. I guess that the plan is to launch from the two sites alternatively. Thus a delay at one site - whether from weather or many other causes - would not automatically mean a delay in the next launch, unlike if you were launching consecutively from the same site (assuming a launch rate that means minimal buffer between the two launches).
I think "weather" is likely an indirect or polite way of saying "We want or need more control for our commercial business than can be achieved or provided by using US government facilities". There is a litany of commercial concerns and issues raised circa 2000 (based on projected flight rates at that time) that have not been addressed.
-
http://www.kxan.com/dpp/news/texas_lege/spacex-continues-to-eye-texas-spaceport
SpaceX billionaire Elon Musk swung by the Texas Capitol on Friday and told lawmakers he could announce this year that the state will be home to his next ballyhooed spaceport — if the price is right.
Bringing rare celebrity wattage to typically dry House Appropriations Committee hearings where the state budget is hashed out, Musk expressed optimism about Texas' chances of beating out Florida, Georgia and Puerto Rico for what he says will be "a commercial version of Cape Canaveral."
Musk, who was in Austin to speak at the South by Southwest festival and promote his Tesla electric cars, said the winner hinges on which state puts together the best offer. He hinted at competitors offering generous economic incentives yet stopped short of revealing figures.
I find it interesting how non-committal he is about a Texas launch pad/complex. The "if the price is right" certainly sounds like a negotiation tactic, and not just against Texas - I assume Florida is the primary competitor here. (Puerto Rico would be a hassle to transport to)
Since he mentions Georgia, does anyone know what site is proposed in Georgia?
-
I find it interesting how non-committal he is about a Texas launch pad/complex. The "if the price is right" certainly sounds like a negotiation tactic, and not just against Texas - I assume Florida is the primary competitor here. (Puerto Rico would be a hassle to transport to)
Undoubtedly there are negotiation tactics involved, but IMHO it's mostly bluff. Specifically: If the Federal ranges don't make changes to accomodate commercial--which will require substantive Federal legislative changes (unlikely IMHO)--we're taking our commercial business elsewhere (e.g., to Texas). In short, the competitor (or target of the negotiation) appears to be not Florida, but the Federal government, which controls the Eastern Range.
-
I find it interesting how non-committal he is about a Texas launch pad/complex. The "if the price is right" certainly sounds like a negotiation tactic, and not just against Texas - I assume Florida is the primary competitor here. (Puerto Rico would be a hassle to transport to)
Undoubtedly there are negotiation tactics involved, but IMHO it's mostly bluff. Specifically: If the Federal ranges don't make changes to accomodate commercial--which will require substantive Federal legislative changes (unlikely IMHO)--we're taking our commercial business elsewhere (e.g., to Texas). In short, the competitor (or target of the negotiation) appears to be not Florida, but the Federal government, which controls the Eastern Range.
But aren't there other 'commercial' launch facilities proposed in Florida, outside of CCAFS. They would clearly offer far better launch azimuths than Texas would. I think those are what SpaceX are gaming against Texas - Not their current operations at CCAFS.
-
But aren't there other 'commercial' launch facilities proposed in Florida, outside of CCAFS. They would clearly offer far better launch azimuths than Texas would. I think those are what SpaceX are gaming against Texas - Not their current operations at CCAFS.
Ground facilities, yes; but launch would still be under control of the Eastern Range (aka CCAFS).
-
Texas hearings...March 8th 2013. Elon Musk answers questions.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3_iu75TFgX8
-
Interesting notes from the video:
- According to Musk, any prospective future LVs of larger diameter than F9 would most likely be built at or very near the future commercial launch site. (F9 is max diameter for road transport)
- "hope to make decision this year"
-
... would most likely be built at or very near the future commercial launch site.
Here, kitty kitty kitty, here, kitty kitty kitty...
-
... would most likely be built at or very near the future commercial launch site.
Here, kitty kitty kitty, here, kitty kitty kitty...
It does make sense, doesn't it?
Except he said rocket and very likely only meant tanks.
-
Why? Wouldn't the thrust structure present the same or similar over the road shipping issues? ISTM if the tanks & thrust structure would be built locally why not build the engine line there too instead of shipping the beasts cross-country?
In for a penny, in for a pound.
-
Why? Wouldn't the thrust structure present the same or similar over the road shipping issues? ISTM if the tanks & thrust structure would be built locally why not build the engine line there too instead of shipping the beasts cross-country?
In for a penny, in for a pound.
We can only speculate. But are they thinking of giving up Hawthorne? Or split Falcon/ Hawthorne BFR/Texas? They have all the expertise on engines in Hawthorne and won't give that up lightly. The thrust structure can be transported. It would be wide and occupies several lanes but is not high so can go under bridges.
-
SpaceX signed a deal with Hawthorne keeping them there until 2022, plus it's close to Vandenberg, so it's likely that F9/FH production will stay there for the time being.
http://www.dailybreeze.com/news/ci_21884730/spacex-makes-deal-keep-headquarters-hawthorne-through-2022
-
Why in the world would they stop making engines at Hawthorne? Even if they create huge F-1 type engines, they can still easily be transported by road.
-
Ground facilities, yes; but launch would still be under control of the Eastern Range (aka CCAFS).
No, not if it is not on USAF property. FAA would be responsible for range safety
-
No, not if it is not on USAF property. FAA would be responsible for range safety
Could / would they "subcontract" that to CCAFS?
-
On the "commercial version of Cape Canaveral" bit,
http://www.mysanantonio.com/news/local_news/article/SpaceX-chief-to-Texas-Let-s-make-a-deal-4340421.php
SpaceX chief to Texas: Let's make a deal
By Jeremy Roebuck, AUSTIN BUREAU
Updated 9:29 pm, Friday, March 8, 2013
AUSTIN — California billionaire Elon Musk remains hopeful that plans to build the world's first commercial spaceport near Brownsville will take flight later this year.
<snip>
Eventually, Musk told lawmakers Friday, the site could become the primary hub for company flights ferrying astronauts to the International Space Station and well-heeled tourists into the stars.
“We're talking about something that's really in the big leagues here,” he said. “We're talking about the commercial version of Cape Canaveral."
<snip>
-
Since he mentions Georgia, does anyone know what site is proposed in Georgia?
Here:
http://spacereport.blogspot.com/2012/10/october-23-2012.html
http://twitpic.com/b5b0fp
-
On the "commercial version of Cape Canaveral" bit,
http://www.mysanantonio.com/news/local_news/article/SpaceX-chief-to-Texas-Let-s-make-a-deal-4340421.php
SpaceX chief to Texas: Let's make a deal
By Jeremy Roebuck, AUSTIN BUREAU
Updated 9:29 pm, Friday, March 8, 2013
AUSTIN — California billionaire Elon Musk remains hopeful that plans to build the world's first commercial spaceport near Brownsville will take flight later this year.
<snip>
Eventually, Musk told lawmakers Friday, the site could become the primary hub for company flights ferrying astronauts to the International Space Station and well-heeled tourists into the stars.
“We're talking about something that's really in the big leagues here,” he said. “We're talking about the commercial version of Cape Canaveral."
<snip>
Can you get to 51.6° from the proposed Texas site without a big plane change? Is this just a reporter that doesn't know space?
-
On the "commercial version of Cape Canaveral" bit,
http://www.mysanantonio.com/news/local_news/article/SpaceX-chief-to-Texas-Let-s-make-a-deal-4340421.php
SpaceX chief to Texas: Let's make a deal
By Jeremy Roebuck, AUSTIN BUREAU
Updated 9:29 pm, Friday, March 8, 2013
AUSTIN — California billionaire Elon Musk remains hopeful that plans to build the world's first commercial spaceport near Brownsville will take flight later this year.
<snip>
Eventually, Musk told lawmakers Friday, the site could become the primary hub for company flights ferrying astronauts to the International Space Station and well-heeled tourists into the stars.
“We're talking about something that's really in the big leagues here,” he said. “We're talking about the commercial version of Cape Canaveral."
<snip>
Can you get to 51.6° from the proposed Texas site without a big plane change? Is this just a reporter that doesn't know space?
Don't forget the name of the company that's buying up property at Boca Chica. "Dogleg Park."
-
I am sure that Mr Musk will have more to say this afternoon...
http://schedule.sxsw.com/2013/events/event_IAP993338
-
Interesting bit that about the larger diameter rocket. I had a feeling that they should go larger diameter eventually (but they cant for transport restrictions). I do wonder though how cost efficient it would be for them to have multiple manufacturing sites. I would assume that most of the manufacturing would still happen in California with just the final assembly of the engine compartment and the tank segments happening in Texas?
-
Can you get to 51.6° from the proposed Texas site without a big plane change? Is this just a reporter that doesn't know space?
Don't forget the name of the company that's buying up property at Boca Chica. "Dogleg Park."
Yes, launching directly into the ISS orbit plane from Brownsville would involve flying over the base of the Yucatan peninsula, so a possible way to avoid that is to launch earlier (maybe 35 minutes before Brownsville rotates into the ISS orbit plane), heading more easterly and then dogleg south-east into the ISS orbit plane later in the ascent profile.
For a straight shot at the ISS orbit, you'd be better off launching from somewhere near Galveston, to thread the gap between Cuba and Mexico, but that's not as useful for other launches.
-
Can you get to 51.6° from the proposed Texas site without a big plane change? Is this just a reporter that doesn't know space?
Don't forget the name of the company that's buying up property at Boca Chica. "Dogleg Park."
Yes, launching directly into the ISS orbit plane from Brownsville would involve flying over the base of the Yucatan peninsula, so a possible way to avoid that is to launch earlier (maybe 35 minutes before Brownsville rotates into the ISS orbit plane), heading more easterly and then dogleg south-east into the ISS orbit plane later in the ascent profile.
For a straight shot at the ISS orbit, you'd be better off launching from somewhere near Galveston, to thread the gap between Cuba and Mexico, but that's not as useful for other launches.
Was wondering if one could get "overflight" rights to the Yucatan from the Mexican Gov?
-
Yes, launching directly into the ISS orbit plane from Brownsville would involve flying over the base of the Yucatan peninsula, so a possible way to avoid that is to launch earlier (maybe 35 minutes before Brownsville rotates into the ISS orbit plane), heading more easterly and then dogleg south-east into the ISS orbit plane later in the ascent profile.
For a straight shot at the ISS orbit, you'd be better off launching from somewhere near Galveston, to thread the gap between Cuba and Mexico, but that's not as useful for other launches.
Was wondering if one could get "overflight" rights to the Yucatan from the Mexican Gov?
I think that the issue is not overflight but failed launch vehicles and jettisoned first stages.
Perhaps when/if SpaceX demonstrate control and return of the first stage, that launch track (or at least a less dog-legged variant) might be worth talking about.
-
Was wondering if one could get "overflight" rights to the Yucatan from the Mexican Gov?
I think that the issue is not overflight but failed launch vehicles and jettisoned first stages.
Perhaps when/if SpaceX demonstrate control and return of the first stage, that launch track (or at least a less dog-legged variant) might be worth talking about.
How about landing rights? Should be about right for the first stage to touch down.
But there would still be the overflight issue. And I am afraid ITAR would be in the way, wouldn't it?
-
No, not if it is not on USAF property. FAA would be responsible for range safety
Could / would they "subcontract" that to CCAFS?
Maybe "defer to" would be a better description. A launch site operator (e.g., Space Florida) could impose their own launch safety requirements, but if co-located on a Federal range, would have to meet Federal range safety requirements (as Jim suggested). Example is Space Florida as launch site operator using LC-36 and LC-46 co-located with CCAFS.
If the launch site is separate, then it depends... In the case of, e.g., Shiloh (adjacent to KSC/CCAFS), they might use or defer to CCAFS for range control* or they may decide otherwise; in the case of a Texas site where they are not co-located or adjacent to a Federal range, SpaceX would have to go it alone.
* Depends on who the licensed launch site operator is and the requirements they impose (e.g., Space Florida) and what arrangements they make with CCAFS. Unless the launch site is "exclusive use" to one operator (e.g., SpaceX), in which case it's up to them (and the FAA). For details see:
FAA CFR Parts 401, 417, and 420 Licensing and Safety Requirements for Operation of a Launch Site (http://www.faa.gov/regulations_policies/faa_regulations/commercial_space/)
-
Interesting bit that about the larger diameter rocket. I had a feeling that they should go larger diameter eventually (but they cant for transport restrictions). I do wonder though how cost efficient it would be for them to have multiple manufacturing sites. I would assume that most of the manufacturing would still happen in California with just the final assembly of the engine compartment and the tank segments happening in Texas?
According to the SpaceX website, here are their basic steps for building a core:
1) Build the core barrel sections
a) Start with Aluminum alloy sheet metal
b) Stir weld stiffeners
c) Add rounding hoops
2) Spin form the domes
3) Circumferential stir weld the core barrel sections and domes
For a 7+ meter core, I believe steps 1) and 3) will require different stir welding machines than the current 3.6m F9/FH core. I suspect step 2) would require new spin form tooling as well.
So building 7+ meter core sections at Hawthorne and then transporting them somewhere else for final assembly probably doesn't make sense. The tooling for a 7+ meter core would be completely different, so it would likely be more cost effective to just locate that new tooling where the core is being assembled.
-
Interesting bit that about the larger diameter rocket. I had a feeling that they should go larger diameter eventually (but they cant for transport restrictions). I do wonder though how cost efficient it would be for them to have multiple manufacturing sites. I would assume that most of the manufacturing would still happen in California with just the final assembly of the engine compartment and the tank segments happening in Texas?
According to the SpaceX website, here are their basic steps for building a core:
1) Build the core barrel sections
a) Start with Aluminum alloy sheet metal
b) Stir weld stiffeners
c) Add rounding hoops
2) Spin form the domes
3) Circumferential stir weld the core barrel sections and domes
For a 7+ meter core, I believe steps 1) and 3) will require different stir welding machines than the current 3.6m F9/FH core. I suspect step 2) would require new spin form tooling as well.
So building 7+ meter core sections at Hawthorne and then transporting them somewhere else for final assembly probably doesn't make sense. The tooling for a 7+ meter core would be completely different, so it would likely be more cost effective to just locate that new tooling where the core is being assembled.
Well I assumed that they would have to do the same cores in Hawthorne as well, since they would make the cores that are being launched from Vandenberg, no? Or do you think that they wont launch any of the larger diameter cores from Vandenberg?
I would assume that they would at least continue to make the engines in Hawthorne, though, right?
-
Well I assumed that they would have to do the same cores in Hawthorne as well, since they would make the cores that are being launched from Vandenberg, no? Or do you think that they wont launch any of the larger diameter cores from Vandenberg?
I don't think a larger core would have much to do from Vandenberg. Falcon Heavy is plenty for anything that wants west coast launches.
Whatever ambitions you think Musk has for a heavy lifter, it'll want east coast launches.
I would assume that they would at least continue to make the engines in Hawthorne, though, right?
Sure. It would still be road transportable even if much larger than Merlin 1.
-
Well I assumed that they would have to do the same cores in Hawthorne as well, since they would make the cores that are being launched from Vandenberg, no?
Brownsville has a sea port with direct access to the Gulf. SpaceX could build the cores there, where land and taxes are cheap, then ship the cores to the cape or Vandenberg.
I would assume that they would at least continue to make the engines in Hawthorne, though, right?
Yes, I would assume so. And continue individual engine testing in McGregor. Engine cluster testing would be at the pad.
-
Whatever ambitions you think Musk has for a heavy lifter, it'll want east coast launches.
Exactly. I was reading this (http://www.msss.com/mars/global_surveyor/mgs_msn_plan/section3/section3.html#RTFToC9), and IIUC, Boca Chica can support a Mars parking orbit very well.
-
Note the waterways from Brownsville to the Gulf and to the pad:
-
Note the waterways from Brownsville to the Gulf and to the pad:
A very good point there. A single large diameter core production facility could supply both local and Florida launch pads. (Florida through ship/barge transport)
-
Not being from the US: Is there access to qualified workers in the region? Or will they have to bring everybody from outside?
"Human ressources" can be a major driver for such a selection process.
-
Not being from the US: Is there access to qualified workers in the region? Or will they have to bring everybody from outside?
"Human ressources" can be a major driver for such a selection process.
That was actually asked at the hearing. Apparently the majority of the personnel at McGregor were recruited from the University of Texas.
-
Not being from the US: Is there access to qualified workers in the region? Or will they have to bring everybody from outside?
"Human ressources" can be a major driver for such a selection process.
That was actually asked at the hearing. Apparently the majority of the personnel at McGregor were recruited from the University of Texas.
Just to be precise. He said "We have more representation from University of Texas than any other university at our Texas launch site." (Assuming he was talking about McGregor and meant to say Texas testing facility.) That doesn't even necessarily mean it is a high percentage.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qhVNOYz5ciw
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=U71EnElh6ZE
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3_iu75TFgX8
-
Just to be precise. He said "We have more representation from University of Texas than any other university at our Texas launch site." ... That doesn't even necessarily mean it is a high percentage.
Right.
Also, when they asked about all the rocket engines that were tested at McGregor, and if these engines could be built in Texas, Elon replied by saying that their larger rockets would be built in Brownsville, should they decide to locate there. However, Elon didn't mention that the larger engines and other critical parts would still be built in Hawthorne, and only the larger cores would be built in Brownsville. So while his answer was technically accurate, it may have been misleading.
I'm a SpaceX fan, but I have to admit that Elon sometimes spins things to make them sound better than they are. So you have to take what he says very precisely.
-
Your assumption that the BFR engines will be built in Hawthorne might be wrong.
-
Not being from the US: Is there access to qualified workers in the region? Or will they have to bring everybody from outside?
"Human ressources" can be a major driver for such a selection process.
I don't think workforce would be much of a problem. There's already a fair amount of industry in the region (including aerospace in Harlingen) and several schools that could provide necessary training.
http://www.tstc.edu/frontpage/
http://www.utb.edu/Pages/default.aspx
http://www.engineerjobs.com/jobs/aerospace-engineering/texas/brownsville.php
Edit:
http://www.valleymorningstar.com/news/local_news/article_285c0712-3c38-11e2-9949-0019bb30f31a.html
-
I was reading this (http://www.msss.com/mars/global_surveyor/mgs_msn_plan/section3/section3.html#RTFToC9), and IIUC, Boca Chica can support a Mars parking orbit very well.
The first figure below shows the launch azimuths which would have been required to launch the Mars Global Surveyor from Brownsville in 1996. One azimuth is for early in the launch window and the other is for late in the window.
The 95° launch azimuth flies over The Florida Keys and The Bahamas. The 110° launch azimuth flies over Cuba, Haiti, and Barbados. (In the actual event the 110° launch azimuth required a dog-leg. The direct launch azimuth was 116°.)
However, the above assumes that the same launch azimuths could have been used at Brownsville as at CCAFS. In fact, to achieve the two desired parking orbits the Brownsville azimuths would have needed to be 105° and 119°. That’s shown in the second figure.
The third figure shows the launch azimuths required from CCAFS and Brownsville to reach the 51.6° ISS orbit. Note the two pairs (northeast pair and southeast pair) are not parallel due to the 2.5° difference in latitude between CCAFS and Brownsville.
Actual ground tracks are not linear but are concave to the equator. The degree of concavity depends upon velocity, altitude, launch site latitude, and other factors.
-
Your assumption that the BFR engines will be built in Hawthorne might be wrong.
Probably isn't, though. If they were planning on making te engines in Texas, Elon would have said so to build support.
-
Something tells me that SpaceX isn't going to have any difficulty attracting top talent to wherever they're bending metal, firing engines, and launching rockets. People will line up around the block for the opportunity to work for SpaceX, even if they're building the Mars rocket at the North Pole.
-
I'm a SpaceX fan, but I have to admit that Elon sometimes spins things to make them sound better than they are.
I though he handled it pretty well. You gotta remember the language they're speaking.
They were fishing for the possibility of more jobs beyond the initial plans. Musk gave him something to work with in finalizing the incentives. Regardless of the details, it'd be a lot of high quality manufacturing jobs.
It was a softball question and he was prepped well, and he had a good answer that was honest.
-
Not being from the US: Is there access to qualified workers in the region? Or will they have to bring everybody from outside?
"Human ressources" can be a major driver for such a selection process.
That was actually asked at the hearing. Apparently the majority of the personnel at McGregor were recruited from the University of Texas.
Just to be precise. He said "We have more representation from University of Texas than any other university at our Texas launch site." (Assuming he was talking about McGregor and meant to say Texas testing facility.) That doesn't even necessarily mean it is a high percentage.
There is also this video from the same hearing (which should be in between the two that you have posted):
Thanks, edited.
-
I was reading this (http://www.msss.com/mars/global_surveyor/mgs_msn_plan/section3/section3.html#RTFToC9), and IIUC, Boca Chica can support a Mars parking orbit very well.
The first figure below shows the launch azimuths which would have been required to launch the Mars Global Surveyor from Brownsville in 1996. One azimuth is for early in the launch window and the other is for late in the window.
The 95° launch azimuth flies over The Florida Keys and The Bahamas. The 110° launch azimuth flies over Cuba, Haiti, and Barbados. (In the actual event the 110° launch azimuth required a dog-leg. The direct launch azimuth was 116°.)
However, the above assumes that the same launch azimuths could have been used at Brownsville as at CCAFS. In fact, to achieve the two desired parking orbits the Brownsville azimuths would have needed to be 105° and 119°. That’s shown in the second figure.
The third figure shows the launch azimuths required from CCAFS and Brownsville to reach the 51.6° ISS orbit. Note the two pairs (northeast pair and southeast pair) are not parallel due to the 2.5° difference in latitude between CCAFS and Brownsville.
Actual ground tracks are not linear but are concave to the equator. The degree of concavity depends upon velocity, altitude, launch site latitude, and other factors.
Yes, I did a rough adjustment and saw that it kinda overflies Cuba sometimes, but the point is that it requires a very minimal dogleg to avoid - the general direction for a Mars parking orbit is open.
For ISS, which is a NASA thing anyway, the cape is fine. For DOD, either the Cape or Vandenberg is fine. But for their own stuff, they want a private facility, and Boca Chica looks pretty perfect to me.
-
One thought I've had. The thing is very close to the Mexican border and while brownsville can close the beach near the launch in the U.S. section of the coast, what's preventing people from getting nice and up close on the Mexican side? Although doing a quick measure the closest you can get is 3.5 miles which is further than you could get at the Cape from Shuttle launches if you were VIP (3 miles I believe?). So it should still be safe.
-
One thought I've had. The thing is very close to the Mexican border and while brownsville can close the beach near the launch in the U.S. section of the coast, what's preventing people from getting nice and up close on the Mexican side? Although doing a quick measure the closest you can get is 3.5 miles which is further than you could get at the Cape from Shuttle launches if you were VIP (3 miles I believe?). So it should still be safe.
Probably there's not much of an issue, but some understanding should be reached with the Mexican authorities. There was a guy from the Brownsville Mexican consulate at the hearing in May last year, so they're keeping up with the matter.
-
I was reading this (http://www.msss.com/mars/global_surveyor/mgs_msn_plan/section3/section3.html#RTFToC9), and IIUC, Boca Chica can support a Mars parking orbit very well.
The first figure below shows the launch azimuths which would have been required to launch the Mars Global Surveyor from Brownsville in 1996. One azimuth is for early in the launch window and the other is for late in the window.
The 95° launch azimuth flies over The Florida Keys and The Bahamas. The 110° launch azimuth flies over Cuba, Haiti, and Barbados. (In the actual event the 110° launch azimuth required a dog-leg. The direct launch azimuth was 116°.)
However, the above assumes that the same launch azimuths could have been used at Brownsville as at CCAFS. In fact, to achieve the two desired parking orbits the Brownsville azimuths would have needed to be 105° and 119°. That’s shown in the second figure.
The third figure shows the launch azimuths required from CCAFS and Brownsville to reach the 51.6° ISS orbit. Note the two pairs (northeast pair and southeast pair) are not parallel due to the 2.5° difference in latitude between CCAFS and Brownsville.
Actual ground tracks are not linear but are concave to the equator. The degree of concavity depends upon velocity, altitude, launch site latitude, and other factors.
http://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=28585.msg957533#msg957533
Here is some of the work I did on a 51.6 inclination.
-
I'm a SpaceX fan, but I have to admit that Elon sometimes spins things to make them sound better than they are.
I though he handled it pretty well. You gotta remember the language they're speaking.
They were fishing for the possibility of more jobs beyond the initial plans. Musk gave him something to work with in finalizing the incentives. Regardless of the details, it'd be a lot of high quality manufacturing jobs.
It was a softball question and he was prepped well, and he had a good answer that was honest.
Agreed. He gave them what they needed, and it wasn't dishonest.
I'm just saying that Elon has gotten really good at public relations, so it's very easy to read more than what he actually says.
-
Probably there's not much of an issue, but some understanding should be reached with the Mexican authorities. There was a guy from the Brownsville Mexican consulate at the hearing in May last year, so they're keeping up with the matter.
What does Mexico have across the border? Looking at Google Maps, it looks pretty undeveloped. The beaches look better, though. :)
-
http://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=28585.msg957533#msg957533
Here is some of the work I did on a 51.6 inclination.
1. 137.46 degrees heading - 0 m/s
Double leg:
1. 541 KM - 103.39 degrees heading - 0 m/s
2. 137.93 degrees heading - 4791 m/s
Triple leg:
1. 541 KM - 103.39 degrees heading - 0 m/s
2. 754 KM - 119.77 degrees heading - 4791 m/s
3. 139.37 degrees heading - 5705 m/s
Looking at the speed and distance, actually it may not be a good assumption that Yucatan overflight is problematic. You're only talking a few seconds of actual risk. SpaceX may be able to work something with Mexico-- free astronaut or satellite rides maybe?
-
What does Mexico have across the border? Looking at Google Maps, it looks pretty undeveloped. The beaches look better, though. :)
Just a beach, Playa Baghdad(*) with fast food stands and wagons.
Thinking about it, there might be something for DHS/CBP and Mexican counterparts to do in keeping cerveza- and tequila-inspired observers from running northward to get a better look. The river is pretty shallow along there.
(*) Slightly interesting history behind the name.
http://www.lonelyplanet.com/mexico/northeast-mexico/matamoros/sights/beach/playa-bagdad
-
http://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=28585.msg957533#msg957533
Here is some of the work I did on a 51.6 inclination.
Thank you for that link. I had not seen your work previously. I’m glad to see we are in such close agreement. Especially since I’m doing the spherical trig and vector addition by hand. Well, I do use a programmable calculator.
I doubt that any of your trajectories would be allowable. The Phobos 96, Glory, and Orbiting Carbon Observatory launch failures all dumped their payloads about 10,000 miles from the launch site. The distance from Texas to Columbia is about 2,500 miles.
In fact I’m dubious that there’ll be any orbital launches from Brownsville. If there ever is, every lawyer in the western hemisphere will be in the Gulf and the Caribbean handing out business cards.
If you ever have a chance, run a sim for the azimuths I used for MGS.
Again, thank you for the heads-up! I’ll be studying your other posts.
-
Looking at the speed and distance, actually it may not be a good assumption that Yucatan overflight is problematic. You're only talking a few seconds of actual risk.
A bit more than that. Although this addresses only flights from Canaveral and Wallops it might be of interest ...
Over-flight Risk Considerations for the Launch of an ELV Rocket to an ISS Inclination (https://www.faa.gov/about/office_org/headquarters_offices/ast/reports_studies/media/Overflight_Risk_Consideration_for_ELV.pdf), FAA, Aug 2010
-
An additional thought about launches over or near populated areas; after Columbia NASA re-entered shuttles on ascending nodes to avoid the continental US.
-
In fact I’m dubious that there’ll be any orbital launches from Brownsville. If there ever is, every lawyer in the western hemisphere will be in the Gulf and the Caribbean handing out business cards.
You must be missing something. If it wasn't possible SpaceX wouldn't be attempting to build there. What do you mean "orbital launches"? What kind of other launches would there be? Last I checked SpaceX was an orbital launch company.
You really think SpaceX would build a large complex just to find out they can't launch and that they haven't done all the needed studies to figure out how to launch?
If your calculations show that it can't be done, then the natural conclusion you should make is that there was an error/misunderstanding in the calculations.
-
Just a beach, Playa Baghdad(*) with fast food stands and wagons.
Thinking about it, there might be something for DHS/CBP and Mexican counterparts to do in keeping cerveza- and tequila-inspired observers from running northward to get a better look. The river is pretty shallow along there.
(*) Slightly interesting history behind the name.
http://www.lonelyplanet.com/mexico/northeast-mexico/matamoros/sights/beach/playa-bagdad
Thanks, CV. Google Earth indicates that the closest part of the Mexican border is less than 2.5 miles from the proposed launch pad. That's not the beach, but I imagine that Mexico would have something to say when the Falcon Heavy or contemplated super heavy launch.
-
Just a beach, Playa Baghdad(*) with fast food stands and wagons.
Thinking about it, there might be something for DHS/CBP and Mexican counterparts to do in keeping cerveza- and tequila-inspired observers from running northward to get a better look. The river is pretty shallow along there.
(*) Slightly interesting history behind the name.
http://www.lonelyplanet.com/mexico/northeast-mexico/matamoros/sights/beach/playa-bagdad
Thanks, CV. Google Earth indicates that the closest part of the Mexican border is less than 2.5 miles from the proposed launch pad. That's not the beach, but I imagine that Mexico would have something to say when the Falcon Heavy or contemplated super heavy launch.
Where are you measuring to? I measured 3.5 miles.
-
In fact I’m dubious that there’ll be any orbital launches from Brownsville. If there ever is, every lawyer in the western hemisphere will be in the Gulf and the Caribbean handing out business cards.
You must be missing something. If it wasn't possible SpaceX wouldn't be attempting to build there. What do you mean "orbital launches"? What kind of other launches would there be? Last I checked SpaceX was an orbital launch company.
You really think SpaceX would build a large complex just to find out they can't launch and that they haven't done all the needed studies to figure out how to launch?
If your calculations show that it can't be done, then the natural conclusion you should make is that there was an error/misunderstanding in the calculations.
I don’t want to argue or debate. You have your opinion. I have mine.
They haven’t built anything yet in Brownsville.
Non-orbital launches could be long-range Grasshopper test flights.
-
Note the waterways from Brownsville to the Gulf and to the pad:
(http://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?action=dlattach;topic=28585.0;attach=502028;image)
I think the route you've drawn from the ship channel to Boca Chica isn't possible. Most of South Bay is shallow enough to wade across. And dredging a channel is probably out of the question for environmental reasons. Protected coastal estuary, etc.
http://www.charts.noaa.gov/OnLineViewer/11302.shtml
-
I don’t want to argue or debate. You have your opinion. I have mine.
Your opinion happens to be wrong.
-
I don’t want to argue or debate. You have your opinion. I have mine.
Your opinion happens to be wrong.
I will be happy to admit my error and apologize following the first orbital flight from Brownsville.
Neither action will be a first for me.
-
In fact I’m dubious that there’ll be any orbital launches from Brownsville. If there ever is, every lawyer in the western hemisphere will be in the Gulf and the Caribbean handing out business cards.
You must be missing something. If it wasn't possible SpaceX wouldn't be attempting to build there. What do you mean "orbital launches"? What kind of other launches would there be? Last I checked SpaceX was an orbital launch company.
You really think SpaceX would build a large complex just to find out they can't launch and that they haven't done all the needed studies to figure out how to launch?
If your calculations show that it can't be done, then the natural conclusion you should make is that there was an error/misunderstanding in the calculations.
I don’t want to argue or debate. You have your opinion. I have mine.
They haven’t built anything yet in Brownsville.
Non-orbital launches could be long-range Grasshopper test flights.
They've already stated they're doing grasshopper test flights at white sands for the high altitude tests. Why would you build a launch complex for doing test flights when facilities already exist for doing so?
You're welcome to your opinion, but there is no need to post it here if stands out starkly against any kind of evidence that could be brought against it.
You're stating Elon Musk and SpaceX are bold faced lying about their intentions for the pad they would build in Texas and are trying to swindle the Texas government out of tax payer money to build a glorified test pad. Come back with a better opinion.
-
You're stating Elon Musk and SpaceX are bold faced lying about their intentions for the pad they would build in Texas and are trying to swindle the Texas government out of tax payer money to build a glorified test pad. Come back with a better opinion.
The viability of a given launch site for various missions depends in large part on probabilistic risk analysis. One could easily argue that SpaceX is making optimistic assumptions based on a limited record.
That said, while I hope and expect that SpaceX has worked closely with the FAA to ensure they are not over-stepping, charges that anyone is "lying" or attempting to "swindle" as a counterpoint is unwarranted.
-
Where are you measuring to? I measured 3.5 miles.
.
-
Where are you measuring to? I measured 3.5 miles.
.
Ah ok, I had been measuring to roughly where that "Brazos Island" point is. Do we know precisely where they would build the pad?
-
I think Nittany Lion has forgotten dogleg.
Actually my earlier post mentioned doglegging. The problem is there isn’t any path from Brownsville to the Atlantic that doesn’t pass over or near populated areas.
The Keys, The Bahamas, and the Turks and Caicos Islands block the northern path. The Lesser Antilles block the southern path.
How many doglegs can you make before you’ve chewed up all your performance?
Have you seen the launch azimuth maps I posted earlier? That gives you no pause?
-
Do we know precisely where they would build the pad?
Yes. It's right at the end of route 4, close to the Gulf. The environmental impact study included a pad diagram, shown earlier in this thread.
-
That said, while I hope and expect that SpaceX has worked closely with the FAA to ensure they are not over-stepping, charges that anyone is "lying" or attempting to "swindle" as a counterpoint is unwarranted.
There's no question about it. Nittany Lion is either unaware that SpaceX has made it abundantly clear that their plans are to do orbital launches from Brownsville or he's saying they're lying to everyone. Which is it?
No argument that SpaceX has made clear representations that they intend to perform orbital launches from Brownsville. I've little doubt that SpaceX's representations have been made in good faith. Then again, if I were a member of the Texas legislature being asked to put money on the table, I'd be asking for the FAA's assessment of the Brownsville launch site viability for various missions, and the assumptions on which it is based.
-
I will be happy to admit my error and apologize following the first orbital flight from Brownsville.
Neither action will be a first for me.
You and ModemEagle have shown than ISS launches form Boca Chica will be difficult.
I didn't see any excessive maneuvers to make an Mars transfer parking orbit difficult - just small course adjustments.
Elon said that there should be "military airports" and "civilian airports". I read this as supporting the notion that NASA missions should fly out of NASA launch complexes, DOD missions should fly out of DOD launch complexes, and SpaceX wants to fly their own stuff out of their own launch complex. And their own stuff is going to Mars.
Ignoring Tito's one-mission plan, when do you think SpaceX was going to start sending unmanned scout missions? 2030? The FH is flying in 2014, and we know an upper stage is in the works. Boca Chica will be ready in about 2016? With very difficult access to ISS and Polar orbits? I think it adds up rather nicely.
-
That said, while I hope and expect that SpaceX has worked closely with the FAA to ensure they are not over-stepping, charges that anyone is "lying" or attempting to "swindle" as a counterpoint is unwarranted.
There's no question about it. Nittany Lion is either unaware that SpaceX has made it abundantly clear that their plans are to do orbital launches from Brownsville or he's saying they're lying to everyone. Which is it?
No argument that SpaceX has made clear representations that they intend to perform orbital launches from Brownsville. I've little doubt that SpaceX's representations have been made in good faith. Then again, if I were a member of the Texas legislature being asked to put money on the table, I'd be asking for the FAA's assessment of the Brownsville launch site viability for various missions, and the assumptions on which it is based.
I quote Lewis's Trilemma here. Elon and SpaceX are either lying, insane (they didn't bother to check if FAA would let them launch), or they know what they're talking about.
-
Ignoring Tito's one-mission plan, when do you think SpaceX was going to start sending unmanned scout missions? 2030? The FH is flying in 2014, and we know an upper stage is in the works. Boca Chica will be ready in about 2016? With very difficult access to ISS and Polar orbits? I think it adds up rather nicely.
How's that? Please explicate for the dense.
-
If Boca Chica can launch to geosynchronous transfer orbits, then that's enough. It doesn't need to do ISS or Polar.
-
You and ModemEagle have shown than ISS launches form Boca Chica will be difficult.
Why pick a launch site where access to orbit will be difficult?
Wallops, CCAFS, VAFB, Kodiac all are extant and have excess capacity.
Others have suggested prox to McGregor, performance (26° N), and weather. But I don’t see it.
-
If Boca Chica can launch to geosynchronous transfer orbits, then that's enough. It doesn't need to do ISS or Polar.
GTO launches are eastward, same problem.
-
I quote Lewis's Trilemma here. Elon and SpaceX are either lying, insane (they didn't bother to check if FAA would let them launch), or they know what they're talking about.
Or maybe SpaceX is just being optimistic? Your insistence that the only counterpoint is "lying" or "insane" is reductio ad absurdum. Why is it that everyone insists on black-and-white interpertations when this is a probabilstic equation which can be rendered only in shades of grey?
-
Quick summary of where I’m at; I don’t think orbital (LEO, GTO, GEO, BEO) launches can be conducted from Brownsville safely, I’ve made no accusations of improper or unwise conduct, and I have no idea why SpaceX is pursuing the idea.
-
Wallops, CCAFS, VAFB, Kodiac all are extant and have excess capacity.
Let's see, in order, government controlled, government controlled, government controlled, SpaceX currently ship stages by land, unlikely to ship by sea to Alaska and government controlled.
You're going directly against the whole reason for creating the complex in the first place. They want independent access to space with their own range control. Just them and the FAA.
It's like you haven't been paying attention to much of what Elon and SpaceX have been saying over the last couple years.
-
Have you seen the launch azimuth maps I posted earlier? That gives you no pause?
(http://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?action=dlattach;topic=28585.0;attach=457904;image)
Approximate impact based on a tumble entry.
Why would these trajectories be nonstarters?
Edit not counting the one over the Yucatan :)
-
If Boca Chica can launch to geosynchronous transfer orbits, then that's enough. It doesn't need to do ISS or Polar.
GTO launches are eastward, same problem.
During a 90 degree launch the trip across the Florida keys would lead to only a couple seconds during the launch where debris could impact the islands. The same is true with the lower Bahama islands as the only spot they will fly over with population is Andros Town and that would also be ~ 1 second during the launch where that would become an issue. They would not physically fly over that spot until after SII MECO.
There is risk, but they would have weighed that long before publicly announcing their intentions to look into building in Texas.
An alternate launch would be to 96.07 degrees, 26.6128 degree inclination which does not fly over a single island.
Edited for grammar.
-
I don't want to touch the "lying" thing.
I also don't want to ignore the very clear goal that Elon has laid out.
So just like with F9R, this is not a solution (or launch site) looking for a problem. We already know the goal. We just have to look how this piece fits on the road to this goal.
So, we know they want to launch payloads to Mars, starting with the availability of FH and later FH+ (Raptor second stage) - so I'm estimating 2-3 years down the line. We know that they are building a private launch port. We know that the schedule for it is 2-3 years down the line. We know that the azimuths that ARE open from Boca Chica are very close to Mars transfer parking orbit.
So it adds up, is all.
It's not proof. And if some other company was setting up a launch site at Boca Chica, I would not be jumping to this conclusion based on this match-up. But this is not another company - it's a company that already said it wants to launch to Mars, and that it wants a non-military base for non-military launches.
So nothing more, nothing less.
-
By the time SpaceX has this pad operational they may
expect have proven that their 1st stages won't be impacting the ocean.
-
Why would these trajectories be nonstarters?
Maybe because they assume a reliability or predictability that is not justified by current risk models and historical evidence?
-
Have you seen the launch azimuth maps I posted earlier? That gives you no pause?
(http://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?action=dlattach;topic=28585.0;attach=457904;image)
Approximate impact based on a tumble entry.
Why would these trajectories be nonstarters?
Edit not counting the one over the Yucatan :)
I touched on this earlier; the other two dogleg trajectories fly over Columbia during the launch phase.
I understand that a normal launch is no problem at all. But you have to allow for possible failure modes.
-
If Boca Chica can launch to geosynchronous transfer orbits, then that's enough. It doesn't need to do ISS or Polar.
GTO launches are eastward, same problem.
During a 90 degree launch the trip across the Florida keys would lead to only a couple seconds during the launch where debris could impact the islands. The same is true with the lower Bahama islands as the only spot they will fly over with population is Andros Town and that would also be ~ 1 second during the launch where that would become an issue. They would not physically fly over that spot until after SII MECO.
There is risk, but they would have weighed that long before publicly announcing their intentions to look into building in Texas.
An alternate launch would be to 96.07 degrees, 26.6128 degree inclination which does not fly over a single island.
Edited for grammar.
Are you familiar with the doglegs out of VAFB to avoid the oilrigs? They’re probably only at risk for a second too.
-
I don't want to touch the "lying" thing.
I also don't want to ignore the very clear goal that Elon has laid out.
So just like with F9R, this is not a solution (or launch site) looking for a problem. We already know the goal. We just have to look how this piece fits on the road to this goal.
So, we know they want to launch payloads to Mars, starting with the availability of FH and later FH+ (Raptor second stage) - so I'm estimating 2-3 years down the line. We know that they are building a private launch port. We know that the schedule for it is 2-3 years down the line. We know that the azimuths that ARE open from Boca Chica are very close to Mars transfer parking orbit.
So it adds up, is all.
It's not proof. And if some other company was setting up a launch site at Boca Chica, I would not be jumping to this conclusion based on this match-up. But this is not another company - it's a company that already said it wants to launch to Mars, and that it wants a non-military base for non-military launches.
So nothing more, nothing less.
To be clear; the L-thing came from other posters. Definitely not from me.
-
By the time SpaceX has this pad operational they may expect have proven that their 1st stages won't be impacting the ocean.
And suppose the Grasshopper mode fails?
-
An additional thought about launches over or near populated areas; after Columbia NASA re-entered shuttles on ascending nodes to avoid the continental US.
Descending-node entries were forbidden during the summer months anyway due to the noctilucent cloud flight rule. That rule pre-dated 107, I believe, though I can't find a reference at the moment.
Even post-107, descending-node entries were forbidden only if the TPS was not "cleared for entry". There were a very specific set of flight rule criteria that had to be met for this.
I do believe there was at least one descending-node entry post-107 and there was no particular controversy over this at the time. Can't remember which flight.
Agreed to all. But there was a definite policy to avoid re-entries over the US.
-
At some point on your way to orbit, you're going to over-fly SOMETHING. This is true whether you launch over the Atlantic or the Caribbean (which is pretty big, mind you). What matters is the overall risk, not that your flight path happens to be over something.
-
I touched on this earlier; the other two dogleg trajectories fly over Columbia during the launch phase.
I understand that a normal launch is no problem at all. But you have to allow for possible failure modes.
I wish I could zoom out on modemeagle's map. Is that part of the flight during the second stage burn?
-
By the time SpaceX has this pad operational they may expect have proven that their 1st stages won't be impacting the ocean.
And suppose the Grasshopper mode fails?
Suppose an airliner fails.
-
At some point on your way to orbit, you're going to over-fly SOMETHING. This is true whether you launch over the Atlantic or the Caribbean (which is pretty big, mind you). What matters is the overall risk, not that your flight path happens to be over something.
Agreed. What would you say is the minimum amount of water required under a launch up until now?
And the Gulf and the Caribbean are reasonably crowded. Look at my maps posted this morning.
-
You're going directly against the whole reason for creating the complex in the first place. They want independent access to space with their own range control. Just them and the FAA.
SpaceX might get the same degree of control they're looking for at Shiloh. That is undoubtedly the subject of discussion and negotiation. We shall see.
It's like you haven't been paying attention to much of what Elon and SpaceX have been saying over the last couple years.
Whoa there cowboy. Brownseville isn't the only option, or haven't you been paying attention?
-
By the time SpaceX has this pad operational they may expect have proven that their 1st stages won't be impacting the ocean.
And suppose the Grasshopper mode fails?
Suppose an airliner fails.
People might die in both cases. In my case people would wonder why launches were allowed from Brownsville.
There’s a thread here that goes on and on about bad decisions. They only seem bad after the fact.
Do you want to be Larry Mulloy or Roger Boisjoly?
-
Whatever ambitions you think Musk has for a heavy lifter, it'll want east coast launches.
Exactly. I was reading this (http://www.msss.com/mars/global_surveyor/mgs_msn_plan/section3/section3.html#RTFToC9), and IIUC, Boca Chica can support a Mars parking orbit very well.
I read the link posted here by meekGee and was wondering if someone could help me understand how the Mars parking orbit would fit in with the Boca Chica trajectories .
Edit: spelling
-
Whatever ambitions you think Musk has for a heavy lifter, it'll want east coast launches.
Exactly. I was reading this (http://www.msss.com/mars/global_surveyor/mgs_msn_plan/section3/section3.html#RTFToC9), and IIUC, Boca Chica can support a Mars parking orbit very well.
I read the link posted here by meekGee and was wondering if someone could help me understand how the Mars parking orbit would fit in with the Boca Chica trajectories .
Edit: spelling
That’s where I started. See « Reply #741 on: Today at 10:34 AM » in this thread.
-
So basically you're arguing that either SpaceX is lying or your off-the-cuff risk analysis (based on no industry experience that I'm aware of?) is better than theirs with sophisticated (and validated) computational models.
-
If Boca Chica can launch to geosynchronous transfer orbits, then that's enough. It doesn't need to do ISS or Polar.
GTO launches are eastward, same problem.
During a 90 degree launch the trip across the Florida keys would lead to only a couple seconds during the launch where debris could impact the islands. The same is true with the lower Bahama islands as the only spot they will fly over with population is Andros Town and that would also be ~ 1 second during the launch where that would become an issue. They would not physically fly over that spot until after SII MECO.
There is risk, but they would have weighed that long before publicly announcing their intentions to look into building in Texas.
An alternate launch would be to 96.07 degrees, 26.6128 degree inclination which does not fly over a single island.
Edited for grammar.
Are you familiar with the doglegs out of VAFB to avoid the oilrigs? They’re probably only at risk for a second too.
Yes, and I will disagree that the rigs are only in danger for a second as the vehicle will be very slow at that point in the launch vs traveling at 5 to 6 km/s during the trajectory intercept of the keys and the Bahama islands. This means the rigs are at risk for a longer period of time and therefore should be avoided.
The vehicles launched from Vandenberg are destructive abort vs. F9 intact abort. This means the risk of more pieces falling over a larger area are higher then a vehicle that may impact in one piece (F1-Flight 1) or may break up at a lower altitude and having a smaller impact area.
-
I touched on this earlier; the other two dogleg trajectories fly over Columbia during the launch phase.
I understand that a normal launch is no problem at all. But you have to allow for possible failure modes.
I wish I could zoom out on modemeagle's map. Is that part of the flight during the second stage burn?
Really doesn’t matter. Suppose you get a partial burn?
But that applies to EVERY launch vehicle/pad/azimuth combination. ISS bound launches from Florida could impact Europe or Africa if there was only a partial 2nd stage burn.
-
Actual ground tracks are not linear but are concave to the equator. The degree of concavity depends upon velocity, altitude, launch site latitude, and other factors.
Is it possible the concavity is enough to clear land or more importantly your concerns about overflight?
SpaceX seem to be satisfied, I wonder why you are so convinced there are unresolvable issues. Not saying you are incorrect just trying to see the issues.
-
Whatever ambitions you think Musk has for a heavy lifter, it'll want east coast launches.
Exactly. I was reading this (http://www.msss.com/mars/global_surveyor/mgs_msn_plan/section3/section3.html#RTFToC9), and IIUC, Boca Chica can support a Mars parking orbit very well.
I read the link posted here by meekGee and was wondering if someone could help me understand how the Mars parking orbit would fit in with the Boca Chica trajectories .
Edit: spelling
As you can see from mlinder's maps, it's not quite spot on, but the launch paths are along the general direction from Boca Chica to Cuba, which can be bypassed on either side with a very minimal dog leg.
What's more significant, is that most other direction from Boca Chica are closed - you can't go North of East, you can't go South of West-South-West, you certainly can't go West.
So you thread your way either above or below Cuba (Below is my guess) and over all it's a very shallow dogleg.
-
You're going directly against the whole reason for creating the complex in the first place. They want independent access to space with their own range control. Just them and the FAA.
SpaceX might get the same degree of control they're looking for at Shiloh. That is undoubtedly the subject of discussion and negotiation. We shall see.
It's like you haven't been paying attention to much of what Elon and SpaceX have been saying over the last couple years.
Whoa there cowboy. Brownseville isn't the only option, or haven't you been paying attention?
It's not the only option, but stated by them, it's the preferred option. Based on the recent hearing recordings the only reason it will fail is if Brownsville fails to give any kind of decent offer, the environmental study turns out to block them, or they fail to pass legislation which would allow them to build. None of the above are related to flight paths.
-
As you can see from mlinder's maps,
I think you mean modemeagle.
-
It's not the only option, but stated by them, it's the preferred option
What I heard is that "Texas is our leading candidate right now", but why has not been explained. Does that mean Texas appears to be providing the best financial incentives, or is that because Texas provides reasonable launch trajectories, or because Florida hasn't yet stepped up, or what?
-
Here are some of the things Elon Musk has said about the Brownsville site
http://www.parabolicarc.com/2013/03/09/musk-says-texas-in-the-lead-for-commercial-launch-complex/
-
Probably off topic but Georgia? WTF where?
-
Let me try a blanket answer to all the open queries. If you check up the thread you’ll see I’ve posted more detail earlier.
(1) I don’t claim any expertise at all except I can read a map.
(2) I don’t really know anything.
(3) I’m not accusing anybody of doing anything bad.
(4) This launch site looks different to me than any others the US has used for space launches.
(5) Launch trajectories from Brownsville pass closer to populated areas than any US space launch I’m familiar with except maybe that Atlantis flight that flew to a 62° inclination.
(6) The affected land masses are not just Cuba. There are hundreds of inhabited islands in the Gulf and Carib.
(7) If every launch from Brownsville goes as planned there will never be a problem and I will be guilty of wasting electrons.
( 8 ) There’s a non-zero probability that every launch will not go as planned and nasty things might drop where they’re not supposed to drop.
(9) If you don’t agree with me I’m okay with that. Write me off as a kook (like I’d be the only one on this site) and let’s build that new spaceport. Not a problem for me.
(10) I’m a little bit surprised at the passion and the venom that my thoughts have caused in some posters but I was once in a faculty meeting where 100 PhD’s argued for 45 minutes about where a comma should go. That was worse.
Have a good night and a good day tomorrow!
-
Hey Nittany Lion, I've learned a great deal through this discussion, thank you.
And don't worry about QuantumG's terse reply's he's like that.
(no offense QuantumG I like your terse take no prisoners style. I have too my daughter is dating an Aussie :) )
-
Actual ground tracks are not linear but are concave to the equator. The degree of concavity depends upon velocity, altitude, launch site latitude, and other factors.
Is it possible the concavity is enough to clear land or more importantly your concerns about overflight?
SpaceX seem to be satisfied, I wonder why you are so convinced there are unresolvable issues. Not saying you are incorrect just trying to see the issues.
Get yourself a map and try to draw a line from Brownsville to the Atlantic that doesn’t pass over land. I haven’t been able to do that. Okay you can dogleg but how many times do you need to that?
Remember you have to allow some margin for error. And remember that in real life you’ll be dealing with foreign governments and peoples’ lives.
-
Actual ground tracks are not linear but are concave to the equator. The degree of concavity depends upon velocity, altitude, launch site latitude, and other factors.
Is it possible the concavity is enough to clear land or more importantly your concerns about overflight?
SpaceX seem to be satisfied, I wonder why you are so convinced there are unresolvable issues. Not saying you are incorrect just trying to see the issues.
Get yourself a map and try to draw a line from Brownsville to the Atlantic that doesn’t pass over land. I haven’t been able to do that. Okay you can dogleg but how many times do you need to that?
Remember you have to allow some margin for error. And remember that in real life you’ll be dealing with foreign governments and peoples’ lives.
My answers:
1. You can dogleg continuously. It's a smart rocket.
2. Reusable stages are arguably more reliable.
3. Rockets are nowhere near as reliable as jetliners, but the ocean is nowhere near as populates as Los Angeles, and LA has thousands (maybe even hundreds!) of flights over it every single day. This is true even after jetliners have crashed into cities. As people are pointing out, it's a numbers game, and I think you don't have to worry about the islands. Just avoid Cuba.
-
Get yourself a map and try to draw a line from Brownsville to the Atlantic that
Well first, be sure to get yourself a globe, not a flat map! It is threading a needle, and sure there is some overflight of lightly populated islands, but yes there is a path out from Boca Chica between the Florida Keys and Cuba. (Note that overflight per se isn't the issue: you need to look at the curve consisting of all the instantaneous impact points.)
Second, be sure you know how much risk to the safety of the general public is generally considered tolerable. I recommend reading 14 CFR 417.107, especially subsection (b) regarding Public risk criteria.
http://www.law.cornell.edu/cfr/text/14/417.107
But that applies to EVERY launch vehicle/pad/azimuth combination. ISS bound launches from Florida could impact Europe or Africa if there was only a partial 2nd stage burn.
Yes, but the time between when the vehicle exits range safety control (i.e. at the Africa gate, or for Europe what SpaceX apparently calls the "head-on gate") and the time at when it reaches orbit is very short and the risk of a failure during that brief interval is quite low.
-
Boca Chica will be ready in about 2016?
2-3 years after construction begins. So... Maybe 2018?
The Keys...
For the purpose of exploring the question, let's make an unlikely assumption that they intend to fly directly above the 7 mile bridge between Knights Key and Little Duck Key. If the error bar for landing is less than 3.5 miles (expand this to include the some extra keys and a larger expanse if you need to), then you can calculate, at various times of day or night, how many people, on average, are likely to be on that road, and how many, on average, would actually die if an unzipped (empty) rocket, landed on that stretch of road. Then the likelyhood of a rocket falling from the sky and managing to hit the 38 foot wide ribbon of highway; in a giant frickin ocean. I wish this would be presented in comparison to the likelyhood that any given car would cause a death on that same stretch of road...
Over the everglades would be good too. I realize that this isn't the way things have been historically calculated, but I wonder if the rules in place for calculating chance of death are excessively conservative.
IIRC, a few years ago, they talked about a trajectory between Key West and Cuba. Ah. I notice modemeagle points it out...
An alternate launch would be to 96.07 degrees, 26.6128 degree inclination which does not fly over a single island.
And a highly lofted trajectory might mean that the BFR 1st stage doesn't even get over populated areas.
Does that mean Texas appears to be providing the best financial incentives, or is that because Texas provides reasonable launch trajectories, or because Florida hasn't yet stepped up, or what?
More robust economy will be less likely to hike taxes moving forward (is part of the answer). Weather is a big part of the answer (obviously super important for an extremely high flight-rate to not have scrubbed launches due to weather commonplace (like in Florida which is the lightning capital of Earth)).
-
You can dogleg continuously. It's a smart rocket.
Indeed you can.
Reusable stages are arguably more reliable.
That doesn't mean it's acceptable to fly them over land. Even if the first stage is recoverable, its predicted impact point, should it fail to restart, will still have to be in the sea.
Rockets are nowhere near as reliable as jetliners...
That's right, at least a magnitude less reliable. Which is why this discussion of launch azimuths is important. From the point of view of azimuths, Florida is superior. But SpaceX will probably trading that against getting a better financial deal from Texas and not having to complete for launch slots at the Cape.
-
Probably off topic but Georgia? WTF where?
http://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=28585.msg1024160#msg1024160
-
You can dogleg continuously. It's a smart rocket.
Indeed you can.
Reusable stages are arguably more reliable.
That doesn't mean it's acceptable to fly them over land. Even if the first stage is recoverable, its predicted impact point, should it fail to restart, will still have to be in the sea.
Rockets are nowhere near as reliable as jetliners...
That's right, at least a magnitude less reliable. Which is why this discussion of launch azimuths is important. From the point of view of azimuths, Florida is superior. But SpaceX will probably trading that against getting a better financial deal from Texas and not having to complete for launch slots at the Cape.
Jetliners in the US crash about once a year, or once every some 10,000,000 flights? Crashes are most likely to occur within cities or airports.
Rockets are about 1:100? Maybe SpaceX can bring it to 1:1000?
Still 4 - 5 orders of magnitude more.
But - the population density of the down range is probably 1,000,000 less than an average city (I'm counting minor islands, not Cuba), and actually most crashes are likely to occur near the pad, and before max-Q, so this helps too.
Even Steven if you ask me.
-
In fact I’m dubious that there’ll be any orbital launches from Brownsville. If there ever is, every lawyer in the western hemisphere will be in the Gulf and the Caribbean handing out business cards.
You must be missing something. If it wasn't possible SpaceX wouldn't be attempting to build there. What do you mean "orbital launches"? What kind of other launches would there be? Last I checked SpaceX was an orbital launch company.
You really think SpaceX would build a large complex just to find out they can't launch and that they haven't done all the needed studies to figure out how to launch?
Why not? SpaceX built two test launch setups to test the F1.
-
Even Steven if you ask me.
Personally, I think Florida is a better, simply for the range of azimuths available. But of course, as already discussed, there is more than just the azimuth question to consider. If SpaceX go ahead with the Texas pad for FH and do not build one in Forida, there will be a range of inclinations which this vehicle will not be able to reach without serious doglegging. This could be OK if SpaceX are prepared to trade the loss of payload capacity against "having their own range."
-
I'm having a hard time understanding what the risks are here. Could I be so bold to ask if somebody here could plot on a map the radius where 1st stage sepration would occur and where the 1st stage bits (i.e. assuming no controlled landing) would land? I'm asking as I'm presuming 1st stage issues (> 1 engine out) and 1st stage separation are the biggest risk factors.
If the 2nd stage doesn't ignite for some reason, then it (and the cargo) will land with the first stage. If it does ignite and all parameters are nominal, then the burn until 2nd stage sep will take it far into the Atlantic.
Hopefully what I'm asking makes sense and is relevant and apologies if this has already been asked (I haven't gone through all 55 pages of this thread).
-
Russians launch from Baikonur, for goodness sake!!
US could launch east from Mojave and have very little chance of anything ever falling on anyone.
The regulations are one thing, of course. But the regulations on rocket range safety are mostly irrational, IMO.
By the time Falcon 9 is 1000 miles downrange (e.g. roughly Boca Chica to the Keys), the chance of any part hitting anyone anywhere is very, very low.
All swimming and all car driving and all bicycling should be banned before banning A F9 overflight of the keys, or even most of Florida. If one wanted to extend the principle of absurd safety-based bans.
-
But the regulations on rocket range safety are mostly irrational, IMO.
Which ones? And based on what experience?
-
Russians launch from Baikonur, for goodness sake!!
US could launch east from Mojave and have very little chance of anything ever falling on anyone.
The regulations are one thing, of course. But the regulations on rocket range safety are mostly irrational, IMO.
By the time Falcon 9 is 1000 miles downrange (e.g. roughly Boca Chica to the Keys), the chance of any part hitting anyone anywhere is very, very low.
All swimming and all car driving and all bicycling should be banned before banning A F9 overflight of the keys, or even most of Florida. If one wanted to extend the principle of absurd safety-based bans.
At least the grasslands downrange of Baikonur aren't really densely populated. Look at China - more than 100000 people needs to be evacuated to safety shelters in rocket drop zones every time the Chinese launches something to beyond LEO - and with their recent high flight rate that's almost once per month!
I guess this will be mainly for BLEO launches that doesn't need a high inclination. However I have a hard time seeing this launch site opening before 2020 - SpaceX will probably need at least 8 launches (and probably 10) per year in order for this site to work financially.
-
By the time Falcon 9 is 1000 miles downrange (e.g. roughly Boca Chica to the Keys), the chance of any part hitting anyone anywhere is very, very low.
That isn't the issue, the vehicle would orbital by then. The issue is a problem early in the flight where a loss of thrust would result in an impact near the Keys.
-
I'm having a hard time understanding what the risks are here. Could I be so bold to ask if somebody here could plot on a map the radius where 1st stage sepration would occur and where the 1st stage bits (i.e. assuming no controlled landing) would land? I'm asking as I'm presuming 1st stage issues (> 1 engine out) and 1st stage separation are the biggest risk factors.
If the 2nd stage doesn't ignite for some reason, then it (and the cargo) will land with the first stage. If it does ignite and all parameters are nominal, then the burn until 2nd stage sep will take it far into the Atlantic.
Hopefully what I'm asking makes sense and is relevant and apologies if this has already been asked (I haven't gone through all 55 pages of this thread).
The figure below should help. I think it originated with poster modemeagle. I’ll double-check on that attribution.
You might want to look at a post of mine: « Reply #741 » in this thread. Sorry for not providing a link. Haven’t figured that part out yet.
I guess I’m largely responsible for this issue. My thought is that failure can happen at any point in a flight and there might be an impact anywhere on the planned trajectory or any other trajectory as well.
It’s true that can happen wherever the launch originates but there are so many more bad places to impact when you launch from Brownsville than say CCAFS or VAFB.
Edit: It was modemeagle.
-
. . . there is a path out from Boca Chica between the Florida Keys and Cuba.
Look farther east. The Bahamas, and the Turks and Caicos Islands lie in that path.
-
Even Steven if you ask me.
Personally, I think Florida is a better, simply for the range of azimuths available. But of course, as already discussed, there is more than just the azimuth question to consider. If SpaceX go ahead with the Texas pad for FH and do not build one in Forida, there will be a range of inclinations which this vehicle will not be able to reach without serious doglegging. This could be OK if SpaceX are prepared to trade the loss of payload capacity against "having their own range."
This is assuming they won't have FH infrastructure in Florida. I think they will.
Elon just spoke about his distinction between military and commercial spaceports. I wouldn't just ignore that. They want their own place to do Mars launches, and they're building Boca Chica for that. (assuming again that this site does indeed happen)
Otherwise, you're right, Boca Chica is not a good location.
Logistically, with reusable rockets you end up land-transporting payloads a lot more than you're land-transporting rockets. So a mid-country location is appealing.
-
The figure below should help. I think it originated with poster modemeagle.
Those paths do seem purposefully bad, though - although some of those dog-legs seem targeted for ISS orbit.
I drew some paths in Google Earth - There are two straight azimuths that don't cross over any land, other than much further downrange.
I also added two minimal dog-leg trajectories in orange.
-
1. You can dogleg continuously. It's a smart rocket.
The doglegging uses up performance. And this launch vehicle is gonna have deployable legs, attitude control after main stage, and fuel to fly to and land at some recovery area. You have to be somewhat skeptical that all this is going to pan out.
2. Reusable stages are arguably more reliable.
Well we’re not sure about that are we? Might turn out reusing tanks and engines isn’t a good idea. The one re-useable data point we have didn’t turn out well in some opinions.
3. Rockets are nowhere near as reliable as jetliners, but the ocean is nowhere near as populates as Los Angeles, and LA has thousands (maybe even hundreds!) of flights over it every single day. This is true even after jetliners have crashed into cities. As people are pointing out, it's a numbers game, and I think you don't have to worry about the islands. Just avoid Cuba.
Why did NASA worry about the Skylab re-entry? That was one-time, very low probability, very low risk. Brownsville will launch like once a month. Do you really think the people living under and near the flight path won’t care?
-
A question regarding dogleg trajectories and reusable vehicles returning to the launch pad. Will the returning stage also need to fly the dogleg, or does it not go that far downrange before staging?
-
Why did NASA worry about the Skylab re-entry? That was one-time, very low probability, very low risk. Brownsville will launch like once a month. Do you really think the people living under and near the flight path won’t care?
You certainly give the impression that you would not have allowed or wanted Skylab to fly at all, since it could literally have landed on *anyone*, almost anywhere on earth.
Can you clarify what *you* think is an acceptable distance down-range where a launch vehicle can overfly a populated area?
-
A question regarding dogleg trajectories and reusable vehicles returning to the launch pad. Will the returning stage also need to fly the dogleg, or does it not go that far downrange before staging?
Since the reusable F9 apparently will fly a more lofted 1st-stage trajectory (to allow it to return to launch site), all dogleg manoeuvring would be done by the upper stage - if flown from Brownsville, TX.
-
Those paths do seem purposefully bad, though - although some of those dog-legs seem targeted for ISS orbit.
I drew some paths in Google Earth - There are two straight azimuths that don't cross over any land, other than much further downrange.
I also added two minimal dog-leg trajectories in orange.
That’s a great resource. Thank you.
Sort of verifies what I found. You can’t get to the Atlantic without passing over land or doing multiple doglegs.
Now you need to consider where stage 1 impact would be and how much safety margin there is in those trajectories.
I asked a question yesterday that’s still relevant and unanswered: “What would you say is the minimum amount of water required under a launch up until now?”
I get it that if everything works as planned there’s no problem. Before the FAA allows the Brownsville site to be used they’ll need to be satisfied that all contingencies have been reasonably accounted for. That will include public hearings. Ever been to a school board meeting?
In the late 1940’s and early 1950’s the government and the military scoured the country for good launch sites. They could have had any parcel of land in the country that they wanted. They came up with two pretty good ones.
Why not just use our existing sites? (My question all along.)
-
A question regarding dogleg trajectories and reusable vehicles returning to the launch pad. Will the returning stage also need to fly the dogleg, or does it not go that far downrange before staging?
The launch and landing sites need not be the same.
-
1. You can dogleg continuously. It's a smart rocket.
The doglegging uses up performance.
True. But Brownsville, Texas (25o55'49") is almost as far south as you can get on the continental USA, significantly closer to the equator than KSC (28o31'27"). The very tip of Florida is a hair further south, but consists entirely of swampland.
Brownsville's latitude gives it somewhat more rotational ground velocity that reduces the needed delta V to get to orbit, which must compensate at least in part for the losses due to doglegging in ascent.
Let's see:
cos 28o31'27" = 0.878616
cos 25o55'49" = 0.899327
0.899327 - 0.878616 = 0.020711
0.020711 x 465.1 m/s = 9.63 m/s = 34.7 km/hr
Not much, but some improvement over KSC.
-
I drew some paths in Google Earth...
That’s a great resource. Thank you.
Sort of verifies what I found. You can’t get to the Atlantic without passing over land or doing multiple doglegs.
What is this obsession about reaching the Atlantic? If you get that far, you should be at (or near) orbital velocity. This is almost like worrying about reaching the Mediterranean from CCAFS.
Other than the 1st stage impact, the further along you get in the track, the probability of failure (and resulting impact) is significantly reduced per square mile.
Now you need to consider where stage 1 impact would be and how much safety margin there is in those trajectories.
An expandable F9 - using those azimuths - should drop its 1st stages close to Yucatan, before Cuba. (I think)
F9v1.1 may drop them earlier.
-
1. You can dogleg continuously. It's a smart rocket.
The doglegging uses up performance.
True. But Brownsville, Texas (25o55'49") is almost as far south as you can get on the continental USA, significantly closer to the equator than KSC (28o31'27").
Earlier I calculated and posted 2% difference between Brownsville and CCAFS.
How much doglegging will that buy you?
-
Why did NASA worry about the Skylab re-entry? That was one-time, very low probability, very low risk. Brownsville will launch like once a month. Do you really think the people living under and near the flight path won’t care?
You certainly give the impression that you would not have allowed or wanted Skylab to fly at all, since it could literally have landed on *anyone*, almost anywhere on earth.
Not true. I thought the concern was way out of proportion to the actual danger.
But it’s a data point about how people feel about these issues.
Can you clarify what *you* think is an acceptable distance down-range where a launch vehicle can overfly a populated area?
The issue isn’t all downrange distance. The tolerances are awfully tight as well.
To answer your question; If the downrange distance is going to be significantly less than in the past, I’d want that to be justified.
-
The Carribbean is HUGE. Again, why are you obsessed over reaching the Atlantic? And is there ANY justification for this obsession apart from your own gut feel? If not, then we can stop the conversation right now.
Also, is it possible to bring this discussion to another thread? This single, non-industry, person's concern is now dominating this thread. A good time to put the discussion on another thread.
-
I drew some paths in Google Earth - ... I also added two minimal dog-leg trajectories in orange.
Sort of verifies what I found. You can’t get to the Atlantic without passing over land or doing multiple doglegs.
Demonstrably false - I extended one of the tracks - see attached image. With only one dogleg between Yucatan & Cuba, after stage separation, you can actually reach the Atlantic (since that appears to be important for you) without flying over ANY land. The path goes between Jamaica & Haiti, and passes out in the Atlantic north of Grenada.
-
The Carribbean is HUGE. Again, why are you obsessed over reaching the Atlantic? And is there ANY justification for this obsession apart from your own gut feel? If not, then we can stop the conversation right now.
Also, is it possible to bring this discussion to another thread? This single, non-industry, person's concern is now dominating this thread. A good time to put the discussion on another thread.
If you check up the thread you’ll notice other posters with thoughts similar to mine.
I’m only answering other posts. Why does that cause you a problem?
The Caribbean is quite crowded with those people things.
I can walk to the Atlantic from Launch Complex 40.
-
I know nothing about these things except what I read here, but aren't these the relevant rules?
(1) A launch operator may initiate the flight of a launch vehicle only if the risk associated with the total flight to all members of the public, excluding persons in waterborne vessels and aircraft, does not exceed an expected average number of 0.00003 casualties (Ec ≤ 30 × 10−6 ) from impacting inert and impacting explosive debris, (Ec ≤ 30 × 10−6 ) for toxic release, and (Ec ≤ 30 × 10−6 ) for far field blast overpressure. The FAA will determine whether to approve public risk due to any other hazard associated with the proposed flight of a launch vehicle on a case-by-case basis. The Ec criterion for each hazard applies to each launch from lift-off through orbital insertion, including each planned impact, for an orbital launch, and through final impact for a suborbital launch.
(2) A launch operator may initiate flight only if the risk to any individual member of the public does not exceed a casualty expectation (Ec of 0.000001 per launch (Ec ≤ 1 × 10−6 ) for each hazard.
If the FAA believes your simulation that shows less than 0.00003 casualties, you can launch.
-
Launches from VAFB get a lot closer to LA than most of these trajectories get to any islands, and yet (for good or ill) LA has managed to not be destroyed in 50+ years of space launches...
-
This whole argumentation is driving me nuts. We shouldn't even be drawing lines on a _FLAT_ map. It gives an entirely false view of things.
More so SpaceX is full of some of the best engineers in the country, do you really think that they wouldn't have done calculations to find out their possible launch paths from this site already??? The fact that we are even talking about "I don't think this can work." only shows that the person stating this opinion doesn't understand what the heck they're talking about. If you find yourself asking this question then try and run some better computer simulations of how things actually would be done rather than this silly line drawing.
I'm done with this. Not going to respond anymore.
-
More so SpaceX is full of some of the best engineers in the country,
Unsubstantiated. They may think that but it isn't proven.
-
A question regarding dogleg trajectories and reusable vehicles returning to the launch pad. Will the returning stage also need to fly the dogleg, or does it not go that far downrange before staging?
The launch and landing sites need not be the same.
Maybe they don't need to be the same, but rapid reuse is enhanced if they are the same. And, if the launch and landing sites are the same, will the returning stage also need to fly the dogleg?
-
I drew some paths in Google Earth - ... I also added two minimal dog-leg trajectories in orange.
Sort of verifies what I found. You can’t get to the Atlantic without passing over land or doing multiple doglegs.
Demonstrably false - I extended one of the tracks - see attached image. With only one dogleg between Yucatan & Cuba, after stage separation, you can actually reach the Atlantic (since that appears to be important for you) without flying over ANY land. The path goes between Jamaica & Haiti, and passes out in the Atlantic north of Grenada.
-
This whole argumentation is driving me nuts. We shouldn't even be drawing lines on a _FLAT_ map. It gives an entirely false view of things.
Who's doing that? I'm certainly not.
-
A question regarding dogleg trajectories and reusable vehicles returning to the launch pad. Will the returning stage also need to fly the dogleg, or does it not go that far downrange before staging?
The launch and landing sites need not be the same.
Maybe they don't need to be the same, but rapid reuse is enhanced if they are the same. And, if the launch and landing sites are the same, will the returning stage also need to fly the dogleg?
I don’t see any reason why the answer would be anything but “Yes.”
Dogleg out, dogleg back.
-
The "logic" Nittany Lion appears to be using does indeed seem indistinguishable from that of the NO LAUNCHES! NEVER! NOWHERE! NOBODY! crowd. That may not be his stance, but he hasn't provided any reasoning to demonstrate a difference.
I sure hope he never tries to cross a city street.
-
Remember guys, you don't need me or a mod to set up a splinter thread.
If you think it's really needed, start the new thread, link to this one as the point of splinter and then post here to the splinter thread.
-
And anyway, it's only at 60% capacity of the best engineers in the country, which can hardly be called "full".
-
I drew some paths in Google Earth - ... I also added two minimal dog-leg trajectories in orange.
Sort of verifies what I found. You can’t get to the Atlantic without passing over land or doing multiple doglegs.
Demonstrably false - I extended one of the tracks - see attached image. With only one dogleg between Yucatan & Cuba, after stage separation, you can actually reach the Atlantic (since that appears to be important for you) without flying over ANY land. The path goes between Jamaica & Haiti, and passes out in the Atlantic north of Grenada.
[silly zoomed in picture that 'Nittany Lion' attached]
Sigh. Look closer. In google earth. I'll export the data if anyone wants to see it for themselves.
-
Check out the picture on this post:
http://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=28585.msg888449#msg888449
And this one:
http://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=28585.msg889177#msg889177
You can see that if there is a malfunction with SII start up on a 90 degree launch that it will fall long short of the keys. As the ground impact moves they could easily do a GO/NO GO based on current performance to cut down on risk.
-
The "logic" Nittany Lion appears to be using does indeed seem indistinguishable from that of the NO LAUNCHES! NEVER! NOWHERE! NOBODY! crowd. That may not be his stance, but he hasn't provided any reasoning to demonstrate a difference.
I sure hope he never tries to cross a city street.
Not a good summary of my point at all.
Launch from the established launch sites.
I’m bewildered why any of us would really care if SpaceX gets Brownsville.
I’ve simply wanted input about why SpaceX wants a site with few or no viable launch azimuths.
What I get is a firestorm of “No one gets to talk about SpaceX like that!”
-
Here's a new home for this discussion:
http://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=31348.0
-
Is Brownsville absolutely risk free and most efficient location to launch? Probably not. No location is perfect in all metrics.
Everything is a trade off and I think their most important criterion for a private launch location are rules, regs, tax breaks/incentives, various costs, infrastructure/ workforce and the most important factor over all, a BFR. No where is threading a water needle in my lists.
I would assume SpX can only afford one site for BFR manufacturing and needs to be as close and easy as possible; and therefore it is either CCAFB/KSC or Brownsville. And, if is has be private commercial then Brownsville is it.
-
Wallops, CCAFS, VAFB, Kodiac all are extant and have excess capacity.
Let's see, in order, government controlled, government controlled, government controlled, SpaceX currently ship stages by land, unlikely to ship by sea to Alaska and government controlled.
You're going directly against the whole reason for creating the complex in the first place. They want independent access to space with their own range control. Just them and the FAA.
It's like you haven't been paying attention to much of what Elon and SpaceX have been saying over the last couple years.
Elon is asking for State-funding in building this new launch complex. He is going to see who gives him the best deal, Florida or Texas. The question is, will Florida or Texas give him control after the state has invested their funds ? Exactly what does the state get out of this anyway ? Why should Florida develop a commerical site for SpaceX when they already have a LC in CCAFS ? Will there be more jobs and tax-paying citizens brought into the state ?
Florida does have an advantage over Texas, in that they already have an existing transportation infrastructure for the payloads there. Where is an airport large enough to land an AN-224 or equivalent sized cargo plane near Brownsville ?
Remember, with Elon, it always comes down to how much government money he can get to fund his operation. There has always been significant amounts of government funds supporting his operations with Telsa, Solar City, and SpaceX.
-
Here's a new home for this discussion:
http://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=31348.0
Good work!
---
And can people stop acting like someone's taken a tiddle in their teapot when there's a disagreement. I'm not spending all night trimming posts, neither are the mods, so any nonsense and the whole post goes.
Remember, these big threads have about 50 people or so posting and thousands reading, and they don't want to be trawling though posts that are not adding to the thread.
Thread title, discuss.
-
Check out the picture on this post:
http://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=28585.msg888449#msg888449
And this one:
http://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=28585.msg889177#msg889177
You can see that if there is a malfunction with SII start up on a 90 degree launch that it will fall long short of the keys. As the ground impact moves they could easily do a GO/NO GO based on current performance to cut down on risk.
Thanks for that! Sort of answers my request a few pages back.
So, on a 90 deg launch, the first stage will always impact the sea, whereas there will be a brief period (10 - 30 seconds maybe?) during the SII burn where a catastrophic malfunction could result in the SII hitting the Keys. Have I got that right?
-
Check out the picture on this post:
http://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=28585.msg888449#msg888449
And this one:
http://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=28585.msg889177#msg889177
You can see that if there is a malfunction with SII start up on a 90 degree launch that it will fall long short of the keys. As the ground impact moves they could easily do a GO/NO GO based on current performance to cut down on risk.
Thanks for that! Sort of answers my request a few pages back.
So, on a 90 deg launch, the first stage will always impact the sea, whereas there will be a brief period (10 - 30 seconds maybe?) during the SII burn where a catastrophic malfunction could result in the SII hitting the Keys. Have I got that right?
>>...a catastrophic malfunction could result in the SII hitting the Keys. Have I got that right?
This can be avoided if trajectory goes a bit to South:
http://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=31348.msg1025105#msg1025105
-
Launch from the established launch sites.
SpaceX is doing that: launching from both the Cape and VAFB. Even Kwajalein might have fit as an "established launch site." Did you mean "launch ONLY from the established launch sites"? As I understand the various Musk and Shotwell quotes, having an extra launch site provides an additional measure of (company-wide) launch schedule protection. Having a non-AF location may provide some advantages or reduce some overhead, being closer to Hawthorne and MacGregor may provide some advantages, getting state tax perks and infrastructure help is always nice, and so on.
I’ve simply wanted input about why SpaceX wants a site with few or no viable launch azimuths.
What I get is a firestorm of “No one gets to talk about SpaceX like that!”
No, what you got was a firestorm of "you are incorrect, there are plenty of viable launch azimuths." Not just the assertion, but actual marked paths. Stage I impacts are fine, if the appropriate azimuth is chosen. The ISS can be reached with a dogleg, although there's no evidence that SpaceX plans to launch to ISS from anywhere other than the Cape.
Compared to launching from Virginia like Orbital (even though I acknowledge Virginia suited Orbital's purposes), or launching over populated areas using toxic hypergolics like Proton, I think the Texas site is plenty reasonable.
-
Elon is asking for State-funding in building this new launch complex. He is going to see who gives him the best deal, Florida or Texas. The question is, will Florida or Texas give him control after the state has invested their funds ? Exactly what does the state get out of this anyway ? Why should Florida develop a commerical site for SpaceX when they already have a LC in CCAFS ? Will there be more jobs and tax-paying citizens brought into the state ?
I think, given the history of state/local investment in infrastructure to bring in companies or keep them, you are crediting the states with too much logic. There is a considerable history of states being willing to give more incentives than sturdy economic analyses can account for, because they are willing to imagine quite a bit of intangible benefits, and they don't consider follow-on costs nearly as generously as they consider follow-on benefits. Local areas, too: consider the local government in Indianapolis which went bankrupt trying to keep the Colts. Not only did they build the team a new stadium, they gave them the concession rights and even parking permit revenue, while absorbing all the costs. Craziness. And of course in bidding, you only need one good bid.
However, this behavior drops off sharply as the state's economic situation improves. The window for best benefit (for SpaceX, that is) is closing as the economy improves and SLS starts to pick up in Florida. I would expect Puerto Rico to be the most eager to host SpaceX, but I'm not sure they have the deep pockets of Texas or Florida, and the greater distance and water-transport also handicap them.
Florida does have an advantage over Texas, in that they already have an existing transportation infrastructure for the payloads there. Where is an airport large enough to land an AN-224 or equivalent sized cargo plane near Brownsville ?
I guess it depends on whether they foresee a need for that sized cargo, airlifted. Maybe a diesel train will do the job. Or maybe that's part of the development package they'd like to see from Texas. Didn't Harlingen have a fair-sized airfield where they used to fly restored WWII bombers?
Remember, with Elon, it always comes down to how much government money he can get to fund his operation. There has always been significant amounts of government funds supporting his operations with Telsa, Solar City, and SpaceX.
I think that's a bit unfair, because in each case, he put in his money before there was a clear opportunity for government funds. For SpaceX, there was a long stretch of development with no customer but Elon Musk. It didn't come down to how much government money he could get, but to what he wanted to achieve long-term. In striving to achieve those long-term goals, certainly he has been ready and willing to tack to cover the prevailing government winds (and money). In each of those three cases, the government money came because the government agreed with him that those three technology developments were critically needed or desirable.
You could make similar statements about von Braun, first with the German army and later the US government, and Korolev: they had goals they wanted to achieve, and they were willing to adjust work with deep-pocketed governments to achieve those ends. But in no case would it be accurate to say they were doing it (their rocket development) purely for government money. Means to an end vs the end itself.
-
Where is an airport large enough to land an AN-224 or equivalent sized cargo plane near Brownsville ?
For large cargo, air transport is too costly. Brownsville has an excellent seaport for large cargo.
For smaller cargo, and for visiting customers, Brownsville has an international airport.
-
I wonder if the BFR payloads are likely to come from near the launch site too. Perhaps boated over on the Gulf, but they would be new assembly facilities too, presumably, because no one is making payloads that big at the moment.
That was unclear...
I wonder if payloads will be manufactured (eventually) relatively nearby the BFR pad in Texas.
-
What BFR payloads? None exist or are likely to exist for at least a decade or more.
-
What BFR payloads? None exist or are likely to exist for at least a decade or more.
The ones a decade (ish) or more from now.
-
Elon is asking for State-funding in building this new launch complex. He is going to see who gives him the best deal, Florida or Texas. The question is, will Florida or Texas give him control after the state has invested their funds ? Exactly what does the state get out of this anyway ? Why should Florida develop a commerical site for SpaceX when they already have a LC in CCAFS ? Will there be more jobs and tax-paying citizens brought into the state ?
As to what Florida may get out of it, you might want to check out Spaceport Florida -- Spaceport Master Plan (http://www.spaceflorida.gov/docs/misc/spaceport-master-plan.pdf). A bit dated, but still worth a read. There's considerably more than SpaceX in Florida's plan.
As to why Florida might want to develop Shiloh (not addressed in the Spaceport Master Plan) beyond LC-36 & LC-46, there are significant constraints to developing capabilities for meeting commercial needs at Federal Ranges (e.g., CCAFS). Development at Shiloh would eliminate those constraints. For a precis, see page 193, sec. G.1.f Funding Limitations and Unsynchronized Statues [sic] of the Spaceport Master Plan.
-
As for why local and state governments would want to incentivize SpaceX and other companies - there is only one reason: JOBS. That's it.
-
As for why local and state governments would want to incentivize SpaceX and other companies - there is only one reason: JOBS. That's it.
Don't forget prestige, STEM, tourism, and growing tax base.
Gotta find somewhere to sell that natural gas too. ;)
-
As for why local and state governments would want to incentivize SpaceX and other companies - there is only one reason: JOBS. That's it.
Might be cheaper than building bigger prisons.
-
From both a transportation infrastructure and workforce perspective, the Brownsville area makes a lot of sense.
The seaport is first class. Southwest flies to Harlingen.
The University of Texas has an awesome engineering program. The UT system in general churns out graduates in every field. Land is cheap. Weather is great. I think the old guard would jump at the chance to relocate from Houston to South Padre. Not the space flight ops guys obviously, but the aerospace guys yes.
-
Not the space flight ops guys obviously, but the aerospace guys yes.
.. and girls.
-
What BFR payloads? None exist or are likely to exist for at least a decade or more.
My armchair WAG wouldn't exclude an in-space assembled exploration vehicle. Maybe that's what MCT is.
-
Florida does have an advantage over Texas, in that they already have an existing transportation infrastructure for the payloads there. Where is an airport large enough to land an AN-224 or equivalent sized cargo plane near Brownsville ?
I guess it depends on whether they foresee a need for that sized cargo, airlifted. Maybe a diesel train will do the job. Or maybe that's part of the development package they'd like to see from Texas. Didn't Harlingen have a fair-sized airfield where they used to fly restored WWII bombers?
Both Harlingen and Brownsville airports have > 2000 meter runways. I know that C-17s have used Harlingen, don't know about Brownsville. (I take the point about rail transport too.)
http://www.airnav.com/airport/KHRL
Runway Information
Runway 17R/35L
Dimensions: 8301 x 150 ft. / 2530 x 46 m
Surface: asphalt/grooved, in good condition
Weight bearing capacity:
Single wheel: 160.0
Double wheel: 200.0
Double tandem: 350.0
Dual double tandem: 700.0
=============
http://www.airnav.com/airport/KBRO
Runway 13R/31L
Dimensions: 7399 x 150 ft. / 2255 x 46 m
Surface: asphalt/grooved, in good condition
Weight bearing capacity:
Single wheel: 75.0
Double wheel: 170.0
Double tandem: 240.0
Edit: It appears that the AN-124 needs a 3000 meter runway for takeoff:
http://an124.com/an124-ruslan/an124-technical/
Take-off run distance: 2,520m with normal take-off weight
3,000m with maximum take-off weight
Landing roll distance at max landing weight: 900 m
Required runway length: 3,000m
-
I think the old guard would jump at the chance to relocate from Houston to South Padre. Not the space flight ops guys obviously, but the aerospace guys yes.
Wrong group of people. It would be KSC types and not JSC.
-
I guess it depends on whether they foresee a need for that sized cargo, airlifted. Maybe a diesel train will do the job. Or maybe that's part of the development package they'd like to see from Texas. Didn't Harlingen have a fair-sized airfield where they used to fly restored WWII bombers?
US aerospace manufacturers do not use trains for integrated hardware.
-
I guess it depends on whether they foresee a need for that sized cargo, airlifted. Maybe a diesel train will do the job. Or maybe that's part of the development package they'd like to see from Texas. Didn't Harlingen have a fair-sized airfield where they used to fly restored WWII bombers?
US aerospace manufacturers do not use trains for integrated hardware.
Before anybody jumps the gun and goes stating "But ATK used trains to transport SRB segments"....
The key phrase here is "integrated hardware".
-
Most of the hardware and barrel sections for the BFR could be still be manufactured in Hawthorne and tested in McGregor, with final assembly near the launch site.
I don't think Brownsville or the Cape would have primary manufacturing or testing responsibility. But there's still enough jobs involved to have a little scrum among the states.
-
By the time Falcon 9 is 1000 miles downrange (e.g. roughly Boca Chica to the Keys), the chance of any part hitting anyone anywhere is very, very low.
That isn't the issue, the vehicle would orbital by then. The issue is a problem early in the flight where a loss of thrust would result in an impact near the Keys.
Thanks, Jim. Your insight is always valuable.
-
I guess it depends on whether they foresee a need for that sized cargo, airlifted. Maybe a diesel train will do the job. Or maybe that's part of the development package they'd like to see from Texas. Didn't Harlingen have a fair-sized airfield where they used to fly restored WWII bombers?
US aerospace manufacturers do not use trains for integrated hardware.
Before anybody jumps the gun and goes stating "But ATK used trains to transport SRB segments"....
The key phrase here is "integrated hardware".
Also, it isn't dedicated trains like at Baikonur. See train car classification and humping.
-
Building this Launch site is going to require new tracking assets, yes? As well as a big red button for the RSO. Who would man the big red button?
What other capabilities would need to be built, beyond pads and hangers.
-
Building this Launch site is going to require new tracking assets, yes? As well as a big red button for the RSO. Who would man the big red button?
What other capabilities would need to be built, beyond pads and hangers.
Good questions; would love to hear from someone knows how SpaceX intends to answer them.
Speculatively regarding the tracking assets one possibility might be to use mobile assets. The aircraft used by the USAF "Big Crow" program come to mind; as that program has been discontinued those assets could conceivably be transferred to a commercial range operator.
Regarding who would staff the range safety positions and possibly press the "destruct" button ... that seems to me like one of the big unanswered questions in the entire concept of commercial entities operating ranges. Would they get to be their own guardians?
Finally on the other capabilities question, the one I can think of is weather monitoring. Particularly lightning "field mills" (whatever they are).
-
See train car classification and humping.
-
I think the old guard would jump at the chance to relocate from Houston to South Padre. Not the space flight ops guys obviously, but the aerospace guys yes.
Wrong group of people. It would be KSC types and not JSC.
I wasn't thinking JSC or KSC in specific. I was thinking existing aerospace companies, in whatever capacity SpaceX might need going forward.
-
Speculatively regarding the tracking assets one possibility might be to use mobile assets. The aircraft used by the USAF "Big Crow" program come to mind; as that program has been discontinued those assets could conceivably be transferred to a commercial range operator.
Would cost too much, see OSC Stargazer. Sealaunch has the right conop. Launch base assets with TDRSS.
-
I wasn't thinking JSC or KSC in specific. I was thinking existing aerospace companies, in whatever capacity SpaceX might need going forward.
Still the wrong skill mix. The contractors around those sites mirror the work at the sites.
-
Article from Brownsville Herald
Hearing to be held on closing beach for SpaceX launch
http://www.brownsvilleherald.com/news/local/article_6575d5b6-9727-11e2-986c-0019bb30f31a.html
-
Article from Brownsville Herald
Hearing to be held on closing beach for SpaceX launch
http://www.brownsvilleherald.com/news/local/article_6575d5b6-9727-11e2-986c-0019bb30f31a.html
Make sure there is a clause in the bill allowing the Governor to give special permission to close the beach on Memorial Day, the Fourth of July or Labor Day. The hassle of SpaceX's directors having to say explain the request to a post launch committee of enquiry should keep the number of requests down.
-
Article from Brownsville Herald
Hearing to be held on closing beach for SpaceX launch
http://www.brownsvilleherald.com/news/local/article_6575d5b6-9727-11e2-986c-0019bb30f31a.html
Make sure there is a clause in the bill allowing the Governor to give special permission to close the beach on Memorial Day, the Fourth of July or Labor Day. The hassle of SpaceX's directors having to say explain the request to a post launch committee of enquiry should keep the number of requests down.
Not sure what you mean. The article says they would prevented from launching those days.
-
Not sure what you mean. The article says they would prevented from launching those days.
That's how I read it as well. SpaceX would agree not to launch during those holidays.
-
Regarding who would staff the range safety positions and possibly press the "destruct" button ... that seems to me like one of the big unanswered questions in the entire concept of commercial entities operating ranges. Would they get to be their own guardians?
That is an interesting question. All ranges have a dedicated RSO who has no affiliation with the launch vehicle providers and thus no conflict of interest when it comes to pressing the "destruct" button. Since FAA will be the governing authority, the RSO issue will presumably be up to them. Hard to imagine they would allow a SpaceX employee to act as RSO.
-
I wonder...public hearing? questions from the public included? That could lead to some interesting information.
types of questions I'd love to hear: "How long after a launch would the beach be able to open? Would that time be different if you meet your re-usability goal and stages need to return to land?" "Would this bill include beach closings for landing a returning dragon?"
-
I'd expect a returning Dragon to be coming in generally from the west. Beach access is the least of your concerns for that.
-
I'd expect a returning Dragon to be coming in generally from the west. Beach access is the least of your concerns for that.
Dragons would likely land at Vandenberg.
-
I don't see any serious obstacle to Dragon landing at Brownsville, but beach access might well be restricted. In both cases, Texas and California, the ballistic trajectory would be initially aimed at the sea and corrected onto the landing pad late on.
-
I'd expect a returning Dragon to be coming in generally from the west. Beach access is the least of your concerns for that.
Dragons would likely land at Vandenberg.
They could always land at KBRO :)
-
For smaller cargo, and for visiting customers, Brownsville has an international airport.
KBRO Runway of choice for cargo
Runway 13R/31L
Dimensions:7399 x 150 ft. / 2255 x 46 m
-
Article from Brownsville Herald
Hearing to be held on closing beach for SpaceX launch
http://www.brownsvilleherald.com/news/local/article_6575d5b6-9727-11e2-986c-0019bb30f31a.html (http://www.brownsvilleherald.com/news/local/article_6575d5b6-9727-11e2-986c-0019bb30f31a.html)
Make sure there is a clause in the bill allowing the Governor to give special permission to close the beach on Memorial Day, the Fourth of July or Labor Day. The hassle of SpaceX's directors having to say explain the request to a post launch committee of enquiry should keep the number of requests down.
Not sure what you mean. The article says they would prevented from launching those days.
That rule as reported is self-evidently WRONG.
I am just debugging it.
Avoid disturbing the holiday makers. If you need to disturb them get permission from a very important person who will ensure that it is really necessary.
-
3 miles from the border? I hope they let us pack heat at work.
Not that it would matter.....
-
3 miles from the border? I hope they let us pack heat at work.
Not that it would matter.....
A good lock on your door might be a better investment.
http://www.cityrating.com/crime-statistics/texas/brownsville.html#.UVV_RVeU_54
Brownsville crime statistics report an overall downward trend in crime based on data from 12 years with violent crime decreasing and property crime decreasing. Based on this trend, the crime rate in Brownsville for 2013 is expected to be lower than in 2010.
The city violent crime rate for Brownsville in 2010 was lower than the national violent crime rate average by 22.53% and the city property crime rate in Brownsville was higher than the national property crime rate average by 75.89%.
In 2010 the city violent crime rate in Brownsville was lower than the violent crime rate in Texas by 30.56% and the city property crime rate in Brownsville was higher than the property crime rate in Texas by 36.78%.
-
I don't think traditional crime is the question, but druggie or cartel wanna-be's taking pot shots across the border at $$ hardware to enforce some territorial fantasy. It's a competitive sport in Detroit.
-
3 miles from the border? I hope they let us pack heat at work.
Not that it would matter.....
It's Texas, I'd be surprised if you couldn't pack heat. It would be SpaceX policy if they didn't let you as I believe most states let you carry into your place of work as long as the employer OKs it.
-
I thought mandatory packing of heat at all times was a Texas state law ;)
*note the humor tag
-
3 miles from the border? I hope they let us pack heat at work.
Not that it would matter.....
Most already do. Heavy return fire is a reason the druggies from across the border generally stay on their side of the DMZ.
"An armed society is a polite society. Manners are good when one may have to back up his acts with his life"
RA Heinlein
;)
-
3 miles from the border? I hope they let us pack heat at work.
Not that it would matter.....
Most already do. Heavy return fire is a reason the druggies from across the border generally stay on their side of the DMZ.
"An armed society is a polite society. Manners are good when one may have to back up his acts with his life"
RA Heinlein
;)
A man after my own heart, both in arms and literature ;)
Seriously, my main concern about Boca Chica is young morons lobbing 7.62mm rounds at the big white things across the border. Those things can travel several miles with a bit of elevation.
-
3 miles from the border? I hope they let us pack heat at work.
Not that it would matter.....
Most already do. Heavy return fire is a reason the druggies from across the border generally stay on their side of the DMZ.
"An armed society is a polite society. Manners are good when one may have to back up his acts with his life"
RA Heinlein
;)
A man after my own heart, both in arms and literature ;)
Seriously, my main concern about Boca Chica is young morons lobbing 7.62mm rounds at the big white things across the border. Those things can travel several miles with a bit of elevation.
SpaceX insources a lot of things... they may well insource a private army[1] if that actually started happening.
OK maybe not.
1 - complete with.. wait for it... guided missiles!
-
3 miles from the border? I hope they let us pack heat at work.
Not that it would matter.....
Most already do. Heavy return fire is a reason the druggies from across the border generally stay on their side of the DMZ.
"An armed society is a polite society. Manners are good when one may have to back up his acts with his life"
RA Heinlein
;)
A man after my own heart, both in arms and literature ;)
Seriously, my main concern about Boca Chica is young morons lobbing 7.62mm rounds at the big white things across the border. Those things can travel several miles with a bit of elevation.
Well for starters, if things get to far out of hand, then we have SpaceX style private space forces (think back to US-Govt. contracted Blackwater) which can convert Falcon 1/1E design or F9 first stage into a LRBM and sneak conventional explosives onboard and launch from CCAFS and VAFB to send them a message or for a more realistic approach they can demand the U.S. and Mexican Governments do something about it if it happens.
-
Article from Brownsville Herald
Hearing to be held on closing beach for SpaceX launch
http://www.brownsvilleherald.com/news/local/article_6575d5b6-9727-11e2-986c-0019bb30f31a.html (http://www.brownsvilleherald.com/news/local/article_6575d5b6-9727-11e2-986c-0019bb30f31a.html)
Make sure there is a clause in the bill allowing the Governor to give special permission to close the beach on Memorial Day, the Fourth of July or Labor Day. The hassle of SpaceX's directors having to say explain the request to a post launch committee of enquiry should keep the number of requests down.
Not sure what you mean. The article says they would prevented from launching those days.
That rule as reported is self-evidently WRONG.
I am just debugging it.
Avoid disturbing the holiday makers. If you need to disturb them get permission from a very important person who will ensure that it is really necessary.
If the rule, as reported, is wrong, please correct my thinking.
"the bill would permit the county and the state to close the beach," meaning the beach can be closed by the county and state; "with the exception of summer weekends and holidays," meaning it can't be closed summer weekends and can't be closed on holidays; "for a reasonable period of time," meaning it can be closed on non-summer weekends and non-holidays for a period of time that some undetermined person/persons deem reasonable.
Where is the bug that is staring me in the face?
-
Article from Brownsville Herald
Hearing to be held on closing beach for SpaceX launch
http://www.brownsvilleherald.com/news/local/article_6575d5b6-9727-11e2-986c-0019bb30f31a.html (http://www.brownsvilleherald.com/news/local/article_6575d5b6-9727-11e2-986c-0019bb30f31a.html)
Make sure there is a clause in the bill allowing the Governor to give special permission to close the beach on Memorial Day, the Fourth of July or Labor Day. The hassle of SpaceX's directors having to say explain the request to a post launch committee of enquiry should keep the number of requests down.
Not sure what you mean. The article says they would prevented from launching those days.
That rule as reported is self-evidently WRONG.
I am just debugging it.
Avoid disturbing the holiday makers. If you need to disturb them get permission from a very important person who will ensure that it is really necessary.
If the rule, as reported, is wrong, please correct my thinking.
"the bill would permit the county and the state to close the beach," meaning the beach can be closed by the county and state; "with the exception of summer weekends and holidays," meaning it can't be closed summer weekends and can't be closed on holidays; "for a reasonable period of time," meaning it can be closed on non-summer weekends and non-holidays for a period of time that some undetermined person/persons deem reasonable.
Where is the bug that is staring me in the face?
Well ... for starters ... the unhelpful article does not list the Texas State House of Representatives HB bill number so I cannot look it up and read the bill online.
-
Article from Brownsville Herald
Hearing to be held on closing beach for SpaceX launch
http://www.brownsvilleherald.com/news/local/article_6575d5b6-9727-11e2-986c-0019bb30f31a.html (http://www.brownsvilleherald.com/news/local/article_6575d5b6-9727-11e2-986c-0019bb30f31a.html)
Make sure there is a clause in the bill allowing the Governor to give special permission to close the beach on Memorial Day, the Fourth of July or Labor Day. The hassle of SpaceX's directors having to say explain the request to a post launch committee of enquiry should keep the number of requests down.
Not sure what you mean. The article says they would prevented from launching those days.
That rule as reported is self-evidently WRONG.
I am just debugging it.
Avoid disturbing the holiday makers. If you need to disturb them get permission from a very important person who will ensure that it is really necessary.
Why is this so hard to understand?
1. Texas law, as now written, *prohibits* closing beaches unless there's a health risk (from contaminated water, etc.)
2. If SpaceX launches from Boca Chica, the local beach will have to be closed temporarily for safety during the launch window.
3. But Texas law, as now written, does not allow for closure of beaches merely for space launches (see #1 above).
4. Since Texas *wants* to attract SpaceX, and allow them to launch safely, they are working to amend state law to allow local authorities to close the Boca Chica beach for SpaceX launches.
5. But since certain holidays are especially popular beachgoing times, they are asking SpaceX not to launch during those times, and SpaceX has agreed to those "blackout" dates.
-
Article from Brownsville Herald
Hearing to be held on closing beach for SpaceX launch
http://www.brownsvilleherald.com/news/local/article_6575d5b6-9727-11e2-986c-0019bb30f31a.html (http://www.brownsvilleherald.com/news/local/article_6575d5b6-9727-11e2-986c-0019bb30f31a.html)
Make sure there is a clause in the bill allowing the Governor to give special permission to close the beach on Memorial Day, the Fourth of July or Labor Day. The hassle of SpaceX's directors having to say explain the request to a post launch committee of enquiry should keep the number of requests down.
Not sure what you mean. The article says they would prevented from launching those days.
That rule as reported is self-evidently WRONG.
I am just debugging it.
Avoid disturbing the holiday makers. If you need to disturb them get permission from a very important person who will ensure that it is really necessary.
Why is this so hard to understand?
1. Texas law, as now written, *prohibits* closing beaches unless there's a health risk (from contaminated water, etc.)
2. If SpaceX launches from Boca Chica, the local beach will have to be closed temporarily for safety during the launch window.
3. But Texas law, as now written, does not allow for closure of beaches merely for space launches (see #1 above).
4. Since Texas *wants* to attract SpaceX, and allow them to launch safely, they are working to amend state law to allow local authorities to close the Boca Chica beach for SpaceX launches.
5. But since certain holidays are especially popular beachgoing times, they are asking SpaceX not to launch during those times, and SpaceX has agreed to those "blackout" dates.
Do you know the bill number for the amendment and for the original law so I can review them?
-
Do you know the bill number for the amendment and for the original law so I can review them?
"Oliveira said Texas law states public beaches can only be closed if the public’s health, safety or welfare is at risk. House Bill 2623 would permit the county and state to close the beaches for rocket launches except on weekends and holidays. The public would have to be notified in advance of the closure."
http://www.valleymorningstar.com/news/local_news/article_81ae4b66-9815-11e2-b57a-0019bb30f31a.html
Text of the bill is here:
ftp://ftp.legis.state.tx.us/bills/83R/billtext/html/house_bills/HB02600_HB02699/HB02623I.htm
Summary page for HB 2623:
http://www.legis.state.tx.us/BillLookup/History.aspx?LegSess=83R&Bill=HB2623
-
If the rule, as reported, is wrong, please correct my thinking.
"the bill would permit the county and the state to close the beach," meaning the beach can be closed by the county and state; "with the exception of summer weekends and holidays," meaning it can't be closed summer weekends and can't be closed on holidays; "for a reasonable period of time," meaning it can be closed on non-summer weekends and non-holidays for a period of time that some undetermined person/persons deem reasonable.
Where is the bug that is staring me in the face?
There will be times SpaceX needs to launch on summer weekends and holidays. Not very often but when it is it will be a real emergency.
Real emergency means a life or death flight, other launches can wait until Tuesday. This the space equivalent of answering a 911 call.
For a real emergency they can get the Governor of Texas out of bed to authorise the launch. If it was not an emergency the act will have to supply the Governor with the means to punish the company.
-
If the rule, as reported, is wrong, please correct my thinking.
"the bill would permit the county and the state to close the beach," meaning the beach can be closed by the county and state; "with the exception of summer weekends and holidays," meaning it can't be closed summer weekends and can't be closed on holidays; "for a reasonable period of time," meaning it can be closed on non-summer weekends and non-holidays for a period of time that some undetermined person/persons deem reasonable.
Where is the bug that is staring me in the face?
There will be times SpaceX needs to launch on summer weekends and holidays. Not very often but when it is it will be a real emergency.
Real emergency means a life or death flight, other launches can wait until Tuesday. This the space equivalent of answering a 911 call.
For a real emergency they can get the Governor of Texas out of bed to authorise the launch. If it was not an emergency the act will have to supply the Governor with the means to punish the company.
Care to elaborate on these times and real emergencies? I am unaware of a standing rescue rocket waiting to launch on a moments notice.
-
If the rule, as reported, is wrong, please correct my thinking.
"the bill would permit the county and the state to close the beach," meaning the beach can be closed by the county and state; "with the exception of summer weekends and holidays," meaning it can't be closed summer weekends and can't be closed on holidays; "for a reasonable period of time," meaning it can be closed on non-summer weekends and non-holidays for a period of time that some undetermined person/persons deem reasonable.
Where is the bug that is staring me in the face?
There will be times SpaceX needs to launch on summer weekends and holidays. Not very often but when it is it will be a real emergency.
Real emergency means a life or death flight, other launches can wait until Tuesday. This the space equivalent of answering a 911 call.
For a real emergency they can get the Governor of Texas out of bed to authorise the launch. If it was not an emergency the act will have to supply the Governor with the means to punish the company.
Care to elaborate on these times and real emergencies? I am unaware of a standing rescue rocket waiting to launch on a moments notice.
Well, Shuttle LON..
-
There will be times SpaceX needs to launch on summer weekends and holidays. Not very often but when it is it will be a real emergency.
Real emergency means a life or death flight, other launches can wait until Tuesday. This the space equivalent of answering a 911 call.
Wrong, there will be such times. This is a commercial launch site and there will be no need for such launches from here.
-
If the rule, as reported, is wrong, please correct my thinking.
"the bill would permit the county and the state to close the beach," meaning the beach can be closed by the county and state; "with the exception of summer weekends and holidays," meaning it can't be closed summer weekends and can't be closed on holidays; "for a reasonable period of time," meaning it can be closed on non-summer weekends and non-holidays for a period of time that some undetermined person/persons deem reasonable.
Where is the bug that is staring me in the face?
There will be times SpaceX needs to launch on summer weekends and holidays. Not very often but when it is it will be a real emergency.
Real emergency means a life or death flight, other launches can wait until Tuesday. This the space equivalent of answering a 911 call.
For a real emergency they can get the Governor of Texas out of bed to authorise the launch. If it was not an emergency the act will have to supply the Governor with the means to punish the company.
What? Did either of you read 83(R) HB 2623 as linked?
Given a written request to the commissioners court two weeks in advance, approved by said court, info copied to the General Land Office, and not on a list of "holidays", launch can proceed.
For "holidays" = Saturdays and Sundays just before Memorial Day to Labor Day, Memorial Day and Labor Day themselves, and July 4:
given a written request to the commissioners court FOUR weeks in advance, the commissioners court must submit a request to the General Land Office, with one of the following justifications: technical or regulatory requirements, or significant adverse business consequences of not conducting the launch on said day.
In this second "holiday" case, the General Land Office has three days to approve, if they don't act it's considered approved.
The beach may be temporarily closed on a launch day.
-
If the rule, as reported, is wrong, please correct my thinking.
"the bill would permit the county and the state to close the beach," meaning the beach can be closed by the county and state; "with the exception of summer weekends and holidays," meaning it can't be closed summer weekends and can't be closed on holidays; "for a reasonable period of time," meaning it can be closed on non-summer weekends and non-holidays for a period of time that some undetermined person/persons deem reasonable.
Where is the bug that is staring me in the face?
There will be times SpaceX needs to launch on summer weekends and holidays. Not very often but when it is it will be a real emergency.
Real emergency means a life or death flight, other launches can wait until Tuesday. This the space equivalent of answering a 911 call.
For a real emergency they can get the Governor of Texas out of bed to authorise the launch. If it was not an emergency the act will have to supply the Governor with the means to punish the company.
What? Did either of you read 83(R) HB 2623 as linked?
Given a written request to the commissioners court two weeks in advance, approved by said court, info copied to the General Land Office, and not on a list of "holidays", launch can proceed.
For "holidays" = Saturdays and Sundays just before Memorial Day to Labor Day, Memorial Day and Labor Day themselves, and July 4:
given a written request to the commissioners court FOUR weeks in advance, the commissioners court must submit a request to the General Land Office, with one of the following justifications: technical or regulatory requirements, or significant adverse business consequences of not conducting the launch on said day.
In this second "holiday" case, the General Land Office has three days to approve, if they don't act it's considered approved.
The beach may be temporarily closed on a launch day.
Yes, which is why I was confused about the assessment that the bill is self-evidently wrong. Further confusion was added with the statement regarding a hypothetical emergency launch from a commercial space launch facility.
I believe the bill is written in such a way as to allow SpaceX and beach goers to coexist.
-
Yes, which is why I was confused about the assessment that the bill is self-evidently wrong. Further confusion was added with the statement regarding a hypothetical emergency launch from a commercial space launch facility.
I believe the bill is written in such a way as to allow SpaceX and beach goers to coexist.
Yes, I can see what you were saying now.
An excellent finishing touch for SpaceX (assuming all this actually goes through, etc) would be to provide
1) a close-by launch viewing area with perhaps a few space hardware goodies (of course with full SpaceX PR material)
2) a reasonably close alternative beach area
for the previously mentioned scantily-clad beachgoing public. That would severely reduce the backlash, and might turn disappointment at the beach entrance into a pretty cool experience. Of course this would need to be coordinated with the state of Texas, such that the beach closing signs can point out both alternatives, for best effect.
Florida already has both of these (visitor's center and launch viewing area, and the beach viewing area), but it might not occur to a private company to grease the voting public the way government entities reflexively do.
-
What? Did either of you read 83(R) HB 2623 as linked?
Given a written request to the commissioners court two weeks in advance, approved by said court, info copied to the General Land Office, and not on a list of "holidays", launch can proceed.
For "holidays" = Saturdays and Sundays just before Memorial Day to Labor Day, Memorial Day and Labor Day themselves, and July 4:
given a written request to the commissioners court FOUR weeks in advance, the commissioners court must submit a request to the General Land Office, with one of the following justifications: technical or regulatory requirements, or significant adverse business consequences of not conducting the launch on said day.
In this second "holiday" case, the General Land Office has three days to approve, if they don't act it's considered approved.
The beach may be temporarily closed on a launch day.
That describes a normal launch. Two weeks notice is fine for normal launches.
Taking care not to disturb people's holidays is nice and polite.
Emergency launches need a second set of rules.
-
What are "emergency" launches?
-
What happens if they have technical difficulties and scrub for the day? Would they have to wait two weeks before trying again?
-
What happens if they have technical difficulties and scrub for the day? Would they have to wait two weeks before trying again?
I imagine they could book 2 days in advance. The main launch day and a secondary backup date.
-
I imagine a real urgent launch date would be for some interplanetary probe with very small launch window. Very rare, will likely never require to launch at a national holiday but good to have as last resort.
-
What are "emergency" launches?
Indeed.
-
What are "emergency" launches?
Indeed.
If and this is a big if, once we have more space stations in orbit, one could have an incident that required a quick launch.
-
What are "emergency" launches?
Indeed.
Missions like the one Dream Chaser performs at 3:40 in this presentation video from 2006.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6e2xG99gi0U (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6e2xG99gi0U)
"SpaceDev COTS Dream Chaser Dedication Video"
-
Man, really bad video. Plus it makes no sense to have an "emergency" launch of anything to try to evacuate an injured ISS crew member. A life boat would be far, far, quicker.
-
Man, really bad video. Plus it makes no sense to have an "emergency" launch of anything to try to evacuate an injured ISS crew member. A life boat would be far, far, quicker.
Indeed. NASA has lifeboat requirements for Commercial Crew, but not requirements for emergency launch.
Plus, it is still not established that SpaceX will even be allowed to do ISS launches from Texas.
Is it even established that they _want_ to do ISS launches from Texas? It's certain the Vandenberg launches will stay at Vandenberg, and it seems reasonable to me that NASA and other (non-VAFB) USAF launches might stay at the Cape. If Jim's description of the US government launches as extraordinarily demanding is right, then it would make sense to move other commercial traffic away from those work flows.
Moving the commercial non-government traffic away might also be a good antidote to the idea that "hey, you're making money off the facilities, let's see how much infrastructure overhead we can get you to support." It's much harder to suggest the government should make them pay more, when they only fly government payloads from the Cape.
That's just random NSF forum speculation; it's equally possible they could want as much interchangeability as possible, or want one launch complex to rule them all. Whatever it is, we'll find out soon enough.
-
I thought the consensus here is that the Texas site will be exclusively for commercial or NASA GTO/GEO (maybe interplanetary too) flights - which is already a large part of the launch business.
-
I thought the consensus here is that the Texas site will be exclusively for commercial or NASA GTO/GEO (maybe interplanetary too) flights - which is already a large part of the launch business.
By that definition a flight taking a replacement oxygen cylinder to a commercial spacestation would depart from Texas.
-
I thought the consensus here is that the Texas site will be exclusively for commercial or NASA GTO/GEO (maybe interplanetary too) flights - which is already a large part of the launch business.
By that definition a flight taking a replacement oxygen cylinder to a commercial spacestation would depart from Texas.
It still makes no sense... People are just making up excuses for not having very few black-out dates. We've had resupplied space stations in orbit since 1986(?), and when during that time have there been emergency launchers on the pad ready for instant emergency resupply, or launch windows so tight that no resupply flight can be launched around a weekend?
-
I thought the consensus here is that the Texas site will be exclusively for commercial or NASA GTO/GEO (maybe interplanetary too) flights - which is already a large part of the launch business.
By that definition a flight taking a replacement oxygen cylinder to a commercial spacestation would depart from Texas.
More nonsense. Commercial space stations are not going to be in inclinations reachable from TX.
-
I thought the consensus here is that the Texas site will be exclusively for commercial or NASA GTO/GEO (maybe interplanetary too) flights - which is already a large part of the launch business.
By that definition a flight taking a replacement oxygen cylinder to a commercial spacestation would depart from Texas.
More nonsense. Commercial space stations are not going to be in inclinations reachable from TX.
Why not? Particularly if the space station was launched from Texas.
-
More nonsense. Commercial space stations are not going to be in inclinations reachable from TX.
Now I am curious as to why that would be.
-
I think he's assuming commercial stations will want to be reachable by the Russians which means higher inclinations, as that has been the typical plan by Bigelow etc. Even if they're not as cheap it's important for continuity, they don't want to be vulnerable to disruptions with SpaceX.
-
Not even that, Bigelow has stated he would like an inclination around 40 degrees because of land coverage and daily launch windows.
It would be silly to launch a commercial space station that was only accessible from one launch site.
-
It would be silly to launch a commercial space station that was only accessible from on launch site.
Just a nitpick - but any space station launched from the Texas location should be accessible from many launch sites, especially CCAFS/KSC.
-
It would be silly to launch a commercial space station that was only accessible from on launch site.
Just a nitpick - but any space station launched from the Texas location should be accessible from many launch sites, especially CCAFS/KSC.
Not really possible without huge expenditure of propellant. TX site will launch only to lower inclination than CCAFS/KSC
-
Not even that, Bigelow has stated he would like an inclination around 40 degrees because of land coverage and daily launch windows.
It would be silly to launch a commercial space station that was only accessible from one launch site.
The implication seems to be SpaceX isn't really optimizing for Bigelow.
-
Spacex has never stated that TX would be used for manned flight
-
It would be silly to launch a commercial space station that was only accessible from on launch site.
Just a nitpick - but any space station launched from the Texas location should be accessible from many launch sites, especially CCAFS/KSC.
Not really possible without huge expenditure of propellant. TX site will launch only to lower inclination than CCAFS/KSC
That assumes that they would only launch straight east from there. Most likely they will not be able to, since that would overfly Cuba.
-
The passenger terminal building and passenger lift can be built later when they have the cargo spaceport working.
-
The passenger terminal building and passenger lift can be built later when they have the cargo spaceport working.
Not going to happen from TX
What will TX be used for Jim?
-
IMO:
TX is a bad site for LEO launches. Can't get around the fact that it's land locked.
If FL is near capacity for ISS and other LEO launches, then this leaves TX to do GTO work, and 12/yr is optimistic but sane. The GTO market is not going to explode over the next few years.
... and an occasional Mars parking orbit trip.
-
IMO:
TX is a bad site for LEO launches. Can't get around the fact that it's land locked.
Wha? Can you clarify what you mean by this?
As for inclinations - launches from Texas cannot reach lower orbital inclinations than the launch latitude without expending lots of extra propellant. Higher inclinations are not nearly as difficult. See: Cape launches to ISS, Vandenberg launches to polar inclinations.
-
What I mean is that your launch azimuth is fixed for the first 2000 km or so and so compared to an east coast location it's not a good choice.
Not the end of the world as you say, but it's not like they are already stuck with a TX launch pad... they chose to go there, and they still have an east coast pad that cam be used for LEO.
So it stands to reason TX won't be used for LEO, is all.
-
IMO:
TX is a bad site for LEO launches. Can't get around the fact that it's land locked.
Wha? Can you clarify what you mean by this?
As for inclinations - launches from Texas cannot reach lower orbital inclinations than the launch latitude without expending lots of extra propellant. Higher inclinations are not nearly as difficult.
Higher inclinations are not possible from Texas without overflying heavily populated areas of the continental US.
cheers, Martin
-
Higher inclinations are not possible from Texas without overflying heavily populated areas of the continental US.
cheers, Martin
Unless you use a descending node. But of course that means overflying (heavily?) populated areas of other countries which may be even more difficult.
-
Higher inclinations are not possible from Texas without overflying heavily populated areas of the continental US.
cheers, Martin
Unless you use a descending node. But of course that means overflying (heavily?) populated areas of other countries which may be even more difficult.
Agreed, thanks.
Cheers, Martin
-
a descending node [...] means overflying (heavily?) populated areas of other countries
I think it's worth at least considering overflight of Mexico in the region southeast of Vera Cruz. This would lead to a near-polar orbit. (I think that after GEO, polar orbit is the second most important for commercial payloads since it offers whole-Earth coverage opportunities e.g. for maps.)
The questions are:
1) Could SpaceX convince the FAA that the "collective public risk limit of no more the 30E-6" expected casualties test would be met based on the low population density in that region of Mexico and the shortness of the interval during ascent when debris would impact there.
2) Could Mexico be provided with incentives to allow it? (Not sure that's absolutely required; it seems doubtful Uganda grants permission for missions flying out of Canaveral!)
I have a theory about how (2) could work, given that Vera Cruz is about the same distance from Boca Chica as Big Pine Key....
-
The questions are:
1) Could SpaceX convince the FAA that the "collective public risk limit of no more the 30E-6" expected casualties test would be met based on the low population density in that region of Mexico and the shortness of the interval during ascent when debris would impact there.
2) Could Mexico be provided with incentives to allow it? (Not sure that's absolutely required; it seems doubtful Uganda grants permission for missions flying out of Canaveral!)
I have a theory about how (2) could work, given that Vera Cruz is about the same distance from Boca Chica as Big Pine Key....
No on either
-
The Brownsville Herald
SpaceX eyes beach law for Boca Chica
http://www.brownsvilleherald.com/news/local/article_6e9f9458-9b44-11e2-bf00-0019bb30f31a.html
-
The Brownsville Herald
SpaceX eyes beach law for Boca Chica
http://www.brownsvilleherald.com/news/local/article_6e9f9458-9b44-11e2-bf00-0019bb30f31a.html
I don't like what was in that article.
Shutting down the public beach even on a weekend or holiday if SpaceX needs to launch that day do to possible loss.
They should find a better way to launch from their other two sites if they are only looking at 12 launches a year.
If they did get the bill passed, who is to say they will not push for more launches after that and the beach would be close more often? Just how much notice would the public get on the time and date of such a beach closer. From the web it says that they have weddings there at the beach. If a wedding is scheduled first but SpaceX later has a slip and is found they need to launch on someones wedding day , why should the couple have to forgo the wedding plans? If SpaceX had to reschedule a launch then they should have planned for that better , instead of having to have a launch on a weekend or holiday. Very poor bill in my opinion. All side to this should reconsider and only have launches on weekdays that are not peek usage of the beach.
To me this bill is totally wrong.
-
I don't like what was in that article.
Shutting down the public beach even on a weekend or holiday if SpaceX needs to launch that day do to possible loss.
They should find a better way to launch from their other two sites if they are only looking at 12 launches a year.
If they did get the bill passed, who is to say they will not push for more launches after that and the beach would be close more often? Just how much notice would the public get on the time and date of such a beach closer. From the web it says that they have weddings there at the beach. If a wedding is scheduled first but SpaceX later has a slip and is found they need to launch on someones wedding day , why should the couple have to forgo the wedding plans? If SpaceX had to reschedule a launch then they should have planned for that better , instead of having to have a launch on a weekend or holiday. Very poor bill in my opinion. All side to this should reconsider and only have launches on weekdays that are not peek usage of the beach.
To me this bill is totally wrong.
To quote Spock; "The needs of the many outweigh the needs of the few".
The capability for SpaceX to launch on weekends or holidays (if absolutely necessary) is of interest to all of mankind ("the many"), since the purpose of SpaceX is about furthering the goal of making mankind a multi-planetary species (Elon has said so multiple times). While taking a swim or having a wedding is of interest to those involved in that activity ("the few").
Btw, the supreme court of Texas has quoted Spock before; http://www.supreme.courts.state.tx.us/historical/2010/oct/060714c2.htm (http://www.supreme.courts.state.tx.us/historical/2010/oct/060714c2.htm), quoting; "The Legislature’s policymaking power may be vast, but absent a convincing public-welfare showing, its police power cannot be allowed to uproot liberties enshrined in our Constitution." - something I believe SpaceX will be required to show, quoting the article; "The only exception to those days would be if SpaceX has to reschedule a launch and can show “it stands to suffer “significant adverse business consequences” if it doesn’t launch, officials said."
-
...The capability for SpaceX to launch on weekends or holidays (if absolutely necessary) is of interest to all of mankind ("the many"), since the purpose of SpaceX is about furthering the goal of making mankind a multi-planetary species...
Most people on this planet don't care about such grandiose sentiments (IMHO). Precious few have even heard of SpaceX. This is a question for the citizens of Texas and their legislators. Let them get on with it.
-
The Brownsville Herald
SpaceX eyes beach law for Boca Chica
http://www.brownsvilleherald.com/news/local/article_6e9f9458-9b44-11e2-bf00-0019bb30f31a.html
I don't like what was in that article.
Shutting down the public beach even on a weekend or holiday if SpaceX needs to launch that day do to possible loss.
Could that restriction have implications for whether escape missions would be flown from there? Would they tend to have restricted launch windows that might clash with a weekend?
cheers, Martin
-
Shutting down the public beach even on a weekend or holiday if SpaceX needs to launch that day do to possible loss.
I guess I see it as more of "what is better for the average local?" I consider having a launch complex, even at the opportunity cost of occassional beach weddings for the very small local population, as superior.
From the web it says that they have weddings there at the beach. If a wedding is scheduled first but SpaceX later has a slip and is found they need to launch on someones wedding day , why should the couple have to forgo the wedding plans?
If it was my wedding day, I would much rather get bumped from the beach to some nearby bleachers so that just after the "I do's" the thing roars to space behind us. YMMV.
-
I don't like what was in that article.
Shutting down the public beach even on a weekend or holiday if SpaceX needs to launch that day do to possible loss.
They should find a better way to launch from their other two sites if they are only looking at 12 launches a year.
If they did get the bill passed, who is to say they will not push for more launches after that and the beach would be close more often? Just how much notice would the public get on the time and date of such a beach closer. From the web it says that they have weddings there at the beach. If a wedding is scheduled first but SpaceX later has a slip and is found they need to launch on someones wedding day , why should the couple have to forgo the wedding plans? If SpaceX had to reschedule a launch then they should have planned for that better , instead of having to have a launch on a weekend or holiday. Very poor bill in my opinion. All side to this should reconsider and only have launches on weekdays that are not peek usage of the beach.
To me this bill is totally wrong.
I agree. Because there are so MANY launch sites in the world, and so FEW beaches. SpaceX should just go to another launch site a few miles down the road instead of people wanting to use the beach having to drive hundreds or thousands of miles to find another one.
Er wait, did I get that backward?
-
...The capability for SpaceX to launch on weekends or holidays (if absolutely necessary) is of interest to all of mankind ("the many"), since the purpose of SpaceX is about furthering the goal of making mankind a multi-planetary species...
Most people on this planet don't care about such grandiose sentiments (IMHO). Precious few have even heard of SpaceX. This is a question for the citizens of Texas and their legislators. Let them get on with it.
Weekends and holidays are when the traditional tourist-oriented business make all their money; if SpaceX were to launch on, say, Memorial Day, that would be a huge blow to existing businesses that rely on that beach traffic. I know everyone says that having a launch complex in South Texas is an unvarnished good thing, but I've heard similar arguments about similar developments, and they didn't necessarily pan out. I also know that many here consider a launch complex more important or vital than a bar or restaurant or charter boat, but that's small comfort to the owners of those businesses who watch a good chunk of their annual revenue go up in flames.
Speaking as a Texan, I don't like the idea of any private corporation or entity having enough clout with the state to shut down a public space, even temporarily. I don't care if it's rockets and the future, it sets a really bad precedent. I know we're supposed to be "bidness-friendly", but it's almost always at a cost to our own citizenry.
-
I don't like what was in that article.
Shutting down the public beach even on a weekend or holiday if SpaceX needs to launch that day do to possible loss.
They should find a better way to launch from their other two sites if they are only looking at 12 launches a year.
If they did get the bill passed, who is to say they will not push for more launches after that and the beach would be close more often? Just how much notice would the public get on the time and date of such a beach closer. From the web it says that they have weddings there at the beach. If a wedding is scheduled first but SpaceX later has a slip and is found they need to launch on someones wedding day , why should the couple have to forgo the wedding plans? If SpaceX had to reschedule a launch then they should have planned for that better , instead of having to have a launch on a weekend or holiday. Very poor bill in my opinion. All side to this should reconsider and only have launches on weekdays that are not peek usage of the beach.
To me this bill is totally wrong.
To quote Spock; "The needs of the many outweigh the needs of the few".
The capability for SpaceX to launch on weekends or holidays (if absolutely necessary) is of interest to all of mankind ("the many"), since the purpose of SpaceX is about furthering the goal of making mankind a multi-planetary species (Elon has said so multiple times). While taking a swim or having a wedding is of interest to those involved in that activity ("the few").
Btw, the supreme court of Texas has quoted Spock before; http://www.supreme.courts.state.tx.us/historical/2010/oct/060714c2.htm (http://www.supreme.courts.state.tx.us/historical/2010/oct/060714c2.htm), quoting; "The Legislature’s policymaking power may be vast, but absent a convincing public-welfare showing, its police power cannot be allowed to uproot liberties enshrined in our Constitution." - something I believe SpaceX will be required to show, quoting the article; "The only exception to those days would be if SpaceX has to reschedule a launch and can show “it stands to suffer “significant adverse business consequences” if it doesn’t launch, officials said."
Does it not take at least six months in advance at least to schedule a launch. So they could then make sure they only launched on Tuesday thru Thursday. It looks like some of the launches would be suborbital.
If SpaceX can't launch on Tuesday thru Thursday then they should use one of their other launch sites.
You should review the statement-
To quote Spock; "The needs of the many outweigh the needs of the few".
Keep in mind the few make up the many.
If we had our LEO depot then there would not be a problem for launch windows BLEO as the payload would be launch well in advance. Plus it takes care of bad weather too.
-
I don't like what was in that article.
Shutting down the public beach even on a weekend or holiday if SpaceX needs to launch that day do to possible loss.
They should find a better way to launch from their other two sites if they are only looking at 12 launches a year.
If they did get the bill passed, who is to say they will not push for more launches after that and the beach would be close more often? Just how much notice would the public get on the time and date of such a beach closer. From the web it says that they have weddings there at the beach. If a wedding is scheduled first but SpaceX later has a slip and is found they need to launch on someones wedding day , why should the couple have to forgo the wedding plans? If SpaceX had to reschedule a launch then they should have planned for that better , instead of having to have a launch on a weekend or holiday. Very poor bill in my opinion. All side to this should reconsider and only have launches on weekdays that are not peek usage of the beach.
To me this bill is totally wrong.
I agree. Because there are so MANY launch sites in the world, and so FEW beaches. SpaceX should just go to another launch site a few miles down the road instead of people wanting to use the beach having to drive hundreds or thousands of miles to find another one.
Er wait, did I get that backward?
Indeed. Look at Google maps - So many beaches in the area. Yet RocketmanUS seems to be under the impression that SpaceX wants to shut down every beach in Texas during its launches.
-
To quote Spock; "The needs of the many outweigh the needs of the few".
The capability for SpaceX to launch on weekends or holidays (if absolutely necessary) is of interest to all of mankind ("the many"), since the purpose of SpaceX is about furthering the goal of making mankind a multi-planetary species (Elon has said so multiple times). While taking a swim or having a wedding is of interest to those involved in that activity ("the few").
Totally wrong. Your view is not the consensus of the population. Both in closing beaches and in making mankind a multi-planetary species
And in the notion that this one launch vendor plays such a crucial role in that endeavor. I can practically hear Anton Ego in the background ranting about "perspective".
-
To quote Spock; "The needs of the many outweigh the needs of the few".
The capability for SpaceX to launch on weekends or holidays (if absolutely necessary) is of interest to all of mankind ("the many"), since the purpose of SpaceX is about furthering the goal of making mankind a multi-planetary species (Elon has said so multiple times). While taking a swim or having a wedding is of interest to those involved in that activity ("the few").
Totally wrong. Your view is not the consensus of the population.
Na, he's right. It's just that no one actually sees it that way... (he's right about the IMPORTANCE... you're right about the CONSENSUS)
I rather doubt that keeping the beach open on Memorial Day is going to be to the detriment of mankind. SpaceX can wait.
-
I don't like what was in that article.
Shutting down the public beach even on a weekend or holiday if SpaceX needs to launch that day do to possible loss.
They should find a better way to launch from their other two sites if they are only looking at 12 launches a year.
If they did get the bill passed, who is to say they will not push for more launches after that and the beach would be close more often? Just how much notice would the public get on the time and date of such a beach closer. From the web it says that they have weddings there at the beach. If a wedding is scheduled first but SpaceX later has a slip and is found they need to launch on someones wedding day , why should the couple have to forgo the wedding plans? If SpaceX had to reschedule a launch then they should have planned for that better , instead of having to have a launch on a weekend or holiday. Very poor bill in my opinion. All side to this should reconsider and only have launches on weekdays that are not peek usage of the beach.
To me this bill is totally wrong.
I agree. Because there are so MANY launch sites in the world, and so FEW beaches. SpaceX should just go to another launch site a few miles down the road instead of people wanting to use the beach having to drive hundreds or thousands of miles to find another one.
Er wait, did I get that backward?
Indeed. Look at Google maps - So many beaches in the area. Yet RocketmanUS seems to be under the impression that SpaceX wants to shut down every beach in Texas during its launches.
South Padre Island isn't just a beach; it's a resort community that could be severely impacted if the beaches get shut down on the wrong day (Memorial Day, July 4, etc.).
It's also a mistake to assume all beaches in TX are the same; Galveston (part of the Carcinogenic Coast) is a poor substitute for South Padre, for example.
-
I don't like what was in that article.
Shutting down the public beach even on a weekend or holiday if SpaceX needs to launch that day do to possible loss.
They should find a better way to launch from their other two sites if they are only looking at 12 launches a year.
If they did get the bill passed, who is to say they will not push for more launches after that and the beach would be close more often? Just how much notice would the public get on the time and date of such a beach closer. From the web it says that they have weddings there at the beach. If a wedding is scheduled first but SpaceX later has a slip and is found they need to launch on someones wedding day , why should the couple have to forgo the wedding plans? If SpaceX had to reschedule a launch then they should have planned for that better , instead of having to have a launch on a weekend or holiday. Very poor bill in my opinion. All side to this should reconsider and only have launches on weekdays that are not peek usage of the beach.
To me this bill is totally wrong.
I agree. Because there are so MANY launch sites in the world, and so FEW beaches. SpaceX should just go to another launch site a few miles down the road instead of people wanting to use the beach having to drive hundreds or thousands of miles to find another one.
Er wait, did I get that backward?
Why should the people have to move to another beach?
How would you like it if you had made plans for a vacation or weekend outing after you already had reservations and at the last minute someone shut down the location or gave it to someone else?
What will stop someone else from saying they need the beach more than another?
Who is to determine if SpaceX would have a financial loss if they did not launch on a weekend or holiday?
What about the other businesses that already exist and the losses that they would have do to the beach area being closed?
What launch would be so important that it could not what a few days or should have launched beforehand with better planning from the payload provider and the launch company?
Is SpaceX planning on having sub orbital crew launches? If so what is to say they won't ask for more than 12 per year if they get the launch site?
Was this beach part of the American civil war? If so who would want to go on record of shutting it down on Memorial Day or the Forth of July?
Could they not launch 12 between December to May out of the bad weather period?
All this and weather make a good case for air launches ( for sub orbital and low mass, under 10,000lb to LEO ).
-
Just to be contrarian, it's worth noting the Boca Chica beach is not the premium beach that South Padre Island is. It's less developed and has much less traffic. Closing Boca Chica would not have nearly the impact that closing South Padre Island would. The Boca Chica crowd could be absorbed into the South Padre crowd without much noticable difference in the density.
The advantage of Boca Chica is that it's a bit closer to downtown Brownsville, but that difference isn't huge.
Still, all that said, there's no reason to close the beach on weekends and holidays.
-
This isn't Miami Beach and near as I can tell it's only for 15 hours at a time, approximately twelve days a year, and not that wide an area. It's a situation that is not only limited but what would potential beach goers to this sparsely inhabited region do it the weather were bad or the surf were rough? You might not get any notice about those things. I've been dealt more disappointing news in forty years of visiting Disney World. The beach closure thing is going to be a non-issue for 99.999% of Texas and I feel confident the state legislature will see it that way as well.
-
I agree. Because there are so MANY launch sites in the world, and so FEW beaches. SpaceX should just go to another launch site a few miles down the road instead of people wanting to use the beach having to drive hundreds or thousands of miles to find another one.
Er wait, did I get that backward?
Indeed. Look at Google maps - So many beaches in the area. Yet RocketmanUS seems to be under the impression that SpaceX wants to shut down every beach in Texas during its launches.
Forgot my sarcasm flags, sorry....
-
South Padre Island isn't just a beach; it's a resort community that could be severely impacted if the beaches get shut down on the wrong day (Memorial Day, July 4, etc.).
Yes, but what does that have to do with Boca Chica? South Padre is 8 km north of the proposed launch site and I'd be very surprised if the closures extended that far. You might want to fire up Google Earth and get a better idea of what is being discussed.
-
I agree. Because there are so MANY launch sites in the world, and so FEW beaches. SpaceX should just go to another launch site a few miles down the road instead of people wanting to use the beach having to drive hundreds or thousands of miles to find another one.
Er wait, did I get that backward?
Indeed. Look at Google maps - So many beaches in the area. Yet RocketmanUS seems to be under the impression that SpaceX wants to shut down every beach in Texas during its launches.
Forgot my sarcasm flags, sorry....
No , not every beach.
Not everyone like another beach or it's type of people on it.
Some people like big crowded beaches and others like only having a few people around. Some like the off season ( less crowd ) and others like the holiday ( large crowd ).
There is also the air and sea traffic to deal with too.
-
I agree. Because there are so MANY launch sites in the world, and so FEW beaches. SpaceX should just go to another launch site a few miles down the road instead of people wanting to use the beach having to drive hundreds or thousands of miles to find another one.
Er wait, did I get that backward?
Indeed. Look at Google maps - So many beaches in the area. Yet RocketmanUS seems to be under the impression that SpaceX wants to shut down every beach in Texas during its launches.
Forgot my sarcasm flags, sorry....
Perhaps your reading glasses too. ;D I saw your sarcasm and agreed with you.
-
I agree. Because there are so MANY launch sites in the world, and so FEW beaches. SpaceX should just go to another launch site a few miles down the road instead of people wanting to use the beach having to drive hundreds or thousands of miles to find another one.
Er wait, did I get that backward?
Indeed. Look at Google maps - So many beaches in the area. Yet RocketmanUS seems to be under the impression that SpaceX wants to shut down every beach in Texas during its launches.
Forgot my sarcasm flags, sorry....
Perhaps your reading glasses too. ;D I saw your sarcasm and agreed with you.
Quite.
In an ideal world SpaceX would be so rich they could buy up enough land (including beaches) that it would not be an issue, no public land would be close enough that it needed to be closed.
But in an imperfect world, seems to me that reasonable compromises are being offered... some public notice and planning in advance of every date, and except for very extenuating circumstances, enough blackout dates that no holiday weekends are impacted.
If volume gets to the point where it's a problem, renegotiate.
This just doesn't seem like the biggest problem facing this site. And, as anti government as I am in general, the TX government seems to have been pretty reasonable here.
-
I agree. Because there are so MANY launch sites in the world, and so FEW beaches. SpaceX should just go to another launch site a few miles down the road instead of people wanting to use the beach having to drive hundreds or thousands of miles to find another one.
Er wait, did I get that backward?
Indeed. Look at Google maps - So many beaches in the area. Yet RocketmanUS seems to be under the impression that SpaceX wants to shut down every beach in Texas during its launches.
Forgot my sarcasm flags, sorry....
Perhaps your reading glasses too. ;D I saw your sarcasm and agreed with you.
Quite.
In an ideal world SpaceX would be so rich they could buy up enough land (including beaches) that it would not be an issue, no public land would be close enough that it needed to be closed.
But in an imperfect world, seems to me that reasonable compromises are being offered... some public notice and planning in advance of every date, and except for very extenuating circumstances, enough blackout dates that no holiday weekends are impacted.
If volume gets to the point where it's a problem, renegotiate.
This just doesn't seem like the biggest problem facing this site. And, as anti government as I am in general, the TX government seems to have been pretty reasonable here.
Give them an inch and they'll take a mile.
In an area of the U.S. a company used eminent domain to take peoples homes and a business ( land ) for it's own use. It went out of business quickly. There were other better locations available. This is just to show how things have gone wrong in the past.
Tuesday thru Thursday is reasonable ( except when on January 1st, 4th of July, Thanksgiving , and Christmas ).
If their launch were to slip to were it could only happen on a weekend or holiday then they would of had poor planning.
-
In an ideal world SpaceX would be so rich they could buy up enough land (including beaches) that it would not be an issue, no public land would be close enough that it needed to be closed.
It's impossible to buy beachland in Texas, due to the Texas Open Beaches Act.
Which wouldn't exist in this notional "ideal world" I posited :)... but ya.
Is there any more to be said here? Some people see this as reasonable accomodation, some think TX went too far in accomodating SX and some think not far enough...
-
I wonder, since TX auto dealerships are fighting Tesla Motors, if Elon will use SpaceX as leverage on the legislature to swat the Dealers down? Elon is calling for a rally in Austin, but it seems he could threaten TX spaceport if he does not get his Tesla way. He will be in town.
Or is that illegal, leaving ethics and cronyism aside.
-
I wonder, since TX auto dealerships are fighting Tesla Motors, if Elon will use SpaceX as leverage on the legislature to swat the Dealers down? Elon is calling for a rally in Austin, but it seems he could threaten TX spaceport if he does not get his Tesla way. He will be in town.
Or is that illegal, leaving ethics and cronyism aside.
It's dirty pool.
But perhaps...
Here is part of the press release on Elon's Tesla announcement today. It's at http://www.teslamotors.com/about/press/releases/media-advisory-journalists-analysts-and-investors
PALO ALTO, Calif.-- Tesla Motors, Inc. will hold a conference call on April 2, 2013 at 2:00pm Pacific Standard Time (5:00pm Eastern Standard Time) for media, analysts and investors to make an announcement. Following remarks from Elon Musk, Tesla Motors co-founder and CEO, media and analysts are invited to participate in a question and answer session.
What: Tesla Motors, Inc. Announcement
When: Tuesday, April 2, 2013
Time: 2:00pm Pacific Standard Time / 5:00pm Eastern Standard Time
Press Release Will Be Available At: www.teslamotors.com/press
Webcast: ir.teslamotors.com (live and replay)
the announcement in a few minutes is that an accomodation has been reached?
-
I wonder, since TX auto dealerships are fighting Tesla Motors, if Elon will use SpaceX as leverage on the legislature to swat the Dealers down? Elon is calling for a rally in Austin, but it seems he could threaten TX spaceport if he does not get his Tesla way. He will be in town.
Or is that illegal, leaving ethics and cronyism aside.
It's dirty pool.
But perhaps...
Here is part of the press release on Elon's Tesla announcement today. It's at http://www.teslamotors.com/about/press/releases/media-advisory-journalists-analysts-and-investors
PALO ALTO, Calif.-- Tesla Motors, Inc. will hold a conference call on April 2, 2013 at 2:00pm Pacific Standard Time (5:00pm Eastern Standard Time) for media, analysts and investors to make an announcement. Following remarks from Elon Musk, Tesla Motors co-founder and CEO, media and analysts are invited to participate in a question and answer session.
What: Tesla Motors, Inc. Announcement
When: Tuesday, April 2, 2013
Time: 2:00pm Pacific Standard Time / 5:00pm Eastern Standard Time
Press Release Will Be Available At: www.teslamotors.com/press
Webcast: ir.teslamotors.com (live and replay)
the announcement in a few minutes is that an accomodation has been reached?
Nope, just an innovative financing scheme for owning a new Tesla.
-
Move to thread 2:
http://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=31544.0
This thread has become too long and is starting to wander.